Talk:2025 Boulder fire attack

ECP applied

I have applied WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED protection to this article to enforce the Arbitration Committee's WP:AELOG/2025/PIA decision. Chetsford (talk)

Motive

Since the other thread was an ARBECR violation, I'm moving the discussion here.

Things that need to be cleared up:

• His motive
• New antisemitism category?
• Anti-Zionism category?

Laura240406 (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

pinging Mikewem Laura240406 (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Categorization is a tough one. Neutrality and verifiability definitely matter, but inclusion in a category should be based on defining characteristics WP:DEFINING. It may be impossible to achieve consensus on definingness. The guideline recommends creation of a list in these cases. Mikewem (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

given that it happened yesterday, I would wait a bit and see what the sources have to say Laura240406 (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

There are sufficient sources to say the motive is (at least in part) antisemitism. The article needs to reflect that though as opposed to just being in the infobox. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Please add to the article at least one RS that explicitly states "the motive was antisemitism". WWGB (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

CNN for example. EvansHallBear (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

All the mentions of antisemitism in the CNN article are alleged by others, not CNN themselves. The title uses antisemitic, and this may be a good argument for saying that CNN does indeed consider it antisemitic, or it could be clickbait. "“Antisemitism will not be tolerated,” she said." is used in reference to a statement made by the Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. ""targeted antisemitic attack." is used in reference to what the American authorities have said. "spreading antisemitic hate" is used in reference to a plan created by Eric D. Fingerhut. The suspect himself uses zionist rather than jewish or jew, but he is a criminal so take that as you will. There are also various times that CNN conflates antisemitism with antizionism. Although it is important to note, I only had a cursory glance at these articles, so I may have missed something.

• Ellis, Nicquel Terry (2025-06-03). "Harvard University settles two antisemitism lawsuits one day after Trump takes office". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2025-06-03.
• Rose, Andy (2025-06-03). "Harvard's antisemitism task force agrees with White House on the need for reform. But not entirely on how or who's in charge". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2025-06-03.
• Rose, Andy; Musa, Amanda; Wolfe, Elizabeth (May 1, 2025). "The biggest takeaways from Harvard's task force reports on campus antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias". CNN. CNN. Retrieved June 3, 2025.

Easternsahara (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It is stated without attribution in the first paragraph of this one [1] Mikewem (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

And a few times here [2] Mikewem (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• According to court documents his motive was specifically anti-Zionism.

  He "said this had nothing to do with the Jewish community and was specific in the Zionist group supporting the killings of people on his land (Palestine)," the state documents said.

^Falling_Gravity 00:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

According to the source here which you also used in the infobox, it seems that he said he hates Zionists, as in the people. There’s no quote I’m seeing in the ref that suggests he hates Zionism, as in the ideology. Can you supply a ref that describes the attack as anti-Zionist, or motivated by anti-Zionism, without equivocation or attribution? Mikewem (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Attribution to the suspect's statements is kind of expected since we're trying to describe his motives. Digging deeper into the document cited by that source 'Zionist' here refers to "individuals who believe in the establishment of a Jewish state and are supportive of the government of Israel." Thus 'Zionist people' aren't an ethnic group but people with Zionist beliefs. Also one of the sources I found, Times of Israel, doesn't take a side in the suspect's antisemitism/anti-Zionism motive debate so I think listing both is reasonable since they aren't mutually exclusive. ^Falling_Gravity 00:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see anything in the Times article that would support the wikivoice inclusion of anti-Zionism as an entry in Motive. I’m looking for affirmative proof that we should include it at this time. Mikewem (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Usually at this stage we use court documents cited by reliable sources to determine motive. I think we could also use the previously linked CNN article to add something like 'support for Palestinian hostages' as a motive, using the quote: Soliman was seeking revenge after he determined the group didn’t care about Palestinian hostages, per the affidavit. He told authorities he “wanted to kill all Zionist people.” ^Falling_Gravity 05:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer "hatred of Zionists" instead of anti-Zionism. I don’t see it as settled that those are the exact same thing.

Knowing that this is the reason Adams abstained from the letter gives me pause. It makes it feel a little like we’re implicitly taking sides. "Hatred of Zionists" is accurate per RS and allows us to conveniently avoid that city council issue. Mikewem (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

What would be the difference between "hatred of Zionists" and "anti-Zionism"? Wouldn't it be different words to say the same thing? Green Montanan (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that readers could reasonably be expected to read "hatred of Zionists" and understand that we are describing a type of bigotry. Bigotry against who? Bigotry against Zionists.

I’ve never seen anti-Zionism defined as bigotry against Zionists.

So the difference to me: “hatred of Zionists” is universally understood to be a type of bigotry; whereas anti-Zionism is not universally understood to be a type of bigotry. Mikewem (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Is wanting to kill all supporters of a state the same as not supporting that state? Mikewem (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The former is an extreme manifestation of the latter. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Easternsahara (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Great. Do we have a RS that says that wanting to kill all supporters of a state is an extreme manifestation of not supporting a state? Or that describes Soliman’s attack as an extreme manifestation of anti-Zionism? Mikewem (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Do we have a RS that supports the artificial distinction you are making? EvansHallBear (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure where this "hatred of Zionists = bigotry", but "anti-Zionism ≠ bigotry" came from. It certainly sounds to me like a new novel theory (or WP:OR in Wiki-jargon). Green Montanan (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. NY Times:

“Many Palestinians and their allies recoil just as fiercely: The equating of opposition to a Jewish state on once-Arab land — or opposition to its expansion — with bigotry is to silence their national aspirations, muffle political dissent and denigrate 75 years of their suffering.” Mikewem (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The bigotry referred to in this article is bigotry against all Jews, not bigotry against Zionists. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Does the quote say there’s only one type of bigotry they don’t want to be equated with? Mikewem (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The quote is being specifically used in a discussion on whether anti-zionism is anti-semitism. A broader reading is not supported by context. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that WP:BURDEN says that “The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material” Mikewem (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I am going to remove all motives until consensus is reached. We shouldn't spread misinformation until we have a consensus or a concrete proof of his motive. Easternsahara (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Support removal of Motive from infobox Mikewem (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not support the removal. There are two movtives, antisemitism and Anti-Zionism, both properly referenced. That should satisfy everybody. Green Montanan (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The two are not contradictory. Green Montanan (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe this calls for a WP:RFC? I'm seeing at least four seemingly related motives discussed here. ^Falling_Gravity 18:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

statement fails verification

I feel ridiculous asking this, but is anyone able to provide a source that supports the statement currently live in the article:

The FBI confirmed in a press conference that 13 people aged 52 to 88 were injured, including one critically and the perpetrator.

I would be especially interested to see verification of the ages of all 13 victims, bearing in mind that 13 includes the attacker, who is 45 years old, per reliable sources. Mikewem (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2025

2025 Boulder fire attack → 2025 Boulder firebombing attack – Current name gives the impression that the attack was done with matches or lighters. Green Montanan (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC) Green Montanan (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Support per nominator. Makes sense to use a more specific title. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per EvansHallBear Xoocit (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom

Edit to present WP definitions of invoked terms:

"Firebombing is a bombing technique designed to damage a target, generally an urban area, through the use of fire, caused by incendiary devices, rather than from the blast effect of large bombs. In popular usage, any act in which an incendiary device is used to initiate a fire is often described as a 'firebombing'."

"A flamethrower is a ranged incendiary device designed to project a controllable jet of fire."

Mikewem (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. When moving this article previously, I chose the more general term “fire” because during that early hour it had been reported that the accused had wielded an incendiary spray device in addition to Molotov cocktails (firebombs), but it was not clear whether he had used that device. At this time, according to AP, only the firebombs were deployed (link to source). Edit: Changed to 'oppose' in light of Deinocheirus's comment below pointing out that this fact has not yet settled. Moreover, according to my AP link, the accused told investigators he sprayed himself with the flamethrower during what may or may not have been an attempt to end his own life. HussainHx (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You were not EC when you moved the page, nor when you made the first part of this comment, so I’m not sure about how best to enforce WP:ARBECR here. Mikewem (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. More correct and explicit. WWGB (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose with Alternative: This was not a fire attack, and the current article title does not appropriately describe the event. Fire is not indicative of a weapon. Many who have commented here prefer firebombing for this reason. Others dispute the meaning of firebombing and question whether it does or does not include Molotov cocktails. There is also the matter of the fuel-filled weed sprayer. Was that intended to be used as an additional weapon. Only the perpetrator truly knows the answer to that, and whatever he says in that regard cannot be considered determinative. Given this, I propose 2025 Boulder incendiary device attack as the article title with the current title as a redirect. Per WP:CRITERIA, this satisfies Precision better than either fire or firebombing. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. More specific and standard terminology, exact wording used by CNN, Fox, and local news sources like KUNC and Denver7. MadNickel (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC) User not WP:Extended confirmed

Support per media coverage terminology. One or more devices were evidently brought to the site by the perpetrator with the intent to attack the victims. "Fire" alone is more descriptive of natural disasters or accidents. The Wikidata item at present describes uses the statement "instance of" "arson" which by definition targets property and cites Al Jazeera which is arguably an NPOV source. Arson targets structures, not people. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

News outlets talk about "flamethrower attack" (AP, WSJ, The Guardian), so "firebombing" may be overly specific. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The current version of the page says in the infobox "type = Firebombing". Are you saying that needs to be changed? Green Montanan (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

That clearly needs to be changed. Firebombing is "aerial incendiary bombing" and as far as I know the suspect wasn't flying an aircraft. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

There has been some confusion about terminology. I also understood 'firebomb' to refer specifically to weapons of war at first. However, Wiktionary uses the example sentence "a Molotov cocktail is a simple firebomb" (link) and I think it is a suitable description given other sources (e.g., Reuters, NPR). Regarding attack type, I chose to only put "firebombing" in there for now because it has not been clear what role the spray device played. At this time, AP has reported that according to police he accidentally burned himself, sprayed himself, and "planned to die" (link) but it was not clear whether he attempted self-immolation, which could be added to the 'type'. HussainHx (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Molotov cocktail says that they are not to be confused with other incendiary devices also known as firebombs. So, using firebombing in the article name is inconsistent with how the term is used within Wikipedia itself. Calling it 2025 Boulder Molotov cocktail attack would be better and has some precedence: Miguel de la Madrid#1984 Molotov cocktail attack & Hulen Mall#May 2018 Molotov cocktail attacks.

Regardless of the name of the article, linking to firebombing is completely inaccurate. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out inconsistencies between Wikipedia articles. The Molotov Cocktail article which you pointed out reads, "When the hand-held bottle firebomb was developed to attack and destroy Soviet tanks, the Finns called it the "Molotov cocktail"". This suggests that a Molotov cocktail is a type of firebomb. Further, the "not to be confused" distinction which you mentioned suggests placing a space between "fire" and "bomb" when the term is used in reference to a Molotov cocktail, but it does not appear to provide a citation to support the use of that space. It seems these Wikipedia articles could use some work. In any event, I cannot support a title for this page which specifies the glass-gas-fuse devices at this time because the role of the gas-spray-backpack device in the attack, which is not a Molotov cocktail, a firebomb, or a "fire bomb," is not yet clear. HussainHx (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

18 U.S. Code § 232 - Definitions

(5) The term “explosive or incendiary device” means (A) dynamite and all other forms of high explosives, (B) any explosive bomb, grenade, missile, or similar device, and (C) any incendiary bomb or grenade, fire bomb, or similar device, including any device which (i) consists of or includes a breakable container including a flammable liquid or compound, and a wick composed of any material which, when ignited, is capable of igniting such flammable liquid or compound, and (ii) can be carried or thrown by one individual acting alone.[3]

(C)(i) sounds a lot like a Molotov to me. Mikewem (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, a Molotov cocktail is definitely an incendiary device. Molotov cocktails could be considered firebombs (or "fire bombs") but on Wikipedia that term is used to refer to aerial incendiary bombs. No reason not to specify Molotov cocktail per WP:SPADE. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The article says that he used "flamethrower and Molotov cocktails". So I think that rather than putting "flamethrower and Molotov cocktails" in the title, "firebombing attack" would be most WP:CONCISE. Green Montanan (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

A flamethrower isn't a firebomb at all though, so that makes the title even less accurate. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I am glad we are having this conversation because it is pretty much the exact train of thought which led me to simply use the more general term "fire attack" in the title. HussainHx (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to my post including definitions at the top of this thread Mikewem (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably yes, at least add flamethrower. Deinocheirus (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose as there was no firebombing. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

discussion about what was yelled

In the lede, after the words “October 7 attacks,” please add:

, as he yelled “Free Palestine.”

--2600:1017:B839:6FEE:BDDA:F59E:4252:E7A (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I added it to the lead, but not to the sentence that you requested. Hopefully you'll agree that this placement is better, since the sentence you proposed to add the content is already long enough. Green Montanan (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that the other sentence is long. I propose then that we add it to the sentence that reads in part “The attack left thirteen people injured ..”. Adding the words “, during which the attacker yelled “Free Palestine,” after the word “attack.” The reason is that where you put it suggests (and we do not know this is the case) that it was this yelling that led to the charge. It could for example be this plus statements he made to the police which are reflected in the article. --2600:1017:B839:6FEE:BDDA:F59E:4252:E7A (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The ref here and the ref in the article say that the reason he was charged with a hate crime is his statements in his interview. Mikewem (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this better? Green Montanan (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Great compromise, thank you. But now we have to reconcile your great work with the body, where it’s not mentioned. I would recommend moving the last two sentences of the lead to the end of the interrogation section. My summary replacement of that for the lead would be “During the attack, he yelled political expressions, including “free Palestine”. Mikewem (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:BE BOLD and do it. Green Montanan (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

My own editorial judgement takes a slightly different path for the lead summary, but I won’t edit war over any changes to it. Mikewem (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

In my view, it requires original research to claim that "free Palestine" is a political expression, but "End Zionists" and "They are killers, how many children you killed" are not political expressions. "Political expressions" is my best good faith attempt at a npov generalization for a summary of the yelling that happened during the attack. I also struggle with including one of his exclamations in the lead but not all 3. Bearing in mind that all 3 would probably be too much detail for the lead. But like I said, I will not edit war this. Mikewem (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe only "free Palestine" was said at the scene. All the others were said in the police interrogation room. 06:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC) Green Montanan (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

In footage from the scene you can hear him yelling some of the other mentioned phrases. ^Falling_Gravity 06:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I was going based on the current language in our article. That language turned out to fail verification, so I did just update the line I was referring to. But both versions contain multiple "expressions". The last sentence of the first paragraph of Attack:

According to the FBI, the attacker yelled "end Zionist", "free Palestine", and "how many children killed" during the attack.

Mikewem (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I have edited the page to reflect these facts. Green Montanan (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Another great compromise that I can live with. Thanks. Mikewem (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

But I’m not sure I can live with "interrogation". Interrogation implies that psychological tactics to compel a confession were used, whereas interview implies a less formal conversation. Every ref I’ve seen uses interview, and none of them use interrogation. Mikewem (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure about this distinction between "interrogation" and "interview"?

In my opinion, an "interview" is performed willingly (i.e. a job interview, or a TV interview), whereas an "interrogation" is performed less willingly (i.e. the suspect would rather not be "interviewed" by police).

I don't believe that all interrogations must be coerced. Green Montanan (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Per this FBI page [4], they are different. Our refs all say the suspect made statements during an FBI interview. Mikewem (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

OK. I have changed it back to "interview". Green Montanan (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

**Not sure why my comments are being crossed out by editor Mikewem below - talk page allows editing by me to make edit requests (unlike me not being allowed to edit the article itself). user:Valereee - please tell me if I am wrong (see the cross out below of my explaining my request) and I will not do so. The whole reason for allowing edit requests as I understand it. Also - the refs here only refer to him shouting Free Palestine. “Political expressions” is imho editor POV that is against WP rules. I suggested using the language the two cites used. Editor Green agreed. We were only discussing placement. But there was consensus on reflecting it. I urge that it be reflected. Not editor POV. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC) Comments by a non-WP:Extended confirmed user that go beyond the scope of a simple edit request.

• • To quote the banner on top: "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)" Laura240406 (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

    Hey, IP! The reason for allowing edit requests is to allow non-extended confirmed editors to suggest noncontroversial edits -- typos, misquotes, providing a source that helps fix a citation needed tag, things like that -- not to allow them to discuss controversial edits. Once a response to an edit request has been made and someone disagrees with part/all of that edit request, it's now a controversial edit that is being discussed. You can't participate in the discussions; the EC editors working here will have to hammer it out.

    On a side note, that IP has been editing for seven years and has made thousands of edits, including 500 in the past five weeks. If those are all you, and you want to edit in PIA, it would be trivially easy for you to achieve ECR in 90 days. If you prefer to edit logged out for philosophical reasons, creating an account to make a certain category of edits wouldn't be socking as long as you were careful to avoid any crossover between the account editing and the IP editing. I'm probably not telling you anything you don't know/haven't considered, but FWIW. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

    • User:Valereee. Thank you. I had thought clarifying my (permitted) edit request was ok. As the discussion was all about my request. But I understand now that it is not. Thank you for your other thoughts also. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:As amended with regard to placement, the requested change, supported by a clear ref, has now been deleted. Which is not helpful. The current language is “Soliman allegedly yelled political expressions during the attack and claimed ..” Which is not illuminating. I refer to the above suggested approach. Say what the ref - supplied - says. That during the attack he shouted “Free Palestine.” Saying he “allegedly yelled political expressions” is an embarrassingly poor words-in-his-mouth characterization of what he actually shouted that is devoid even of clues to the reader of what he actually said. And please don’t try to insert one’s own characterizations - writing “political expressions” - that’s not proper for an editor to insert because it’s sounds more like their personal view. Just as if someone yells Allahu Akhbar - simply say what they shouted. We would not say “he shouted language from a prayer.” This most current New York Times article is another good cite. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/02/us/boulder-colorado-attack-suspect-life.html Someone would think we are intentionally failing to reflect what he said. Which of course no one here is doing. Simply say he shouted “Free Palestine” as he attacked the people. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC) Comments by a non-WP:Extended confirmed user that go beyond the scope of a simple edit request.

References

discussion about edit request practices

In the Legal proceedings section, first paragrpah, last sentence, after “He was” add “also” 184.153.21.19 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This IP has made an unusually large amount of edit requests to this page in the last 2 days. It’s becoming difficult to navigate the talk page due to so many topics with identical names. Some of these requests appear to have been made on June 4, not June 3.

Is there a point you are attempting to make with this cumbersome amount of edit requests? Mikewem (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if some edits refer to June 3 rather than June 4. I’m simply - as can be seen reviewing the edits (both those already accepted, those denied, the one you just collapsed saying it was unconstructive, and those pending) seeking to improve the article. User:Valereee, as you were helpful on this subject before, please let me know if you see these requests as improper.

--184.153.21.19 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems we may be running into one of the tradeoffs inherent with EC page protection, which in my view is that it tends to propagate information from more reliable sources but it also tends to hamper editing for grammar, style, and organization. I would encourage IP to create a user account and to please use more specific title headings, and for any frustrated editors to consider taking a break. HussainHx (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

discussion about Soliman's legal status

@HussainHx, both sources clearly state that Soliman was in the United States "illegally", not "without authorization." You appear to be confusing his work authorization status from his admissibility status. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for raising this point of discussion. As you mentioned in another edit, it is the role of the judiciary to determine what is legal and not legal. I am not aware of any court having made a determination on this. I used the term "without authorization" broadly to refer to the lack of authorization to live or work in the US from an applicable immigration authority, but there may be a more precise way to phrase his status. If a source, such as a person who has a name and holds an office at a law enforcement agency, alleged that Soliman was living in the United States illegally, it may be accurate to hedge that claim with the word "alleged" and to name the specific source. What do you think? HussainHx (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@HussainHx, DHS is that authority. Immigration and nationality law in the United States is a civil matter largely handled not with jury trials, but by determinations of executive and administrative officers, with judicial review of that fact finding, if it even happens at all, afterwards. The sources state that he was in the United States "illegally" not as "without authorization", and it is DHS that makes that finding.

He was admitted as a "non-immigrant", something which expired in February 2023. He was authorized to work in March 2023, something which expired in May 2025. He did not have lawful immigration status, being specifically admitted as a "non-immigrant" who was only allowed as a temporary visitor. Simply put, he was allowed in, allowed to work, but did not have the proper legal status to stay in the United States long-term. A good phrasing to take this in account would be as follows:

Soliman's visa expired during February 2023. In March 2023, he was granted work authorization, which expired on March 28, 2025. Since then, he was illegally living in the U.S. as an immigrant contrary to his non-immigrant status.

Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for expanding on your point of view on this. Your assertion that "DHS is that authority" is not accurate, boldface notwithstanding, and it is not the first assertion I have seen you make today that turned out to be false. Immigration courts are housed within the Department of Justice (link), which is not the same thing as the Department of Homeland Security.

It is preferred that we achieve consensus before editing, but since a couple editors have already made revisions to this passage, I have changed it further, to the following:

"In March 2023, he was granted work authorization, which expired on March 28, 2025. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin alleged that, after that date, his stay in the United States was not legal."

Happy to continue discussing if there is further need.

HussainHx (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I would put it as "according" not "alleged", he was allowed to stay until May 2025, and yet continued staying regardless, if he didn't then he would be in Egypt and not found in Boulder, Colorado. That he remained in the United States illegally is confirmed by the White House, confirmed by the Department of Homeland Security, and even confirmed, as you made a big deal about, by the Department of Justice, which put out a press release stating:

"The Department of Justice has swiftly charged the illegal alien perpetrator of this heinous attack with a federal hate crime and will hold him accountable to the fullest extent of the law."

Your revised version is even worse than the original and adds unnecessary weasel words that make it seem as though Mohamed Soliman's immigration status hasn't been determined, so the version by @Mikewem is better and I will concede and revert to that.

Pleasant editing,

Irruptive Creditor (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The cited RS do not attribute the illegality claim solely to Tricia McLaughlin, so that part must be changed. ABC attributes it to DHS collectively, which is why I attributed it to DHS collectively. I have no preference between describing this as “illegally” vs “was not legal” Mikewem (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem, I changed it back to your version and added the citation to DOJ as well. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

As for HussainHx's noting on DOJ and removal proceedings, I of course know that. Rather it was to point out that the fact of immigration status is not put before a jury trial, but instead conducted by administrative and executive officers, and thus judicial review in immigration and nationality law is mostly concerned with questions of law, not fact. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. The question of whether Soliman's presence in the US has been "legal" is more complex than Irruptive Creditor is making it seem. Consider the following:

- Soliman had a pending application for asylum during the time that his visa expired. Where was he supposed to go while waiting for it to be processed? To the country from which he was seeking asylum? A holding cell at DHS?

- If Soliman is found guilty, is DHS supposed to authorize his continued presence in the US so that he can serve a prison sentence? If they do not grant this and DOJ imprisons him in the US, is DOJ then responsible for aiding and abetting illegal activity (Soliman's continued presence)?

As for whether to quote an individual or the institution as a whole, the individual actually holds more credibility. If nobody at DHS is willing to take responsibility for an allegation, that makes it seem less credible, not more. And again, it is an allegation, because in democracies, it is courts, not law enforcement, which determine what is lawful and what is not.

We can talk about alternatives to "alleged," but it is not up to law enforcement regardless of what they say. If the head of the DHS tweeted "I hereby pronounce Irruptive Creditor and Kermit the Frog husband and wife," that would not make it so.

Revert it one more time without consensus and I will file a complaint.

HussainHx (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

This comment is not great.

1. Trump is on record that he's planning to deport Soliman
2. The who is more credible stuff is original research
3. I would recommend avoiding making any comments that invoke the name of an editor in this way again (the Kermit thing). It could reasonably be construed as a personal attack
4. You have both made too many reverts within 24 hours. If either of you file a complaint, the likely outcome will be a (probably 24 hour) ban for both of you.

Mikewem (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

HussainHx, you have been reverted. You alone do not determine consensus. Both Mikewem and I disagree with you and believe you are wrong. And personal attacks like "revert it one more time without consensus and I will file a complaint" do not change that. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Mikeewm. Irruptive Creditor, I owe you an apology for the Kermit the Frog thing. My aim in that was to offer some levity, but it does not seem to have landed well, and that is on me.

On the other hand, threatening to file a complaint is not a personal attack, but an expression that I did not believe you were acting in good faith. By relying on reversions rather than working together to achieve consensus. By consensus, I did not mean "majority rules," (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY) much less "I rule" (as you alleged), but rather "we all try to come up with something we all can live with" (WP:CON). My impression was that you were not acting in faith that we could arrive at something we can all live with. It is clear now that we did not have a mutual understanding about what constitutes consensus.

My claim about specific people being more credible than a group of people is not my opinion or original research. It is widely recognized in journalism that specific sources are more credible than anonymous sources, and this concept has been replicated in Wikipedia guidance. For details, see the Wikipedia "Who?" template.

In any event, an article related to my point was published today:

Trump Tries to Blame the Colorado Attack on ‘Open Border’ Policies - The Atlantic (link)

By Nick Miroff and Jonathan Lemire June 5, 2025, 11:18 AM ET

Byline: The reality of the suspect’s immigration status is more complex than the president and his aides have portrayed.

"The administration’s labeling of Soliman as an “illegal alien” is a mischaracterization of the gray area he inhabited in the U.S. asylum system, in which applicants can spend years in legal limbo waiting for their case to be decided....

Soliman’s work-authorization document expired in March...The lapse meant that it would have been illegal for Soliman to work, but the change would not have affected his immigration status, which was tied to his pending asylum claim and not to the work document, according to Paul Hunker, the former lead counsel for ICE in Dallas....“ICE could try to deport the person, but they could go to immigration court and assert protection, and a judge would make the decision,” Hunker said."

This is helpful because it relieves us of any concerns regarding original research.

With the above in mind, I would like to propose the following edits:

1. Bring back mention of who at DHS claimed Soliman was living in the country illegally, per WP policy "Who?"?
2. Add hedging language such as "alleged" to that claim of illegaility.
3. Add "Paul Hunker, a former lead counsel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, cast doubt on claims that Soliman was living in the country illegally, due to his pending asylum claim."[citation]

Looking forward to further discussion. If no objection is raised in a reasonable timeframe I will assume we have consensus.

HussainHx (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Commentary as to proposed changes listed:

1. - The proposal to mention specific people doesn't work as Mikewem already stated, the claims are attributable to multiple people at DHS, and there are no weasel words concerns there, the who is DHS and DOJ.

2. and 3. - Those claims not widely noted and thus at this time WP:SPECULATION at best, the only other article I could find reporting similar was in The New Republic. Paul Hunker can "cast his doubts" to reporters at The Atlantic all day, but otherwise general reporting hasn't raised that:

• The Independent reports him as "Soliman, an Egyptian national, was living in the U.S. illegally";
• ABC News reports him as "Boulder attack suspect in US illegally: Homeland Security";
• PBS News reports him as "an Egyptian national who is in the U.S. illegally, according to federal officials";
• The Hill reports him as "Boulder attack suspect lives in US illegally, White House says";
• CNN reports him as "[h]e was in the US illegally, according to the DHS."

Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your level-headedness here. Though I do agree that “I will file a report against you” does not rise to the level of personal attack. That being said, having just been (what I could reasonably construe as being) personally attacked (the Kermit thing), I view your admirably limited response as understandable. Mikewem (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

1. If we said “according to some law enforcement agencies”, that would be the kind of generalization where one might reasonably ask “Who?” But in this case, the answer to “Who?” is DHS and DOJ, per RS.

2. “According to” is the hedge.

3. I think it’s irresponsible at this time to add much material that might suggest to our readers that this could end with Soliman staying in the US or that an immigration judge may grant his asylum claim. For all we know it’s already been heard and denied.

4. The key to assuming good faith is to never, ever, no matter what, direct a specific accusation of bad faith against any editor, at any time, for any reason. See WP:AAGF. If discordance occurs, address specific issues. Stick to facts and RS, less is more when it comes to the amount of words used. Mikewem (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem, this was also largely my thinking. The details concerning if or when the investigation ends with this guy getting found guilty, which considering there haven’t yet been wide reports of other suspects or claimed innocence, has a chance greater than zero, are far more notable than the precise effect of an pending asylum claim at this time. Better to stick to what’s been broadly said about his immigration status so far and switch if or when the reporting broadly changes over that issue.

Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi folks and thanks for this discussion. I am hearing that we feel "who" is answered sufficiently by reference to government agencies, and that "according to" is hedging enough. It was my mistake to assume that as ECs we are all familiar with Wikipedia's concept of consensus.

Thank you, Irruptive Creditor, for mentioning that article from the New Republic, it is new to me. Since it is an editorial, I would hesitate to cite it.

Mikeewm suggested that it would be irresponsible to add much material which might suggest to our readers that Soliman could end up staying in the US or that his asylum claim might be granted. It is not true that Soliman's asylum case has already been heard and denied; according to DHS, it is pending:

"McLaughlin told NBC News the suspect's asylum claim was pending. While his visa had expired, he had not yet exhausted all legal routes to staying in the U.S."(NBC)

This article is already cited in the article right now, to back up "As of June 2025, his asylum claim was still pending," a sentence which appears to contradict the preceding sentence, which states "he remained in the United States illegally". Again, these cannot be logically squared.

For that matter, I also find it doubtful that Soliman's asylum case might be granted, but it seems pretty likely that he will end up staying in the US, albeit in prison.

So we need to be clear about what is going on here: McLaughlin (representing DHS) made conflicting assertions regarding Soliman's immigration status at the time of the attack, and part of that claim has been called into question by someone who is highly knowledgeable about the topic.

Let us avoid casting aspersions and getting dismissive: as a former lead counsel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Paul Hunker is a credible source. I believe it would be irresponsible to give readers the impression that the claim made by McLaughlin and repeated by others is a solid, carved-in-stone fact when it has been credibly contested. With that in mind, I propose the following edit:

"After that date, he remained in the United States illegally, according to the DHS and Department of Justice (DOJ). Paul Hunker, a former lead counsel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, questioned the assertion of Soliman's immigration status,[new citation to Atlantic] since according to DHS, as of June 2025, his asylum claim was still pending."[NBC]

I aimed for neutral point of view in mapping this out and deferred to the stated preference by my fellow editors to refer to DHS rather than its representative, McLaughlin. How do we feel about the above proposed edit?

HussainHx (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, it was your mistake to not assume that we are all familiar with Wikipedia's concept of consensus. That statement from McLaughlin was made at a point in time. It’s entirely conceivable that since the statement was made, the case has been heard. Asylum cases are not public record, so we would not know. Unless Hunker becomes Soliman’s lawyer, his views are not notable for this article. Mikewem (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

It may be conceivable that the case has been heard since the attack, and if we have any reason to believe that happened rather than assuming it happened, we could include it. Even if that happened, it would not conflict with the following amended proposal, constrained to "at the time of the attack":

"After that date, he remained in the United States illegally, according to the DHS and Department of Justice (DOJ). Paul Hunker, a former lead counsel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, questioned the assertion of Soliman's immigration status,[new citation to Atlantic] since according to DHS, at the time of the attack, his asylum claim was still pending."[NBC]

Even if you do not believe a credible expert on the subject is notable--and I do not see your grounds for making that assertion--the way it currently reads presents an apparent contradiction.

HussainHx (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I see two solutions, we can either remove the sentence “As of June 2025, his asylum claim was still pending.” on grounds that it’s not necessarily notable; or we can add the attribution “according to McLaughlin” to the end of the sentence to address the reasonable appearance of conflict. Mikewem (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I am wondering what you would need to see to acknowledge that Soliman's status was in a legal gray area. There is an entry on New York Times's live feed quoting a former ICE attorney, a former immigration judge who worked at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and a policy analyst with the nonpartisan think tank Migration Policy Institute, all 3 underscoring Hunker's point. If that sort of information were included in an article, would that be sufficient for you? HussainHx (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

My view is that in order to include any of that information, we would need an RS that presents substantial and convincing evidence that contradicts the information from a pro-immigration advocacy group AIC:

"Similarly, applicants who are found to pose a danger to the United States, who have committed a “particularly serious crime,” or who persecuted others themselves, are barred from asylum."

And actually, given this supplementary source, I’m comfortable with an outright removal of the asylum line. Mikewem (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. This looks like original research. It is up to a court, not us, to make that determination. Recall also that under US law people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that no determination has been made by a court about culpability.

It looks like you made an edit without consensus. It would make sense, while this is still in the air, to at least note that both statements about Soliman's status came from the same person (your McLaughlin proposal).

I would like to hear what you would need, per my prior question. ("live" link to developing story - New York Times)

HussainHx (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I need substantial and convincing evidence from an RS that says that he stands a chance of not be deported. Please self-revert for now, you violated WP:1RR Mikewem (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that with me. I made no such violation. As I stated right after reverting, you edited before we had consensus. Again, I would be fine with the other proposal which you offered since the facts are still in the air. It is nearing sundown where I am and I will be away from keyboard for about one day. I hope you are taking care as well. Until we chat again, you have my regards. HussainHx (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2025 Boulder fire attack response.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup, June 8 2025

Hi all,

ECR status led to a lot of headings, and an editor found that frustrating.

• I revised the headers of and demoted a lot of the edit requests. Demotion (3 = signs instead of 2) renders the headings collapsible, improving navigation.
• Maybe requests can be deleted after they are "done," I am not clear on best practice.
• Upon reviewing this page and the rules, my understanding is that IPs can propose specific, uncontroversial edits but cannot participate once they become points of contention.
• Please refrain from antagonizing those who are doing their best to help.

I hope this is helpful.

HussainHx (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS, it would be best not to make a habit of doing good-faith clean ups like this Mikewem (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)