Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack

Adding racial motivations of attacker.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Seems incredibly odd there is zero mention of the black attacker's open anti-white racial comments given that he drove into a crowd of white people, especially given how plentiful sources are for this and that he openly called for violence against whites. SneedPoster321 (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Tabloids are not reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I would rather there were better sources than this, but I would also like to see what wording you propose.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Are we back to entertaining these posts? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This (on the surface) looks like a genuine request, so I treat it as such. They fact its backed up by sources (even bad ones) is why they need to be told why it will not be done.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The "SneedPoster" username kills most of my available good faith. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Why, lots of users have odd user names, should I judge a users good faith based on having a sensible user name?Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

that's why I said most of my available good faith. I guess at this point we wait and see if this becomes constructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

While reporting isn't from the best sources, it seems to be consistent and basically true? They're mostly reporting on the content of social media accounts that were public? The discussion of an accused suspects motivations as through their social media posts is a pretty standard topic for these types of articles. For example, the Kenosha unrest shooting cites the CNN article of basically the same quality as the linked sources in the context of what kinds of social media the suspect wrote about. The Fox News article (listed by WP:RSP as okay for non-political news. There's certainly no politicians discussed in the article) seems of similar quality. Just because material is mostly covered by sources that have been unreliable in the past or tend to have a political bias doesn't make it false, especially when the reporting is mostly about social media posts, which were easily confirmed and verified. Another potential source is the WSJ, which I don't believe falls into WP:RSOPINION as we're simply interested in the factual claims of the post ("Given the suspect’s history of posting messages on social media that called for violence against white people and praised Hitler for killing Jews"), not the opinions. Either way, I could also see how this type of material is just WP:BLPGOSSIP (which would then apply to the Kenosha article too), but I wonder if there's a better wikipedia policy for "mentioning extremist social media posts from a suspect" and trying to get more uniform policy in place. It seems that some articles focus heavily on social media posts of relevant persons to hint at intent (2021 United States Capitol attack has "tweet" 17 times), so I'd lean towards allowing at least a small reference in the article. Perhaps just "Prior to the attack, Darrell Brooks expressed support on social media for anti-white violence and antisemitism" with a link the WSJ and other articles similar to the "Prior to the Kenosha unrest...he expressed support on social media for the Blue Lives Matter movement and law enforcement" in the Kenosha article. Another potential source is Telegraph saying "Brooks is a vocal Black Lives Matter supporter and screenshots from a now-deleted Facebook page appear to show his disapproval of the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict - where the teenager was cleared over the killing of two BLM protesters." 2601:547:900:7DA0:0:0:0:4B82 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's consistent but I can also round up more sources within the next day or three. Also the accusation of tabloid is particularly troubling, since he doesn't seem to be making the distinction between tabloid (the format) and tabloid (baseless sensationalism). The NYPost is a tabloid, but it isn't a tabloid. SneedPoster321 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Just going to point out that the NYPost is considered at WP:RSP to be generally unreliable for factual reporting and to have a lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication (see WP:NYPOST); so yes, a tabloid with baseless sensationalism. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

On top of Elli's comment, having read the WSJ Opinion piece, my understanding is that WP:RSOPINION qualifies and, having seen the Facebook posts linked to in the Fox News and Daily Mail pieces (which Fox News links to), I find the quote of the WSJ Opinion writer to be an exaggeration. On top of that, the allegation that the "Mathboi Fly" Facebook profile is Darrell Brooks has not been confirmed by RS, which makes me question the truthfulness of the claims above altogether. Pilaz (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There's plenty of sources for that being the social media handle from RS. Billboard, TMZ , WaPo mentions the alias , The Independent. I think the discussion should be about whether including social media postings to provide potential motivational context is appropriate for Wikipedia. Despite the imperfect sources, I don't think anyone can seriously dispute the quotes from the suspect. Only whether or not such information belongs on the page. 2601:547:900:7DA0:0:0:0:4B82 (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

And most of those tell us why this is not valid, he was fleeing another incident, this was not really an intentional act of terror against whites.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Your personal opinion about the relevance of statements made by the suspect isn't really good justification for removing information from the article. Social media posts from suspects where they lay claim to certain perspectives and opinions are regularly paraphrased on wikipedia pages in the context of their suspected crimes. Even biographies of 19th century figures often reference comments they made in their personal journals. I think it's more than clear that several reliable sources believe these statements to be relevant to this case. You could disagree, but I think mentioning facts included in RS is acceptable. I think something like the following should be added to the lead with the following citation "Brooks supported Black Lives Matter and reportedly posted on social media his disapproval of the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict two days prior." . As basically a rewording of a sentence from a reliable source, I think that's more than acceptable to be included. 2601:547:900:7DA0:0:0:0:4B82 (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No, but nor are yours either. The point is do any RS actually say there was a racial motivation for the attack?Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Herein lies the fatal flaw of Wikipedia. If "reliable sources" choose to willfully not report on something, then we pretend like it doesn't exist. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but it maybe they have seen no evidence of it, as I have said, he was fleeing another incident. As such it is more than reasonable to say this was not intended as an attack on white people. This is precisely why we can't use wp:or you think A is obvious I think its not, which of us is right?Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Herein is another issue. I have seen no solid evidence that he was actually fleeing from another incident. So on the one hand we have the suspect's own social media and words that he hates and wants to kill white people, which the Wikipedia-community deemed "reliable sources" have refused to report on. And then on the other hand we have this fleeing another crime theory with no solid evidence backing it, which is what the "reliable sources" have pushed as their narrative, in an apparent attempt to downplay or cover up the suspect's blatant racial animus as a possible motive for the attack. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Or because its what the police said happened.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Police are no more a reliable source than the suspect's own social media. So why do "reliable sources" choose to report on one and not the other? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This needs closing now as it is an OR time sink totally unsupported ay any RS (or indeed any source saying this was his motivation).Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, let's shut this discussion down right now. We wouldn't want the possible of uncomfortable truths sneaking their way in to this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Any content MUST be based on policy, and wp:Truth is not a policy wp:rs, wp:or and wp:v are. So any argument based upon anything other than those is a waste of our time.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes I am very well aware of Wikipedia policy, and how convenient is is for people who want to suppress inconvenient truths. Wikipedia policy on this matter can be summed up as: "We must use only reliable sources (regardless of what actual reality is) and the only sources that we will deem to be reliable are the ones who push the narratives that we agree with". I'm sure The Ministry of Truth from George Orewell's 1984 had a very similar set of policies. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Because I do not agree its the truth, and your OR does not trump mine.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

So you deny that the suspect in this case ever showed any animus towards white people in his social media? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Read wp:forum, what I think about this is irrelevant I am saying your OR does not trump mine. This is my last word, this is now just gett stupid.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fine then, what does your OR say about his attitude and sentiments towards white people? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is turning into WP:Advocacy given that it's not supported by RS. Wikipedia does not hold opinions and is committed to a neutral point of view. The sources offered are either considered unreliable by Wikipedia (see: WP:RSP) or do not support the addition proposed by the IP user ("prior to the attack, Darrell Brooks expressed support on social media for anti-white violence and antisemitism"). No RS brings up the alleged comments made on Facebook, so the question is moot to me. There are better avenues to discuss your grievances with Wikipedia (such as many of the noticeboards), but this Talk Page is about the article in question. WP:NOTFORUM. If anybody wants to close this discussion, which has now run stale, they have my support. Pilaz (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which charges should be added to infobox?

The infobox on the article on "Charges" for now only contains the 6 homicide charges, and not the witness intimidation charges and the 77 new charges (which I added to the article) that were filed later on. Should they be added to the infobox as well or not? --DannyC55 (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason why not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

In this case I will add them (except the intimidation ones, since I realized that they're in fact unrelated to the attack). I'm open to any objections. --DannyC55 (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

Media Response to Attack Many media outlets faced widespread criticism regarding the incident for the way it had been characterized in headlines. Many felt as though most large media outlets were deferring blame from Brooks and on to the SUV with the way their headlines were phrased. This is significant because of the support these outlets had offered the Black Lives Matter movement during the race riots of 2020, because Brooks had been an active member of Black Lives Matter. His social media also indicated that he was involved in racially charged attacks against elderly white people in years prior, where young men of color would walk up to unsuspecting innocent elderly white people and punch them in the face, leaving them unconscious, prior to robbing them.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-waukesha-parade-attack-caused-by-suv

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/21/1057830499/an-suv-sped-through-a-parade-in-downtown-waukesha-wis-injuring-participants

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/21/waukesha-parade-suv-crash/ 47.205.124.87 (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. casualdejekyll 17:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This weren't racially motivated because whites were the targets. 88.106.234.104 (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)