Jump to content

Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TryCancellingThis (talk | contribs) at 23:45, 24 November 2021 (→‎Any reason this isn't being called a massacre instead of "attack"?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 22 November 2021 (1)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade attack → Waukesha car attack – This is a more concise title, not to mention more accurate to what's happening right now as opposed to just using the generic term "attack". Love of Corey (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that too. Forgot to address the year. Love of Corey (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Love of Corey (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this is the only notable attack to occur at a Christmas parade in Waukesha. We really don't need the year for disambiguation purposes. Love of Corey (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The year wouldn't obviously be used for disambiguation purposes, since the goal is to convey key information to future readers. Readers expect articles on Wikipedia to be named in recognizable and similar patterns. Can you otherwise offer any good reason or policy as to why this title deserves to deviate from the naming convention for events and from the titles of similar vehicle-ramming incidents? Pilaz (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

More info

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/ct-aud-nw-wisconsin-parade-20211122-jruhu2bu5vh7ho576zg354tvra-story.html

https://archive.md/xm65W

»Waukesha is a western suburb of Milwaukee, and about 55 miles north of Kenosha, where Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted Friday of charges stemming from the shooting of three men during unrest in that city in August 2020.«

https://polishnews.co.uk/waukesha-christmas-parade-witnesses-describe-chaos-blood-after-suv-strikes-nearly-2-dozen

https://archive.md/dZKKK

»Woynilko mentioned that as he rushed his pal to security and left the world, he overhead law enforcement officials describing the suspect as a Black male both within the crimson SUV or on foot.« tickle me 06:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential and haersay. Nothing we can or should use. Any attempt to link this and Kenosha must be with a rock solid source like the police chief. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The suspect is in custody, it's only a matter of time with both issues. That they're tangential is POV, but I didn't expect anything else. tickle me 07:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not POV, just saying you can't WP:SYNTH. As it stands, that factoid is tangential until RS connect them. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They do. The Orlando Sentinel, Washington Post, Frankfurter Zeitung, Berliner Zeitung, and Deutsche Welle are RS and state the obvious. Whether other journalists, professors of sociology, or Wikipedia editors thinks this connection is pertinent is irrelevant. That only a police chief could connect the dots legitimately is POV, too.
Police: 'Some' killed when SUV hits Christmas parade
Waukesha is a western suburb of Milwaukee, and about 55 miles (90 kilometers) north of Kenosha, where Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted Friday of charges stemming from the shooting of three men during unrest in that city in August 2020.
US: Car rams into Wisconsin Christmas parade
The attack occurred just 55 miles (88 kilometers) north of Kenosha where Kyle Rittenhouse was freed on Friday after killing two men.
Auto rast in Weihnachtsparade – Fünf Tote
(Car crashes into Christmas parade - Five dead)
Waukesha liegt westlich der Großstadt Milwaukee im Norden der USA – und rund eine Autostunde von der Stadt Kenosha entfernt, wo am Freitag der 18 Jahre alte Kyle Rittenhouse nach tödlichen Schüssen auf Anti-Rassismus-Demonstranten im August 2020 von allen Anklagepunkten freigesprochen worden war. Der damals 17-Jährige hatte bei den Protesten mit einem halbautomatischen Gewehr zwei Menschen erschossen und einen dritten verletzt. Er plädierte vor Gericht auf Selbstverteidigung, weil er von den Männern angegriffen worden sei. Rittenhouse hatte sich bewaffneten Männern angeschlossen, die nach eigenen Angaben Geschäfte vor Plünderern schützten wollten. In Kenosha war es zu Protesten und Ausschreitungen gekommen, nachdem ein weißer Polizist einen Afroamerikaner mit mehreren Schüssen in den Rücken schwer verletzt hatte.
(Waukesha is west of the major city of Milwaukee in the northern USA - and about an hour's drive from the city of Kenosha, where 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges on Friday after fatally shooting anti-racism demonstrators in August 2020. The then 17-year-old had shot two people and injured a third with a semi-automatic rifle during the protests. He pleaded self-defence in court because he had been attacked by the men. Rittenhouse had joined armed men who said they were protecting shops from looters. Protests and riots broke out in Kenosha after a white police officer seriously injured an African-American man with several shots in the back.)
USA: SUV rast in Weihnachtsparade und tötet mehrere Menschen
(USA: SUV crashes into Christmas parade, killing several people)
Waukesha liegt westlich der Großstadt Milwaukee im Norden der USA – und rund eine Autostunde von der Stadt Kenosha entfernt, wo Der damals 17-Jährige hatte bei den Protesten mit einem halbautomatischen Gewehr zwei Menschen erschossen und einen dritten verletzt. Er plädierte vor Gericht auf Selbstverteidigung, weil er von den Männern angegriffen worden sei. Rittenhouse hatte sich bewaffneten Männern angeschlossen, die nach eigenen Angaben Geschäfte vor Plünderern schützten wollten. In Kenosha war es zu Protesten und Ausschreitungen gekommen, nachdem ein weißer Polizist einen Afroamerikaner mit mehreren Schüssen in den Rücken schwer verletzt hatte.
(Waukesha is located west of the major city of Milwaukee in the north of the USA - and about an hour's drive from the city of Kenosha, where The then 17-year-old had shot two people and injured a third with a semi-automatic rifle during the protests. He pleaded self-defence in court because he had been attacked by the men. Rittenhouse had joined armed men who said they were protecting businesses from looters. Protests and riots broke out in Kenosha after a white police officer seriously injured an African-American man with several shots in the back.) tickle me 08:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting Kenosha unrest should go in the See Also section, "black" should go before "person of interest" in Event, or something else should go somewhere? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That the suspect is black is plausible, as even the POTUS defamed Rittenhouse as white supremacist, not to mention MSM and civil society, but so far only tenuously sourced by the Orlando Sentinel. "Kenosha unrest" should go in the "See Also" section, yes. It's only a matter of a few days, anyway, the incident is too egregious to be controlled, for much that they try. tickle me 09:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Background section now, where a link could be seen also. Not sure about the rest. Sounds rough! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid personal speculation and turning the talk page into a forum because they are not a forum for discussion. Our views are utterly irrelevant. We are here to summarize reliable sources to given encyclopedic information to our readers who wish to learn about this incident. If or when news sources include this information, then the article will reflect it.Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent on [19 Nov 2021 19:41:50 UTC]: "Full story: Teenager who shot three black men with rifle found not guilty on all charges"
One of many examples that reliable sources (as the POTUS is, too) won't necessarily provide reliable information in this and many other cases, to put it very mildly. As WP relies on them, which seemed like a good enough idea for years, we should start thinking hard on what to do next. tickle me 10:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the section without legitimate reason: "Unclear if these events are related and including it might create a narrative."
We're bound to report (unfortunately, at this point in time) what RS report. Whether an editor feels that this is unclear or whether it might create a narrative is irrelevant. tickle me 10:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That Background section was far from personal speculation. It literally plagiarized the AP, I just replaced one word with three. But I don't care that you deleted it, just wasn't Aftermath to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tickle was explaining how they thought the suspect being black is "plausible", which is all irrelevant speculation and personal opinion. Nothing has been released or confirmed by authorities about the person of interest (not suspect). Authorities have not commented on whether this incident has anything to do with the Rittenhouse decision. When they have, that information will be included. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is vandalism. The deleted section didn't mention anything about the suspect's skin colour, and I didn't advocate for its inclusion w/o better sources. We report what authorities *or* other RS report – there's no wikipedic rule that excludes papers of record from now on, unless authorities corroborate. tickle me 10:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not vandalism. But this idea of waiting for police to report is a bit ludicrous. Authorities didn't connect this to last year's COVID restrictions, as our new opening mentions. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Four papers of record make the connection and German public radio, there's nothing to argue. tickle me 11:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iff the sources say that the events are connects (or explicitly say they are not), then we add it to the article. Just because sources juxtapose information for context to readers does not mean we do that here (see WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and use of "attack"

SPEEDY MOVE
For BLP reasons, it is important to move this sooner than later especially with more news sources indicating that the casualties were a result of the vehicle "fleeing another incident" rather than being an attack on its own. Combined with the move discussion earlier on the talk page, where the consensus points to removing "Christmas parade attack" in favor of using just Waukesha as a location, with 2021 Waukesha car crash being the most obvious choice. The date being included would be consistent with other articles of this type, as per WP:NCEVENTS saying "the year is a useful identifier." Other similar events to this include 2017 Times Square car crash and 2021 Imperial County car crash, where "car" is used regardless of the exact model of the vehicle. I am therefore closing this for now, but welcome additional commentary after close. This will also affect the previous move discussion, and will leave a note there. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.


In my opinion, BLP requires us to change the title and language of this article. "Attack" indicates intent to harm but we currently have no evidence for that. As the "person of interest" is alive, we need to err on the side of caution.

Proposal - change "attack" to "incident" throughout article and in title. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. This change should be made immediately, no questions asked. It's irresponsible to call it an attack until there is an official statement declaring it as such. I imagine that we will be changing it back to "attack" soon enough, but for now, it should be "incident". Bueller 007 (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a necessary change although having seen a video I agree with @Bueller 007 that we'll be changing back to 'attack' soon enough. Retswerb (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Love of Corey: BLP overrides RM protocol imo EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please participate in the above WP:RM first for input. Love of Corey (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is paramount. It comes first. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand how BLP comes into play in an event article with an unnamed perpetrator. Besides, you should wait for a clear consensus to emerge before venturing into bold page moves, especially since there's already a requested move being discussed, like Love of Corey rightfully indicated. Pilaz (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While authorities are yet to comment on the intentionality of the act, the New York Times reported the words of Mr.Kotlarek, a witness: "Mr. Kotlarek said the driver appeared to intentionally steer toward people." Per Kotlarek: "He was flying through there going intentionally from left to right". To me, this looks like early evidence that the word "attack" is appropriate in the title. Pilaz (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
only one source quoting the opinion of an eyewitness. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to wait until authorities pronounce themselves on the motivations of the perpetrator. Pilaz (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLP that's backwards. We don't assume motivation when none is being confirmed by RS. Retswerb (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still hoping to understand how "attack" instead of "incident" in the title allegedly violates BLP policy (in a non-BLP article). None has been provided so far, which suggests a case of WP:CRYBLP to me. Pilaz (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BLP applies everywhere and this article clearly deals with living and recently dead people. I expect it'll change to attack or something eventually but at this moment it's not supported by RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page - the driver is a living person, and as stated on the top line of WP:BLP we must take care with any page including information about living persons. Retswerb (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I looked at news coverage from BBC, CNN, Fox News, NYT, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, among others, and none have reported anything concrete yet as far as intent. When the facts become clearer, the page can be re-moved and article language re-worded as appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Officials have only declared it a "mass casualty event", which is a kind of euphemism where they don't know the motivation yet. "Attack" implies it is an intentional act or terrorism. We don't know that yet. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Given the information currently available, it is a violation of WP:BLP policy (and WP:NPOV policy in general) to assert that the incident was an 'attack'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Background section

I think this article needs a background section, which should include whether there was a parade last year, (Covid) and why it was held so early. Also, a map of the parade route would improve the article. All with reliable sources, of course. Juneau Mike (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Local news covered that it was cancelled in 2020 due to the pandemic and that next year's parade was scheduled for Nov. 21st. So the date was already set a year in advance. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere earlier that it's always fallen on the Sunday before Thanksgiving. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this newspaper account is dated Nov 23, 1970, so it looks like it's always taken place on this day. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current background section as written makes a glaring error. It asserts that the Waukesha Christmas parade has been going on for 58 years, likely because this is the current 58th parade. However the 58th was scheduled for 2020 but was cancelled by the pandemic. So it's been going on for 59 years in fact. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the first parade didn't mark a year gone by, it started immediately. After one year, we got to the second, and so on. Like how on your 99th birthday, you'll have seen that day a hundred times. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Car crash?

IN PROCESS
Discussions about name are ongoing

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.

I want to point out the complete lunacy of the article title. Car crash. An SUV runs through barricades, is shot at by police, and then mows down 22 people. And we call it a car crash? Does any RS use that term? Does it matter? People already refactored out the article from Wisconsin's largest newspaper - they posted a video. We did the same to the Kenosha Riots story, called it Kenosha Protests. Cmon - we can do better. and the best part...it was not even a car! Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:2021 Waukesha car crash#BLP and use of "attack", which was closed early IMO. --MuZemike 14:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @MuZemike: - I will take a drive out there for some photos today. The same happened in Kenosha, it went from Kenosha riots to protests to unrest. We should probably follow the RS. Lightburst (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concur that it was closed early. The results of the short-circuiting of discussion: the nature of the current article tile. XavierItzm (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Do you have something constructive to say, or are you just ranting? --JBL (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think some are a little frustrated that it's not being called what it is. That said, things are still developing, and the naming discussion can (and may likely) resume once more information comes to light. --MuZemike 14:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you continue the conversation at the move request, as I stated in the speedy close comment that this was not meant to be the final word: "The conversation can keep continuing, but the article has been moved in the meantime for BLP reasons." I cited two previous high profile incidents of the same nature with the same title naming system. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple standard formulations such as 'Christmas parade incident', etc. You could not really have chosen a worse title. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it wasnt "a car crash," re-name this. Jaygo113 (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Short-circuiting of discussion results in watered down, inane title

So, there was a healthy discussion about the use of "attack" here on this TP, proposed and before it could be completed, someone jumped the gun, and gave us "2021 Waukesha car crash".

Yeah. A crash. In a mid size town somewhere in the mid-West. Yep. The one and only "2021 Waukesha car crash".

I recommend this be reverted and we go back to the original, unique, WP:NATURAL, highly descriptive "2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Attack". XavierItzm (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An attack requires intent. Reliable sources have not reported that anyone was intended to be killed here, so calling it an attack violates WP:BLP policy. For example, the NYT reports Mr. Kotlarek said the driver appeared to intentionally steer toward people. That account had not been confirmed by the police. (source). This makes it clear that sources are not authoritatively reporting that this was an attack. A better title can still be discussed, but it's important to avoid BLP violations. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @EvergreenFir: had the right idea calling it an incident. I agree that car crash is borderline ridiculous. Lightburst (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
postscript: at the time of publishing/saving this comment, the above replies were not here, see Special:Diff/1056565716 ("was intended to comment here, sorry") by User:Elli after my comment. "2021 Waukesha car crash" was so bad and I just wanted that "Christmas parade" to be restored and "crash" to be removed; after reading the above replies I have no problem with not restoring "Attack", thanks for your reply User:Elli. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close, as this has already been discussed at Talk:2021_Waukesha_car_crash#BLP_and_use_of_"attack". To restate the points made above: 1) absent explicit evidence that this was an attack, calling the collision an attack is tantamount to accusing someone of a very specific and very serious crime before that person was charged, and 2) there is at least preliminary information that this may not have been an attack:

    Senior law enforcement officials say a person of interest who may have a significant criminal history was being questioned overnight. Investigators are probing the possibility whoever was behind the wheel had been involved in an earlier incident involving a knife and was fleeing when the vehicle reached the parade just after 4:30 p.m., they said.

    The title is imperfect, but as the discussion notes, there are other pages on similar incidents with similar titles. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 14:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delta1989 is obviously correct. --JBL (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of information - I suggest folks continue the conversation at the move request in order to keep things sorted. As I stated in the speedy close comment, this was not meant to be the final word: "The conversation can keep continuing, but the article has been moved in the meantime for BLP reasons." I cited two previous high profile incidents of the same nature with the same title naming system to show how these types of articles are typically named. Stylistically, we usually don't say SUV/pickup/crossover in the title, and instead go with the broad category of car, van, bus, or truck. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that the final name needs to be permanent. Too many moves etc. already. I would gladly have a stupid title for a couple extra days than change it three times as rumors of accident, terrorism, crime, etc flow around. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voicing my support of renaming to 2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Incident. Infinitely more descriptive than "car crash", but generic enough not to imply any specific intent. I think this should be changed soon considering the amount of traffic this page is going to receive. --kewlgrapes (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incident is too vague. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Intentionality does not necessarily indicate that this was an attack per se. Consider two hypotheticals: one in which a person commits arson, setting their business on fire to collect insurance on the property and, in the process, inadvertently kills the co-owner who was inside; the other in which the same person commits arson specifically to kill the co-owner. Both are intentional and both are illegal, but someone would be far more likely to characterize the latter as an attack than the former. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

DONE
Photos are added to the article and a commons link is working

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.

I am going to drive there. Can anyone tell me what specifically they might want me to photograph? Lightburst (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps any sort of debris, such as a fallen over baby stroller or something like that. HumanHistory1 (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:HumanHistory1 Looks like there is a busted stroller in this photo - also multiple chalk circles in the street. Photo of stroller Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Waukesha police announced that Main street will be closed for 24 hours as a crime scene. I will see what I can see. The Waukesha school district cancelled all schools. Waukesha is relatively large metro area of MKE. It is also very Republican, so i am interested to see what is said locally. Lightburst (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst I do not know how to thank for your dedication and contribution, so I thank here. Topjur01 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also appreciate your dedication here. The more photos, the better really, any ones not used here can be uploaded to a relevant category on Commons. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: Thanks, will do, check out the ones for the Kenosha Riot (unrest) that I took. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Photos uploaded Not sure how to link to specifics, so you can look at my contributions

Photos Lightburst (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to add File:Abandoned items from Christmas Parade Broadway and Main Waukesha Wisconsin parade.jpg to the article's infobox but you already did, Lightburst! That is the best of the photos, imo, so good choice. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: Thanks, iphone 13 - someone has my Sony A6300 sadly. Do you know how to link to like {{commons|?}} or perhaps collage. I figured it out somewhat Sadly there was not much to see there - just lots of closed roads and caution tape. By the way, I much prefer your suggestion "incident" to the bland and inaccurate "car crash". Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Possible cause

CNN is reporting that their police sources have told them the suspect was fleeing another crime when the incident occurred. 50.111.45.222 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible cause is that the person of interest kept being charged and released on bail? Here's what the source says:
the man suspected of being the driver, has been charged three times in less than two years with recklessly endangering the safety of others, most recently on Nov. 5 as part of a domestic abuse incident for which he was also charged with resisting or obstructing an officer.Brooks was released from jail on Friday after posting bond in the recent incident, according to court records. He also was charged in July 2020 with two felony counts of second-degree recklessly endangering the safety of others using a dangerous weapon. Both cases are ongoing.[2]
A second source says the person of interest's crime record is 50 pages long.[3] So maybe the cause is "under-incarceration"? XavierItzm (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's considered the 'suspect' now, per law enforcement, and has been charged with six counts of homicide.50.111.58.135 (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/waukesha-christmas-parade-attack-eyewitnesses-b1961930.html
  2. ^ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/11/22/suspect-waukesha-parade-incident-identified-darrell-brooks-jr/8717524002/
  3. ^ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/waukesha-christmas-parade-career-criminal-out-on-bail-darrell-brooks-questioned-by-police/ar-AAR0bzQ

Change "car crash" to "incident"

IN PROCESS
Discussions about name are ongoing

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.

The use of "car crash" has been controversial and has garnered no consensus, it was merely a quick substitute because of the BLP concerns of "attack". Using "car crash" almost seems as a WP:NPOV concern since it minimizes the possibility that this was an intentional attack, motive has not been well established in RS thus far. "Incident" would serve as a good neutral compromise until RS reports a better option or the facts are more clear. The title would read: 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade incident. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it's announced that he's being charged with intentional murder, so it's safe to characterize it as an attack. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree now that murder charges have been issued. Thanks for the update. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so "being charged" is equal to "guilty"? (Though nothing would surprise me after last week's trial). It should be "incident", as many people have said all along. Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incident still beats car crash Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, because incident is more vague than the current, previous & suggested titles. Jim Michael (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone were guilty, it would be "murder". It is a multiple-homicide though, regardless of whether anyone will be found guilty of anything. I've opened an RM below so we can collect these discussions into one actionable proposal (regardless of what title is ultimately chosen). Levivich 19:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Charged but not convicted is enough to categorize as attack even in a BLP when there is clear evidence that it was an attack. E.g., October 2021 Tokyo attack, [2], [3], etc. Multiple sources are calling it an attack: [4], [5], [6], [7], etc.Bueller 007 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps this article would be better called "2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car crashes" since it seems like a series of car crashes. Nicholassantos99 (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Killings Jaygo113 (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 22 November 2021 (2)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved to 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade attack. Consensus is against against moving to 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade incident, and additionally consensus is against the current title (2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car crash). Overall editors feel that both "crash" and "incident" are euphemisms and don't accurately describe the event. Various verbs were proposed in the discussion, of which "attack", "rampage" and "ramming" were most prominent. As usual, since the RM system centres the discussion around the originally proposed title, it is difficult to decide which of the titles proposed within the discussion has consensus. However, it would also be inappropriate to close this with no action and require folks to start another RM to have the page moved, given that there is clearly consensus against the current title.
In such a situation, I'd generally lean towards choosing the most conservative of the proposed titles, so long as it has support and doesn't violate an overriding policy (eg WP:BLP). In this case, given that there was some debate over whether a particular phrasing implied 'intent' (on the part of the driver), the most conservative option would be whichever doesn't imply intent. However, there was some disagreement on which of these proposals imply intent; some felt that "attack" implies intent and that "rampage" didn't, and some editors felt the opposite way, so it's difficult to decide which of these doesn't imply intent. Few editors analysed what term RS are using, which makes that option a dead end too. I've read the discussion up and down twice and cannot find a reasonable metric to decide which formulation is the more conservative option, so I think a straight vote is the only fair way to decide here. By the numbers it seems "attack" has the most support, although I note the caveat that "attack" was proposed before the other options which skews the numbers (earlier voters may have preferred another variation but didn't see it at the time they voted).
Of course, this is without prejudice to another RM to change the verb. On that note, it may be worth noting that other proposals within this RM included dropping the "2021" at the start and/or dropping the "car". There were also less prominent, but still promising, variations such as "pedestrian killings", which tried to deal with the 'intent' concern. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping the car as well, since on second thought it does seem there is a consensus here to do that too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car crash → 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade incident – Suspect now charged with multiple counts of homicide. Reuters, NBC News. WP:DEATHS would suggest "killings" but I think "incident" is more WP:NATURAL in this instance. Levivich 19:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

That said, in Wikipedia's world, List of rampage killers lumps in mass killers. It shouldn't, but it does. Something to consider. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support name change regardless the correct article title name is, but i Oppose incident because it was not natural disaster. I also suggests "2021" to removed because there was only events that happened in Waukesha Christmas Parade. 36.77.64.164 (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The vast majority of these !votes were before the current name change. That might be significant when determining consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it at rampage nearly a day ago I said we urgently need to change the title from attack since we need to wait a few days for things to sort themselves out instead of implying it was an intentional act of violence. However after I said it I begun to think a bit more ad have since formed the conclusion I was wrong then about the latter point. While we did need to urgently change the title, calling this an attack just like calling something a murder implies something about a living person we need to wait for a court case to resolve. So realistically there was a good chance a few days was never going to be enough. While we no longer have the uncertainty we did yesterday e.g. the chance this was simply someone who did something crazy in a panic now seems very low, and it does seem quite likely this was an attack, we still should wait for a court case to resolve that. When I came today and found this at rampage, I was initially thinking WTF? But having read the discussion and look at the other exampled and thought about it more I've decided it's the best solution to the problem of not implying something about a living person while recognising how horrifying the event was something which can't be conveyed by either crash or incident. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Say "tragedy" or "horror" then. When you say "rampage", you're basically saying he went on a course of violent acts. At least an attack is just one violent act (as was this lone incident/crash/thing). And it doesn't suggest the killer was angry, crazy or wild, like other dictionaries say "rampage" does. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And in case you think recklessness implies presumed innocence, think again. Highly illegal all across Wisconsin. The suspected quintuple murderer here hasn't even been charged with recklessly endangering safety yet, much less convicted. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And in case you truly believe the court will hear how this potential defendant was "simply someone who did something crazy in a panic" and thereby not criminally responsible for this "horrifying" act, the onus is entirely on him to make a not guilty plea, knowing full well that habitual antisocial criminality does not constitute a "mental disease or defect". Until such time a plea or intent to plead is published in a reliable source, speculation on this or any other imaginable defense strategy should be considered utterly unverifiable and have no bearing on article content creation, up to and including the title. I have nothing further, judges. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The WP:NATURAL title "2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car rampage" is highly descriptive and unique. The purpose of titles is to help users find content. The mealy-mouthed "incident" could apply to anything. There is no need to bowdlerize Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Use attack. Attack doesn't require there to be premeditation, just intent. The vehicle was clearly wasn't a runaway, it was driven with intent as it dodged and accelerated. Sources discuss the car weaving around barricades to enter the road. In normal parlance if a person running down a sidewalk pushed people out of their way they would be said to be attacking people. InverseZebra (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was curious what the other Wikipedias are calling this (as translated, arguably imperfectly, by Google Translate). Most include the word attack, with two interesting additions: car-ramming (French) and crowd hit (Russian).
Ramming is an interesting possibility for our title, but then I'm reminded we need to be mindful of what WP:RS are saying before we get too creative. So, today in English-language media we have "vehicle attack" (New York Times, [8]), "Waukesha incident" with an implication of it being a "ramming attack" (Washington Post, [9]), and "Waukesha Christmas Parade incident" (NPR, [10]).
Personally I think "attack" is certainly warranted when a suspect is charged. An attack is merely a "belligerent or antagonistic action" ([11]), and this event reasonably qualifies as such. A strong case could in fact be made that attack is more NPOV and not as strong as rampage. But I'm certainly on board with taking a short break from another round of !voting -- this one has gone off the rails a bit. I just wanted to put this data out there into the mix, for consideration. Moncrief (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is not an incident. The attacker deliberately targeted the crowd. He "drove in a "zig-zag pattern" to hit as many people as possible", source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59396999 Gianluigi02 (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and Support move to previous status quo of attack. Suspect was charged with intentional homicide and had used the same modus operandi in a previous case. If he was running from a previous altercation, it is still an attack. WP:BLPCRIME is not an excuse to whitewash language of suspected criminals. This has been labeled as an attack by multiple WP:RS [12][13][14][15][16] Loganmac (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kyle Rittenhouse was also charged with intentional homicide; we (correctly) did not describe that event as an "attack." Just as Rittenhouse was, the alleged perpetrator of this incident is entitled to the same presumption of innocence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then we need a better word or phrasing than crash to indicate that presumption of innocence. The Rittenhouse article had shooting, which implies a magnitude of seriousness that crash does not, even though the loss of life was less in the Rittenhouse incident. This is a bad look for Wikipedia to have this innocuous-sounding title for such a serious event. I'll try and do some research about other options and how other articles have been phrased. Maybe vehicle-ramming? I just know that the current title is awful, and I hope it doesn't last through the US Thanksgiving holiday, when many editors have other commitments. This car crash title is ripe for all kinds of unwarranted ridicule of Wikipedia's supposed bias. Moncrief (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on the Rittenhouse case was entirely on who was the one being attacked, Rittenhouse (self-defense) or the people killed. One being attacked cannot attack, it's called defense, and this argument was cited in WP:RS at the time. If you can find WP:RS arguing for this being an accident go ahead and link it please. Loganmac (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the discussion here will be whether it was a premeditated/intentional attack on the event, criminally reckless driving, or something else entirely (unlikely?) Just as with Killing of Ahmaud Arbery, we cannot prejudge the level of criminality inherent in this incident prior to a conviction. There are lots of people who think Ahmaud Arbery was attacked and murdered, but until a court of law convicts someone of murder in that case, the article will remain at "Killing." I would not be opposed to "pedestrian killings" or some other construction which clearly shows that homicide was involved. But declaring this to be an "attack" is assuming facts not proven. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Vehicular homicide"? Seems an accurate and neutral description, but also perhaps awkward and I'm not seeing it in RSes (but neither do I see a lot of "rampage" or any "incident" for that matter). Levivich 16:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear on why this was changed from rampage, which seemed to be the best option, at least as a stopgap. Rampage: a course of violent, riotous, or reckless action or behavior [17]. No disputing this was a violent and reckless action. Was it switched to the awful car crash because of procedural concerns? If so, please mind WP:NOTBURO. This current dumb title is making the rounds of RW outrage media (example: [18]), so be prepared for a troll onslaught that makes the current inflow look like a trickle. And, you know what, they'd have a certain point. !Vote here to change back to yesterday's rampage title. I'm going to take this to the admin noticeboard if no action is taken soon. Moncrief (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article was moved back to "car crash" because there was an improper unilateral and out of process move to "rampage" while an WP:RM was open. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not "car crash", as that sounds like a crashing that only involved cars (and perhaps some other inanimate objects) rather than one in which an SUV (which is more of a truck than a car) struck unprotected people. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose car crash or incident, support attack. The defendant deliberately drove his car into the crowd of people, killing six and injuring dozens, per police. A car crash or incident would imply that this was accidental, which it was not. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 17:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Car Crash. Anything, literally anything, from incident to rampage to attack is more approprate than the current title. Shame on Wikipedia for even entertaining such a title. Not even close to what a "car crash" is. Airplanegod (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Car Crash or Incident. The event does not appear to be accidental or incidental. The name doesn't need to deal with motive or blame, but it should be descriptive (not vague). Prefer the following: Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waukesha Christmas parade mass casualty event - as defined by the Department of Justice
  • Waukesha Christmas parade mass killing - as defined by the Department of Justice
Mass casualty event is a good option. Objectively true without assigning intent. Moncrief (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Words like "car crash" and "incident" give the impression that the tragedy was an accident. Suspect has been charged with five counts of intentional first-degree homicide. The event has been deemed an intentional act by law enforcement and numerous reliable sources refer to it as an "attack." The most accurate title would be "2021 Waukesha (Christmas parade) SUV attack". Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 18:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However this tragedy is remembered, "Christmas parade" will likely be part of the name.Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think discussion has gone on long enough, and both the comments above and the evidence in the discussion section below indicates that "crash" and "incident" are too milquetoast, and that a stronger word denoting extreme violence, like "rampage" or "attack" would be more accurate. Many editors have said that they would like a shorter title. I suggest something like "2021 Wisconsin parade SUV rampage", "2021 Wisconsin parade SUV attack," or "2021 Wisconsin parade massacre," or "2021 Wisconsin parade tragedy." We don't need perfect; we just need good. "Waukesha" is probably less helpful for a global reader who has no idea where Waukesha is, but would probably know Wisconsin. Once the discussion is closed and the move is done, we can regroup, see how events develop and a further refinement of the title might be needed. Could some intrepid admin please close this? Jehochman Talk 19:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

To help identify a WP:COMMONNAME should one emerge, here is a list of how some top news outlets are describing the event. Please add to this list. Thanks, Levivich 16:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is helpful. Please be careful to use the most current sources available as this is a fast developing current event. Jehochman Talk 16:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm just bananas, but the title of the article doesn't actually have any significant meaning. Perhaps we should all just wait a week, see what information is available, and then look into what title the article should be at? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the people who answered the survey, no one supports "car crash". And the only support for "incident" was just to get it away from "car crash". There was multiple comments supporting "Rampage". I recommend someone with authority close the RM, change the title from "crash" to "rampage", and then open a new RM to decide between Rampage, Attack, Tragedy, Massacre, Pedestrian Killings, or anything else. The title "car crash" has no support and should be changed.DropShot244 (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speaking here as the admin who move-protected the page (heck I've actually protected just everything about this page). The move protection is due to expire in around one hour from me writing this comment. I'm giving notice that I plan on extending this move-protection, and I want to be very clear this is due to one circumstance: there is an open RM proposal. Unless this RM proposal is closed FIRST it's just going to continue the mess. Once this is closed I'll remove the protection and/or endorse the closer implementing the close. And then, no doubt, a new discussion can start. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Redirect: Darrell Brooks

I suggest that the perpetrator, Darrell Brooks, redirect to this article. This seems to be standard practice for such people, who are noteworthy for one event. -2003:CA:8703:C82C:59DB:7703:1CCC:D693 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Seems like a violation of WP:BLPCRIME to me, presuming someone as a suspect before they're charged or convicted. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If they're charged, they're the accused or defendant rather than a suspect. If they're convicted, they're certainly not a suspect. Suspect has a very specific meaning. --Killuminator (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph2302, Brooks has been charged with five counts of first-degree homicide. Moonraker (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

change "Car Crash" to "Killings"

NO STEAM
This one is going nowhere

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.

peoplr were killed. we dont definitively know if it was an attack, or murder etc. but we know people were killed, and that the driver is the one that killed them. Jaygo113 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word killings just doesn't seem to fit here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - "pedestrian killings" is appropriately descriptive of what occurred, yet does not prejudge the level of criminality involved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2015 Oklahoma State University homecoming parade crash

There is an article about an incident very similar to this one which may help us judge precedent - 2015 Oklahoma State University homecoming parade crash. That said, I'm moving it to "rampage" based on Jehochman's cogent argument above. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with “rampage” NorthBySouthBaranof is that it does not imply any deaths or even any harm. Neither, I suppose, does 2017 London Bridge attack, but that seems to me less of an attempt to downgrade the seriousness. Moonraker (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Attack" has a clear implication of a specific mens rea, motive, intent, and premeditation, which has not yet been proven. We don't yet know if this was a premeditated targeted attack, or something else. Just as we cannot call the killers of Ahmaud Arbery "murderers" unless they are duly convicted of that crime, IMO we can't call this an "attack" until there is an admission of guilt or a conviction of that premeditated offense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The word attack does not imply premeditation nor motive. The Oxford Dictionary [1] defines attack as to try to hurt or defeat using violence. Merriam-Webster[2] defines it as 1. to set upon or work against forcefully. 2 to assail with unfriendly or bitter words. 3 to begin to affect or to act on injuriously. You don't get to make up your own definitions. An attack is merely an action against someone or something using violence, in a belligerent fashion. An animal can attack out of pure instinct without any ulterior motive or plan. Loganmac (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The OED definition you've quoted to try to hurt is a definition of intent ("try to" = "intend to"). NorthBySouthBaranof offered four approximate synonyms, to say "well here's this definition that closely matches two of your four similar characterizations" is to provide evidence in favor of the point. --JBL (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is "murder of X" indicates a specific criminal offence of murder, whereas "attack" does not indicate a specific criminal offence. It might imply one, but you could say the same for "rampage" which covers intentional or reckless violent/riotous action. Hitting a crowd via either intentional or reckless means is invariably a criminal offence. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. A criminal offense has to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." A rampage does not imply conviction. A person could be very reckless and be held civilly liable without being convicted. Jehochman Talk 16:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all criminal vehicular offenses are an "attack." See, for example, the Santa Monica Farmers Market crash, in which an 86-year-old man killed 10 people with his vehicle, and was subsequently convicted of 10 counts of vehicular manslaughter. The prosecutor and jury in that case apparently did not find mens rea to support a conviction of murder. With the facts we currently know, I don't think it's likely that this case was merely negligent, there seems certain to be some level of recklessness involved, and quite possibly criminal intent, but we're not competent to judge the facts of a criminal case. Wikipedia is not an newspaper, we do not need to rush to judgment, and we can afford to wait for the legal process to play out before deciding how to describe this event. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point is "rampage" implies conduct which is criminal. If "attack" is best avoided, as it implies criminal conduct which is not proven unless a conviction is secured, then it must follow "rampage" must be avoided on the same grounds. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "attack". dictionary.cambridge.org.
  2. ^ "Definition of ATTACK". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 24 November 2021.

“Suspect’s” priors, release on $1000 bail 2 days earlier, etc.

I can’t see any mention of this and more. Word is that he had followed the mother of his child to a gas station and run her down. $1000 bail after that and he was freed. Freed to run many others down, killing five. Boscaswell talk 22:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shock! The New York Times has reported about Roberts’ past in detail.[19] Go for it. Boscaswell talk 22:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been quite confirmed yet. Journalists have done searches in databases for priors and someone with the same name, that they are reasonably confident is him, comes up. However police and authorities have not discussed this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few words regarding this, in particular the incident in which he is accused of running over a former partner. It's covered in pretty much all WP:RS. It's not WP:BLPCRIME if we don't imply he's guilty in Wikipedia's voice. --Loganmac (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added that he has a lengthy criminal record (that's the phrasing used by many sources). I do not think we should add much else that what is highlighted by the vast majority of sources (bail amount, car attack on woman). The Nevada stuff really isn't germane here. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshot

What is the copyright status of mugshots? The file currently does not explain copyright status and it might end up being deleted. I think mugshots are public domain? Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on state and local law. Work product of a federal employee in the United States is public domain, but that is not generally true for products of state and local employees. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Harizotoh9 They are usually public domain. See one here that I uploaded some time ago. Lightburst (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of a mugshot portrays the accused in a particular way and may be a breach of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:MUG. WWGB (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That mugshot was from Milwaukee County based on a previous incident. Brooks is currently held by Waukesha County. Various sources have been using this mugshot provided by the Waukesha County Sheriff's Office to the AP; however, I believe it's also a mugshot from a previous event. If it's public domain I think it's completely fair to use given that we're using it in an article about a crime he allegedly committed (so it is context appropriate in this article). [20] Bueller 007 (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Bueller 007 is correct and the mugshot ought to be restored. Its deletion was inappropriate. XavierItzm (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So it is a mugshot relating to an alleged crime, other than the subject of this article. In other words, the circumstances of the mugshot have nothing to do with the Waukesha rampage? WWGB (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't arguing that that mugshot should be restored unless we know whether we have copyright permissions to use it. I was arguing in favour of using the mugshot that I linked to, again assuming that it can be used under copyright law. But I don't think that it's out of line to include a mugshot for an accused criminal. Nikolas Cruz's mugshot was posted on the article for the Stoneman Douglas shooting before he was tried, for example. If we have copyright permission to use it, it should be in the article. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um why are you saying they are "usually public domain" but linking to a mugshot that is not public domain? Anyway I'm fairly sure NorthBySouthBaranof has it right. Mug shots produced by state or local government employees are often not in the public domain. The fact that other media use them tells us nothing, since they may be using them under fair use. As is often the case, legally I'm sure we could as well but it's irrelevant. We can only use them if the usage complies with NFCC and I'm unconvinced it would here. Still if someone feels it does, they're welcome to upload one and make the case. I wouldn't use the above example as a guide, I'm unconvinced it complies and also there are obvious differences between the two. (In the above example, the case was resolved a long time ago and the person is now in prison limiting opportunities for any free image.) As WWGB said copyright issues aside there are also policy questions about whether it's appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne: Work done by Government officials in the course of their duties is nearly always public domain. Which is why mug shots are reprinted everywhere. I showed a mug shot which was fair use because it identified the subject, however that does not apply to "other" living people whose photos were not produced by Government. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one such reference to a court case in Wisconsin. This is not to say that I think this person's mug shot should be in our article. Accused as he is. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: Please provide a citation for your claim which flies in the face of what everyone who actually knows about this actually says (e.g. Commons:Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain), and your own actions in the example you cited (albeit funnily enough that may be one of the exceptions coming from a government ine Florida). In case there's confusion, the Florida, California and US federal government cannot by any token be considered "nearly always" government officials. And this is the case even if we restrict ourselves to the US. As I already said, it's quite likely most news agencies could justify using mug shots as fair use for a variety of reasons, this tells us jack shit about whether any image is in the public domain. We also have no idea if permission was sought even if they aren't using the image under fair use. Note your reference appears to be about whether such works are public records and therefore subject to freedom of information acts or otherwise made available to the public on request. This is different from the copyright status of the image itself. An image may be made available on request but still copyrighted. Here in NZ most government work is copyrighted (Crown copyright. But a lot of it will also be made available under the Official Information Act 1982. This doesn't affect the fact it's copyrighted. See also Wikipedia:Public domain#Public records. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne: That escalated quickly. I will dismiss myself now. Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that really got out of hand fast. Brick killed a guy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

California mugshots are public domain, as per Template:PD-CAGov (e.g. OJ Simpson’s mugshot). Ditto with Florida mugshots (e.g. Kent_Hovind#/media/File:Hovind_portrait.jpg). Other states may or may not claim copyright on mugshots. Samboy (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trident? Lightburst (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which suggest the example above may be in the public domain so it's actually fine to have it here despite the NFCC template being used by the uploader. But also still suggest that example isn't helpful for what we do here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Darrell Brooks" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Darrell Brooks. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 23#Darrell Brooks until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close, there's already RM in progress above. No such user (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car rampage → 2021 Waukesha car crash – Page moved during ongoing RM, new title appears less encyclopaedic and is used primarily by less reliable sources such as the Sun and the NY Post. Page move protected; requested title is the title the article was moved to following a BLP discussion, but is not the last stable title which is the creation title of "2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Attack", or the last title before the move protection, which is "2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car crash" BilledMammal (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually, for a move to be implemented, it requires a consensus for it, rather than a lack of a consensus against of it (we are biased towards stability) - and I'm not even sure I would agree that there isn't a consensus against it. And I fully agree with letting the RM discussion decide, which is why we should revert the bold, mid-RM move until the RM can decide. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proper time to judge the consensus, and where the consensus is to move the title to, would have been at the end of the RM. The move was premature, hence why I requested it be reverted - I've opened a discussion on Anthony Appleyard's talk page about this decision if you want to contribute. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  • Point of information - the page was reverted from "rampage" back to "car crash" shortly after this conversation. See the diff: Special:Diff/1056940376. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what is the best descriptive but calling this a mere car crash is preposterous.--MONGO (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And with everything else, it's also not even a common term in the variety of English spoken where the event occurred. I have never seen a title so wrong-headed as this one, in my 17 years on Wikipedia. Moncrief (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be a good article title here, but it's a very common term. Google "car crash" wisconsin -parade for recent local news from Madison, Kenosha, Sheboygan and more. Some involve SUVs, some wrong-way driving, most death and police. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The word crash is certainly common when describing a car accident, as are compound nouns such as two-car crash. The standalone phrase car crash as a general descriptor is not particularly common; the usual term is car accident. I'm sure you can find references to car crash -- I didn't say it was unknown or unintelligible -- but it's not the most natural term in this variety of English. Moncrief (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read a bunch and I know which two words I repeatedly saw. A car accident is a subtype of crash, where no intention is suspected. A car attack is on the other side of neutrality. Anyway, it's sure more natural than "car rampage", on any continent. A course is a course, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The term usually means a collision between a car and another car or a fixed object. This is supported by US Lexico: An instance of a car colliding with another vehicle or with an object.[21] Human bodies not usually considered objects. It seems completely inappropriate where a vehicle is driven into pedestrians. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes! And I think your description goes a long way in explaining the viscerally negative reaction that many North American editors have to this title. A crash normally implies a collision with an inanimate object in North America. In the UK, which I believe is the location of the editor who invented this title, the term car crash has a more generalized meaning. Moncrief (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a North American, FWIW, and consider our bodies physical objects. I don't consider an SUV a car, viscerally. Do you consider the 2009 Yambol bus crash as badly mistitled or any worse? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2009 Yambol bus crash and this event appear to be significantly different. The former was a case of bus that was driving over the speed limit in the rain, colliding with 3 cars. The latter is a case where a person intentionally drove an SUV into a parade route, running over many people and killing at least 6. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the Yambol article is mistitled, but this one absolutely is. GoPats (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That bus hit a group of tourists, not three cars. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're right, I was looking at a story on a different bus crash in Bulgaria. Still, in the case of Yambol, there were mechanical issues with the bus, rather than an intentional act. "Crash" does not properly describe what occurred in Waukesha. GoPats (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was some element of criminal intent in Yambol, or the driver wouldn't have been convicted. Speed played a factor in both crashes. You might be right about intent in Waukesha, too, but the Canadian thing to do is wait to hear what the suspect has to say. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait for facts to come out before jumping to conclusions? Nah, this is the Internet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Criminal law covers intentional and reckless acts (as well as strict liability offences which might concern acts neither intentional or reckless), so criminal intent is not always a must. I am no expert on Bulgarian law or language, so will defer to your knowledge of the 2009 incident. (Edit: But the 2009 incident involved several people on board dying from the vehicle's impact with a tree, so a "crash" with an object was a key part.) Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to know you're endangering people's safety, know it's wrong, and willfully do it anyway to be found criminally reckless in any act of "great bodily harm". In Wisconsin, anyway, unsure of regular Bulgarian justice. There are more alleged crimes than first-degree murder afoot here, my friend. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

I'm noting here that I've semi-protected this talk page for a few hours - depending on what happens afterwards it might even be renewed. This is due to unregistered editors flooding this page with excessive requests for a page rename, which is a discussion already seriously underway above and which these editors didn't even bother reading. The protection might allow these users to catch up with the discussion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I endorse the semi-protection to counter a concerted effort to flood the Talk page. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. --JBL (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A warning because I've seen how this plays out every time. Now that there's news everywhere about Fuzheado's move, we'll start seeing those that proposed this wording to dismiss every suggestion to the contrary as trolls or WP:CANVASSers, despite a plethora of long-time editors being against it. To actual trolls, leave. --Loganmac (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Car Crash" to Massacre.

5 people were killed in the Boston Massacre. 6 people were killed here. This is therefore a massacre. Jaygo113 (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is... something else. Moncrief (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about logic here, then Facebook has the worst logic. Kyle defends himself against 2 people and Facebook believes it's a mass shooting?? Lostfan333 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

change name to "Waukesha SUV attack."

What the suspect did aas the same as the suspect in Nice, France in 2016. The article for that event is called "Nice Truck Attack." There is no difference. Jaygo113 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should be titled in a way that is consistent with the article on the Nice attack. Maybe "2021 Waukesha Christmas parade SUV attack"? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attack accusations and name change to Waukesha Massacre

Terrorist attack accusations I have created the Terrorist attack accusations heading to talk about the accusations of terrorism. If you wish to delete it talk in the talk page about it first.

Name change to Waukesha Massacre if the terrorist accusations are true, I suggest this name change. --Zyxrq (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC) 3:09 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's not the way it works - you're required to gain consensus for any proposed addition. And specifically, you're using unreliable sources and polemic political commentators to make wild, unsupported accusations which have actually been refuted by law enforcement officials, who have stated repeatedly that there is no evidence of any link to terrorism at this point. Wikipedia is not a platform for speculation and rumormongering. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this section as it is not supported by high quality sources. Per WP:RS/PS, there is consensus that the New York Post is "generally unreliable for factual reporting," and there is consensus that Heavy.com "should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements[.]" The third source used is a Fox News opinion piece, not a news item. The whole first paragraph is also giving undue weight to a single commentator. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) That's why I used the word accusations. The reasons I used accusations is because I know the clams have ben refuted by law enforcement. The reason I went into the subject is because there is reasoning to believe the attack could've ben politically motivated. With him supporting BLM, him making Facebook post about him hearting white people, him showing sings of political extremism, and the Kyle Rittenhouse being found not guilty of all charges in Wisconsin a few days ago. with all do respect :). If more reliable information coms out I will use it.Zyxrq (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC) 3:59 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to use the word "hearing", "hurting" or "hating" before "white people"? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title should be changed to "2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car attack"

The result of the RfC above was to change to "attack", that's what community consensus and closure said. I would like to motion to change the title with consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been changed to "attack" but not "car attack" Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re the closing, see this diff. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:AT, it's more precise and more concise without "car". Levivich 22:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook profile

The Fox article on the Facebook page starts off with "The Facebook account appearing to belong to Darrell Brooks". BLP still applies to Brooks, and you cannot make factual statements that the sole reliable source doesnt actual claim is actually his. If that becomes something confirmed as his then that might merit inclusion. The Jewish Week piece cannot seriously be considered, it quotes uncritically the twitter account "oak_tree_upheaval" who describes himself as a "shitposter extraordinaire" and "TheQuartering" who says he is a "Youtuber, Cat Dad, German Shepherd Collector". That does not come close to passing the BLP bar. nableezy - 21:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see know BLP concern as long as it's mentioned that it's a Facebook account appearing to belong to Brooks. That would just be making the statement consistent with RS reporting. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPGOSSIP. nableezy - 21:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
100% agreed - Not until there's a confirmation from a WP:RS that it is in fact his account. Until then, it shouldn't be in the article. There might be potential to briefly mention "speculation about potential motives" in a few days time when this has been cleared up, but its too soon as-is. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 23:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note here that from what I can tell, this originated with this Daily Mail article, which is a deprecated source per WP:DAILYMAIL. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 23:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Darrell Brooks having been charged should be in the lead. There's no explanation for it having been removed. Jim Michael (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason this isn't being called a massacre instead of "attack"?

Here are the two definitions:

at·tack - 

         1. take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war.
         2. an aggressive and violent action against a person or place.

mas·sa·cre - 

            n. an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people.
            v. deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people).


As far as I can tell, massacre would be a better descriptor since the intent was to kill multiple people and/or an ethnic group, not a single person or the place itself. Or is this article proposing that white people are seen as an enemy?

Change Charlottesville to crash or incident

I don't see a difference ? 2600:6C58:7F00:141:A41B:B100:D270:9979 (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that article title should be changed, bring it up there, not here. clpo13(talk) 23:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack&oldid=1057022959"