Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack

Trial split proposal

I would like to split the trial section into Trial of Darrell Brooks. Given that this trial was regionally famous along the lines of the Trial of Alex Murdaugh, I think there are enough reliable secondary sources to provide an in-depth encyclopedic review of each part of the proceedings.

However I feel that going into such detail on the main article would make the page too long. I am starting this topic out of an abundance of caution because of the article's contentious topic status. Mfko (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Mfko, I agree with this sentiment. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree it should be split, with this article maintaining the synopsis of the trial. The other one can go futher in depth. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that the article should be split.

The guidelines on splitting do advise that an article of this size (approximately 70kb at time of writing) should "probably be divided". However, it also advises that "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time". I believe that to be a controlling factor here. The article does a good job providing an in-depth account of the facts surrounding the attack, and I believe that a description of the legal proceedings is important to fully grasp the scope of the tragedy. Specifically, a brief account of the way the perpetrator conducted himself at trial is, I believe, necessary to fully grasp the scope of he attack. It is also worth mentioning that the size of this article places it on the lower end of the size of articles that Wikipedia says should "probably be divided", which I think should also give us some pause before declaring the article to be too large to comfortably read.

It is certainly true that there are many sources that provided an exhaustive coverage of this trial, absolutely enough to provide for our own encyclopedic description of the case. However, I don't see the value that such encyclopedic coverage would have to a reader. Speaking from experience (I've watched the trial in its entirety twice), the content of the trial can be largely separated into three categories: (1) the presentation of evidence, (2) procedural matters, i.e. discussions held outside the presence of the jury, and (3) the defendant's antics. As someone who has watched the trial, I can attest that sometimes one category would bleed into another. However, I'll do my best to explain why none of the above (taken separately or together) merit splitting.

(1) This category certainly accounts for a majority of the trial. This was, of course, a result of the fact that the defendant was accused of dozens of crimes, so a thorough presentation of evidence was to be expected. However, excluding its breadth it was (if you'll pardon my saying so) relatively par for the course when it comes to vehicular homicides. There were witnesses who testified to seeing the car strike the crowd, witnesses who gave the names of individuals who were struck, witnesses who testified about DNA evidence, witnesses who testified about the law enforcement response in the immediate aftermath of the attack, and so on and so forth. Attempting to provide encyclopedic coverage of all the evidence presented at trial would result in an article much to large to comfortably handle, probably greatly eclipsing the size of this article. However, I would certainly agree that coverage of this category in the article is substantially lacking, instead focusing mostly on matters which fit into categories (2) and (3). We should absolutely consider rewriting the portion of the article discussing trial and sentencing.

(2) Procedural matters should not receive their own article. These matters include things like scheduling, evidentiary concerns, etc. While these may be of interest to anoraks and appellate lawyers, they will probably not be of interest to the general public.

(3) The defendant at trial conducted himself outrageously. It deserves to be mentioned in the article, because it adds to the sense of loss that the attack caused - folks were robbed of their loved ones, and were subsequently robbed of a dignified trial where justice could be served. However, this certainly does not merit its own article. Out of deference and respect for the facts at hand, the defendant's attempts to make a mockery of the judicial process need not detain readers for too long.

In the end, I would agree that a greater depth of coverage should be given to the evidence presented at trial, while some information regarding process and the defendant's antics should likely be discarded. If this article were a touch longer, I still think it would be perfectly readable. We should avoid, however, avoid attempts to provide a comprehensive account of all of the proceedings in this case. All that being said, this article (and the events that underpin it) should be treated with care, and so I'd like to hear what others have to say before we make a decision in this matter. Glad Tidings from New York (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I would support this split, however I believe a more appropriate title should be State v. Brooks. AKTC3 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - it's all fit in this article and is a reasonable length. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 23:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree it should be split. There’s enough public interest in the trial alone for it to be its own entry. I also believe the trial itself, outside of the attack, warrants an entry for a more in-depth look at what occurred during the trial. KSCBA (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - There's no reason the trial needs to be a separate article. Expand the main article instead if people think the section on the trial needs to be longer. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per what Macktheknifeau and Iamreallygoodatcheckers said. If this goes forward I advocate the title of State v. Brooks for consistency with other trials (ie: State v. Mitchell, State v. Palendrano, etc.)Chefs-kiss (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)