Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

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

Re the closing, see this diff. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:AT, it's more precise and more concise without "car". Levivich 22:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but people are also concerned about precision. Was this a car attack, knife attack, biological attack, etc. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

If the method is to be included in the title, SUV would be better. Jim Michael (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Biographical details

Citing the Associated Press, I added background on the suspect that included he was a rapper with a Soundcloud account, and that he grew up in a neighborhood in Milwaukee. Though I don't think we should go into excessive details, simple information as to their job and birthplace seem relevant. A reader might want to know if they're American, from another state, or even if they come from another country. Also, we don't decide what goes into articles, the reliable sources do. In effect they write the articles and we just summarize them. If the AP, which is the gold standard for high quality neutral third party reporting cover it and deem it notable then it should be included. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I really dislike this "articles write themselves" approach. It makes WP editors sound like trained monkeys. WP:NOTEVERYTHING makes clear that there is a role for balanced, intelligent editors in determining what goes into Wikipedia. And, for the record, Brooks' rapping is utterly irrelevant to the incident, as is his high school, mother's name and anything else that is thrown into print to satisfy the 24-hour news cycle. WWGB (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

What is being said here, is that when one really "dislikes" what the Associated Press has to say, well, then the AP as a WP:RS cannot be used. Who will be the first to codify that as a WP:POLICY? XavierItzm (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Who said anything about disliking what the Associated press has to say? Go back and re-read my comment, cobber. WWGB (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Is his rapping career relevant? For example, Kyle Rittenhouse, I doubt from the off we'd mention his TikTok "4doorsmorewhores"? If he has significant numbers on his Soundcloud, and it's his job, then I would support inclusion. If it's just a small social media sort of following, then I think it's trivial. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

May we limit archive size to 70 kB?

May we limit archive size to 70 kB? I tried to do this on my phone, but it keeps crashing the browser. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

As of the time I'm typing this, the size of Archive 1 is about 64.5 kB, so if your browser is crashing, so unfortunately I don't think limiting the archive size to 70 kB will fix your issue. Maybe there's an issue with the code on the page itself? Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 Self-trout As I am rereading, I realize that I likely misread/misunderstood your question. I defer to others as to an appropriate talk page archive size. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Reply - Just took it upon myself. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Six victims, five charges

This confused me for a moment, but it appears that the charges were brought before the sixth victim died? If this is the case, perhaps a footnote can be added to the lead? Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. A note is a good idea. The sixth charge will likely be formally lodged on Monday. Moncrief (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added a note, it can be removed or adjusted depending on how the charges are mentioned after the sixth is filed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 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: Moot. Page has already been moved to a different title. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

---

2021 Waukesha Christmas parade attack → Waukesha Christmas parade attack – 2021 should be removed from the title. This is a well-known attack which doesn't need the year for disambiguation or any other reason, similar to Virgina Tech shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support move - No need to include the year when this incident is already unique for being the only "Waukesha Christmas parade attack". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support move - Only such Waukesha Christmas parade attack so far. BTW, can we reduce the archive size to 70 kB? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOYEAR. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Year is not needed per WP:NOYEAR GoPats (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOYEAR Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. No need for year. While we're at it, consider capitalizing Parade. Appears to have been part of the proper name in the original source, the Waukesha Chamber of Commerce website. Not sure if enough RS are capitalizing it to justify us doing it, however. If we could capitalize that word, it would help eliminate any remaining ambiguity in the title. Not a hill I'm going to die on, but just wanted to throw it out there as a possibility. (Edit: A search of Newspapers.com finds references of the name from the 1970s until 2004 with inconsistent capitalization of that word, probably because no one thought it mattered enough to be consistent. So, whatever.) Moncrief (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  Comment As I think about it further, my ideal title would be Waukesha parade attack. Don't know that "Christmas" is needed for the long term. We get it now, but in the future it may seem extraneous information and potentially confusing, considering the attack occurred over a month before Christmas. Moncrief (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree - Christmas isn't needed in the title & isn't being used prominently by the media. Jim Michael (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree too. But how about "Waukesha Parade Massacre"? That conveys that this attack actually did some damage and killed a number of people, the equivalent of a "mass shooting", and also conveys that this was a sudden and unexpected attack on people who did not think they were even threatened. "Parade attack" makes it sound like a group of people attacked a parade but were beaten back. editeur24 (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't have articles about attacks that don't do significant damage. Most attacks are sudden & unexpected for the victims. The current title doesn't imply that there were multiple attackers, nor that the attack was repelled. Few attacks with single-figure death tolls are commonly known as massacres. Even if your title became the common name, parade & massacre wouldn't begin with capital letters. Jim Michael (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support A step in the right direction. As for caps, either works. The Waukesha Christmas Parade is simultaneously a proper event and a Christmas parade in Waukesha. If we drop "Christmas", though, lowercase p is mandatory. All or nothing sort of technical deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support, and hopefully a disambiguating year will never be necessary. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support, here be the only one. Generally I lean toward years in titles due to ambiguity, but with this one we're approaching WP:SNOWfall. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Jehochman ^Talk 20:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  Should you close out the vote and note it's closed at the top of the section? Moncrief (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• The move is supposed to be to Waukesha Christmas parade attack and I support such a move. Note right now someone took out Christmas from the title. XavierItzm (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I started this move request, suggesting removing 2021 from the title. One of the other commenters here suggested removing Christmas from the title as well. I agreed with that, so an admin moved it to the shorter, suggested title which no-one disagreed with until you did after the move. Why do you think Christmas should be in the title? Jim Michael (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

Move review for "Waukesha parade attack"

I just started a move review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_November#Waukesha_parade_attack. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Lots of media reports of this incident as it may or may not relate to bail reform

Some sources are relating this incident to bail reform, whereas others are saying there is no relation. I think both of these arguments should be included.

Here are some sources:

New York Times: "Waukesha Suspect’s Previous Release Agitates Efforts to Reduce Bail"

https://web.archive.org/web/20211125103116/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/25/us/waukesha-wisconsin-brooks-bail.html

NPR: "There's a backlash brewing against bail reform after the parade tragedy in Waukesha"

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/25/1059019616/theres-a-backlash-brewing-against-bail-reform-after-the-parade-tragedy-in-waukes

Vice: "The Right Is Using Waukesha As a Weapon Against Bail Reform"

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3abqmn/waukesha-darrell-brooks-bail-reform

ABC Chicago affiliate: "Behind the prosecutor who acknowledged suspect's low bail before Waukesha parade tragedy"

https://abc7chicago.com/waukesha-christmas-parade-wisconsin-crash-darrell-brooks-suspect/11272101/

The Independent: "Wisconsin parade: Lawmakers push for bail reform after Darrell Brooks freed days before Christmas parade attack"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/wisconsin-parade-bail-reform-darrell-brooks-b1963566.html

Baxter329 (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This would be good in the Aftermath section. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The ABC Chicago is a reprint of a CNN piece and it's probably the most comprehensive and neutral take on this. I added a quote from the prosecutor office that granted his bail, but there's more that could be added. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Media criticism of the Washington Post for saying the Waukesha massacre was “caused by a SUV”

This is the source of the Washington Post claim:

https://web.archive.org/web/20211125033742/https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1463686399123730443

And these are media criticisms of the claim:

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

https://www.thewrap.com/washington-post-waukesha-tweet/

https://www.yahoo.com/now/washington-post-deletes-tweet-saying-165938063.html

https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/25/washington-post-waukesha-parade-darrell-brooks/

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/11/25/washington-post-says-waukesha-massacre-was-caused-by-an-suv-n1536335

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/washington-post-waukesha-tweet-suv/2021/11/25/id/1046212/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10243585/Woke-Washington-Post-blasted-claim-Waukesha-tragedy-killed-six-caused-SUV.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

Baxter329 (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The usual suspects... Please see WP:RSP EvergreenFir (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

In this case, all of those so-called "unreliable" sources are telling the truth, and it's actually the "reliable" source that told a falsehood. Baxter329 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

But also, a media source deletes a tweet and issued a retraction. This is irrelevant to many things, not least this article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

They deleted it, but there was no retraction. A retraction would involve making a second tweet in response to the first tweet, where the second tweet pointed out the error of the first tweet. Baxter329 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I was reading one of those 'sources' you listed, referring to this tweet. So someone deletes a tweet ... is perhaps even less interesting. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn't that they deleted the tweet. The issue is that one of the country's most well regarded newspapers falsely blamed six murders on an inanimate object. Baxter329 (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Take it up with your local complaints bureau. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Even if this were covered by RSs, it's hardly notable. Someone who does the Twitter for WaPo expressed themselves poorly. And? Do you think they were saying the SUV had intentionality and drove itself, the suspect a mere passenger? Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Criticism in media of other media is a matter of attributed opinion, and as such it is not required to come from a source considered "reliable for statements of fact". There is no question that WaPo published this claim. The criticism is notable and widespread. Per the WP:RSP chart, the Fox link is usable (in-text attribution would be used anyway because this is a matter of media criticism, and we are not dealing with a talk show). PJ Media isn't on the chart there. The Wrap isn't even politically contentious. To dismiss a list of sources like that as "the usual suspects" smacks of political partisanship and a refusal to even consider available information.

It is bad enough that Wikipedia shows the political bias that it does in determining the reliability of sources, without misrepresenting WP:RS entirely. 174.93.70.56 (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Daily Mail, NewsMax, DailyCaller, etc. are all garbage sources that we do not use on Wikipedia. Given that this is political, I'd find Fox News WP:QUESTIONABLE at best. The article from PJ Media literally has "Editor's Note: Help PJ Media fight back against lying liberal media who will do anything to preserve their leftist narrative." So yeah, the usual suspects. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Fox is not WP:QUESTIONABLE it's literally listed as "generally reliable" under WP:RSP in fields other than politics. That's as high as it can get and this shooting is not a political issue. Additionally, the Wrap has the same "generally reliable" rating. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: shooting? But I'd argue this is a political / politicized topic (BLM specifically). Fox is the network that pushed the "War on Christmas" crap too. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Shooting... yea I meant vehicle attack or whatever this is called haha. You might be right that this is politicized, but this is not explicitly political enough for Fox to just not be used, it's not like it's deprecated or even unreliable in political topics anyway. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

We could cite Fox News or WaPo to say an officer shot the SUV. That's a fact. But citing either to accuse the other of lying to appease/enrage their Democrat/Republican fanbases/sponsors is precisely where "these things" get politicized. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Who gives a flying fuck about a now-deleted tweet from the Washington Post? Is this information important to give context to the event for people who may be reading this article in the future? Of course not, it's completely unimportant. Maybe it could be included in Washington Post#Criticism and controversies, but even then it's probably too unimportant to matter. Mlb96 (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. It's a weird take, but it doesn't add anything meaningful to this article, and the criticism is even less germane. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about the SUV attack, not about media coverage of the SUV attack. Criticism of one media outlet's tweet is too trivial to mention. Six people are dead and you want criticism of a tweet to be added? Bueller 007 (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This list of sources ranges from "poor" to "wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole". Even if there were non-garbage sources, there would be issues of WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. --JBL (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I think mentioning that the media has been criticized for downplaying the attack does warrant a mention in the aftermath section. There are three RS publications on it: [1] [2] [3] Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

If there is some sort of pattern, then maybe. But a single incident? No. And keep in mind that Fox News will publish an article if someone at WaPo/NYT/CNN/MSNBC so much as sneezes, so coverage from them means absolutely nothing in regards to whether an incident of media bias is important enough to include. Mlb96 (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

We're not just talking about one occasion. I agree with you mentioning this one WaPo incident is not warranted. I'm advocating for a broad mentioning: "Some media sources have been criticized for supposedly downplaying the severity of the attack" as this statement is supported by the RS I provided. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

There's the usual suspect tabloids and blogs whose job it is to create endless sensationalist drama rather than report the news. So is this a real controversy or one that is simply conjured up for clicks and outrage? Just because these sources have mentioned this, doesn't mean we have to include it. I've gone through the article to ensure it only uses high quality journalistic sources rather than sites or tabloids and have even swapped out some borderline or questionable sources. None of these sources have even covered or mentioned this, while they have covered the bail reform controversy for example. So that's why the bail reform is in there, but this isn't. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Peculiar wording on bail reform

Harizotoh9 insists we must use these words. We cannot simplify. We cannot clarify. We have to be vague and complex. Anyone else see the point? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Might going with the simplified version, but changing "sparked" to "reignited nationwide", get at what he's trying to say? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Might he think "bail reform" means these increases in bail for COVID reasons, despite the Wikilink saying it generally means the opposite? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

We can let the reader do their own thinking. We should follow what the source says, rather than inventing our own framing of the issue. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not inventing my own framing if that's what you're implying, as the description of the article on NPR's site says:

"Critics of the movement to reduce cash bail cite the $1000 cash bail paid by Darrell E. Brooks, Jr., weeks before he allegedly plowed his SUV through the Waukesha Christmas parade"

and the website title says: "Critics say bail reform needs to go after the Waukesha parade tragedy".

I hadn't noticed that the website title differs from official headline of the article and the article itself does not technically use the word "critics". The article cites the NY Post and "Conservative analysts" who are in fact critical of bail reform so it seems to be splitting hairs in any case. Conservative analysis who are critical of bail reform vs. critics of bail reform. The NYTimes piece says "Longtime critics".

USA Today uses this language: "sparking widespread outrage and discussions around bail reform."

Currently the article uses the WP:VOICE to definitively say: "The attack has triggered a backlash against bail reform." which makes it sound like there is a universal condemnation of bail reform rather than it coming from certain individuals and organizations. The next sentence then just rehashes that he was out of a 1000 dollar bail, but doesn't explain the significance of it in the context of the debate over bail reform or that critics were saying that Brooks' bail was too low. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It is implicit that a backlash means there were critics. I'm not sure how adding the word "critics" would clarify. Also implicit is that this is a disputed issue. Nobody would read about a backlash (NPR's word) and think that the world was unanimously of the same opinion. Far from it. The next sentence provides context: he was out on $1,000 bail after running somebody down with a car (allegedly), which is the same sort of thing he's now accused of at the parade. I think any reader can successfully connect the dots and form their own opinion. I was not suggesting that the prior wording was WP:NOR. I said that we should follow the source, and then I read the source, and then I rewrote the two sentences to be brief, accurate and neutral, as best I could. Feel free to make or suggest further improvements. Jehochman ^Talk 16:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph or sentence mentioning no known connection to Rittenhouse verdict?

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to include a paragraph in the Aftermath section discussing the widespread speculation that this was an attack related to the Rittenhouse verdict? The paragraph would not be speculating that there was a connection, but would be basically reporting that widespread speculation exists. This incident took place just 2 days after the verdict was announced, Waukesha is only 45 miles from Kenosha and in the same state, and the suspect is black and the parade-goers were predominantly white. It is natural for people to wonder if there is a connection. People from both sides have publicly speculated. So I'm just wondering if this should be included in the Aftermath section and wanted to start a (calm) discussion.

It could be along these lines: "In the days following the attack, there was widespread speculation by the media and general public about a possible connection between this parade attack and the not-guilty verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. The speculation was due to the timing (two days apart), the proximity (45 miles apart), and the races of the suspect and victims (black and predominantly white, respectively). Law enforcement has not announced any motive for the attack, and Mr. Brooks has provided no explanation for his actions."

Obviously sources would have to be provided. Would this fall within Wikipedia policies? DropShot244 (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide the best three sources that indicate this speculation is widespread? VQuakr (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that any reliable sources have made any such speculation. And no, "The Gateway Pundit" does not count as a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not that the RS would be making the speculation. It's that it would be commenting on it, and stating that no connection has been made. Many articles that I read about it have a paragraph mentioning the Kenosha verdict and that authorities at this time do not think there is a connection. For example:

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/injuries-reported-after-suv-plows-into-crowd-at-waukesha-wisconsin-christmas-parade/2690489/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/22/several-injured-after-car-speeds-through-christmas-parade-in-wisconsin-reports

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/24/fact-check-waukesha-parade-attack-suspects-bail-set-5-million/8750217002/

The first two articles are just reporting on the attack and make reference to there being no known connection to Kenosha. And the USA Today article is fact checking unsubstantiated claims made by conservatives on Twitter. I've never heard of Gateway Pundit. Anyway I was just wondering if it would be helpful to have a similar paragraph here, stating this is why people are making the natural connection between the two but law enforcement has not found a connection. DropShot244 (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Trivial news mentions that the events are unrelated do not need to be replicated in the article. This isn't a news site, and no one is going to remember 10 years from now that these two unrelated events were chronologically near each other. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok that is fine if that is what people think. It is often difficult to determine what is and is not trivial. I personally don't think there is a connection and thought this would be a way of addressing it. I find it more noteworthy than the paragraph on bail reform or at least similar, but that's just me. DropShot244 (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, upon re-reading those articles, instead of a whole paragraph in Aftermath it could just be a sentence in the Accused section, right after the one saying authorities do not think it is a terrorist attack. There could be a similar statement saying authorities do not think it is related to the Rittenhouse verdict. That would be better IMO. And get rid of all the reasons/details I put in the original paragraph as unnecessary. But if people don't think it warrants mention then that is fine too. I just wanted to ask the question. DropShot244 (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with DropShot244 that this warrants inclusion somewhere in the article, maybe a sentence under accused is the best option. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Suspect had high risk assessment before being released

Suspect had high risk assessment before being released. His low bail was not supposed to happen. Someone goofed up.

Sources:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-waukesha-holiday-parade-crash-was-released-low-bail-human-erro-rcna7515

https://www.wxow.com/news/state-news/da-overworked-assistant-set-bail-too-low-for-parade-suspect/article_6f106e06-bc83-5cea-a7ad-f5f323ce2a8a.html

https://www.weau.com/2021/12/02/da-says-overworked-assistant-made-mistake-parade-suspects-bail/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/waukesha-christmas-parade-suspect-darrell-brooks-bail-was-set-by-overworked-assistant-milwaukee-da-says

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/12/02/suspect-darrell-brooks-waukesha-parade-attack-assessed-pretrial-risk/8822039002/

https://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/2021/12/02/darrell-brooks-jr-case-tragic-mistake-risk-assessment-worked/8827411002/

Baxter329 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

WP:BLPGOSSIP. nableezy - 21:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

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. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 23:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

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. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 23:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The only sources covering his social media posts so far are Fox News, Daily Mail, NY Post, Toronto Sun. Noticing a pattern? All right wing partisan tabloids. Right wing and left wing tabloids should have no place in an article like this. I contributed to the Killing of Gabby Petito article, and made sure that only high quality sources from respectable neutral sources were used in that article and it's doubly important for a case like this. Sometimes people just grab the first source they come across for a citation and it might be an unreliable source in which case it's just a matter of swapping out the source. In other cases, the unreliable source will have slanted opinion meant to push a particular viewpoint or agenda, and using that source will bias the article. The responsible mainstream media are likely waiting until investigators start discussing possible motive and his social media posts before making comments on it themselves. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesnt really matter if something is right wing or not, what matters is if it is rumor and conjecture or what reliable sources report as fact. Until some reliable sources report as fact that this was his FB profile and this is what he said then it does not belong in here. I am kind of dismayed at how this has turned in to an AP2 type of article, but that has nothing to do with my objection to what I removed. nableezy - 03:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Noticing a pattern? Yes, that left wing media, along with left-wing Wiki editors, want to suppress as much information as possible. You want a title like "Incident" (actual title used here) and argue against 6 dead and 60+ wounded needing a title like "Attack" or "massacre" with excuse of your go-to race-baiting leftist sites using soft terms. You don't want any information about the murderer, and your go-to again are sites who haven't wavered from waiting a day after Brooks was arrested to even use his name, and still every headline is "suspect" meanwhile you're still shoving Rittenhouse's name even into this article. (Control F his name versus Brooks in the talk section). You're suppressing any discussion about including legitimate information. Including my 100% substantiated and valid request to include that Darrell Brooks is a Black man who killed white people, since you find it necessary to repeatedly reference race in Rittenhouse's article without any substantiation or justification. Yet here we have the suspect in his own words declaring intent to murder white people and you suppress it. I'm sure I can find 100 Wikipedia articles that mention deleted profiles and their contents even if they weren't "verified" (whatever that even means, unless anyone personally identifies it was their page, what standard are you even demanding? That someone was framing him in advance of his own actions by making a fake account pretending to be him predicting his actions?) J1DW (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It's ludicrous that something reported in numerous respectable, high-circulation publications that are at least as reliable as the New York Times isn't considered to have enough sourcing. How can that be anything but blatant political bias? Particularly when the facts claimed aren't particularly implausible for a black amateur rapper, especially for someone whose murder of a group of people in a Christmas parade otherwise lacks any hint of other motive. editeur24 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"At least as reliable as the New York Times." Not according to WP:RSP, which is what we use in cases like this. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Until we have reliable sources that point out the racial criticisms and the belief Brook is a "Black supremacist" (On a developing issue, mind you), we don't have a reason to use unreliable, bias sources. Kyle Rittenhouse's case on the other hand has completely run its course meaning we have more sources, and his race (Cited by reliable sources) is relevant because of the political aspects, given he killed 2 men who were seen by many as Black Lives Matter protesters. 2603:8080:F605:4078:A08F:23A4:BE44:6254 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a questionable assertion. Do you have any sources supporting the claim that the two men killed in the Rittenhouse incident were "seen by many as Black Lives Matter protestors"? Without reliable, unbiased sources, it seems like there is no reason to explicitly claim that both mem are perceived "by many" to be BLM protestors, especially given that the issue has been so politicized in the media. You are making a specific claim about public opinion on a particular topic, and in that case, you really need to provide a citation for your assertion, and that citation should provide actual concrete statistical data in support of your claim. Otherwise, your claims about popular opinion regarding these two individuals is mere hearsay. 2601:198:4100:17E0:216:3EFF:FE16:1C1D (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2021

Change motivation from unknown to racial hatred as the assailant made his racist views extremely clear on his social media and rap lyrics. The title should be changed to Waukesha Terrorist Attack as it was not an incident which implies the event was natural or of an accidental nature. This attack was intentional and had a purpose of inciting terror aka terrorism. 2600:1008:B063:10FF:CFA:1A66:D42B:8AA2 (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Cedric Cornwall is the person who approved the $1,000 bail

Cedric Cornwall is the person who approved the $1,000 bail for Brooks after Brooks tried to run over the mother of his child.

Sources:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/12/03/commissioner-who-okd-low-bail-waukesha-parade-suspect-reassigned/8857806002/

https://www.wisn.com/article/commissioner-approved-parade-suspects-bail-reassigned/38423894#

https://www.lawofficer.com/cedric-cornwall-darrell-brooks/

https://www.seehafernews.com/2021/12/06/court-commissioner-who-set-too-low-bail-for-parade-suspect-reassigned/

https://tennesseestar.com/2021/12/04/wisconsin-commissioner-who-approved-alleged-waukesha-suv-killer-bail-reassigned/

Baxter329 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That the bail was criticized as low and the commissioner was reassigned pending an investigation is worth noting in the article. The commissioner's name doesn't rate mention per WP:BLPNAME and the broader policy of greatest care for BLPs. VQuakr (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Mugshot copyright status

Can we hold off on adding this image until there is evidence that the license is acceptable? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Wisconsin has a very broad, open records law with few limits. Quoting the law (Section 19.81(1) of the Wisconsin Statutes (2003–04)): “In recognition of the fact that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them. Further, providing persons with such information is declared to be an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of officers and employees whose responsibility it is to provide such information. To that end, §§ 19.32 to 19.37 shall be construed in every instance with a presumption of complete public access, consistent with the conduct of governmental business. The denial of public access generally is contrary to the public interest, and only in an exceptional case may access be denied.”

Furthermore, the Sherriff's department provided the photo for publication, according to every news source that published it. I'd say, unless you can prove the photo is explicitly excluded by law (it's not), then it's fine to have here. Reverting of course.Mattnad (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That media file is still missing evidence of permission (see here). If not corrected, it will be deleted seven days after it's original upload date of 10 December 2021. It needs to be fixed there first before being re-added here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

also Winter Garden

If there is enough coverage on what happened December 15th during the Christmas parade in Winter Garden, Florida to warrant an article, should we list that in a see also due to it's similarity?

• https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2021/12/13/winter-garden-christmas-parade-cancelled-after-driver-crashes-into-route

It appears that a police officer blocking the parade was nearly hit and then a family inside a car was hit when the officer dodged. WakandaQT (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

No deaths, no injuries, no big deal. WWGB (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 December 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: withdrawn by nominator. A move review is still underway. (non-admin closure) Pilaz (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Waukesha parade attack → 2021 Waukesha parade attack – The current title violates the WP:NCEVENTS guideline and the WP:CONSISTENT policy. WP:NCEVENTS clearly states that "in the majority of cases", the title of the article should include "WHEN the incident happened"; and WP:CONSISTENT mandates that article titles be consistent with other vehicle-ramming attacks: the quasi-totality of articles that describe vehicle-ramming incidents include the date even if they only happened once, i.e. 2016 Nice truck attack or the 2017 New York City truck attack. Pilaz (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Wisconsin has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - Should this Requested Move be opened while a move review is actually taking place? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Thanks for letting me know, had no idea that was still ongoing. Withdrawn for now. Pilaz (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

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.

Move from Waukesha Christmas parade attack

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 page was proposed for move from 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade attack → Waukesha Christmas parade attack. One editor argued that all the comments were for moving to Waukesha parade attack and eliminated "Christmas." Let's see if @AzureCitizen:, @Jax 0677:, @Crouch, Swale:, @GoPats:, @Iamreallygoodatcheckers:, @Ribbet32: have anything to say about that interpretation of their comments. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Your argument includes a mis-statement of fact. There were four three editors, not one, who considered and agreed with dropping Christmas: @Moncrief:, @Jim Michael:, @Editeur24:, @InedibleHulk:, the first three explicit and the last implicit. Curiously, you did not notify any of them about starting this thread, which you should have done per WP:CANVAS if you notified anybody at all. You, thus far, are the only editor to oppose dropping Christmas, and you haven't stated a substantial reason why.

There was a question whether or not to capitalize "parade" because it was unclear whether "Christmas Parade" was a proper name or not. The sources appear to be inconsistent. Rather than having to decide that question, it seemed like it would be simpler, and better, to drop "Christmas" altogether. You will notice that the people said to drop "2021" because this is the only Waukesha parade attack in history. The exact same logic can be applied to the word "Christmas." In some sense, "Christmas" is even more redundant than "2021" because it's only needed if there were more than one parade attack in Waukesha in 2021, which seems like a very remote possibility this late in the year. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't implicitly support or oppose anything. Just said the p should be lowercase if this happens. Same deal as telling people in general they should stop, drop and roll if they catch fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Oppose move to Waukesha parade attack. Support move to Waukesha Christmas parade attack. A page should not be moved like that during a move discussion until a verdict is reached. I think a formal move review is in order. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reason for wanting to include Christmas in the title? Jim Michael (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Reply - It is a Christmas parade. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

But that fact isn't often prominent in media headlines, it happened in Nov, and it's an extra word that's not needed in the title. The current title is clear & concise and has no ambiguity. The 2016 Berlin truck attack was against a Christmas market, but it doesn't have or need Christmas in its title. Jim Michael (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• It's fine, unless you are aware of another Waukesha parade attack article. Please don't tell me this is one of those "they're trying to get rid of Xmas" things, or I will lose the will to live. Black Kite (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Its probably not needed especially since its not Christmas yet. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Move as proposed. The fact that it was a Christmas parade is in fact prominent in the headlines, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and the fact that it's November means nothing anymore because of Christmas creep, regardless of one's POV about Christmas creep being a bad thing. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Waukesha "Christmas parade" per Ribbet32. The common name for this event almost invariably includes the term "Christmas" parade— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 21:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Point of order - This discussion should continue but please try to clarify with sources, if you support adding Christmas, whether it should by "Waukesha Christmas Parade attack" or "Waukesha Christmas parade attack." In other words, is "Waukesha Christmas Parade" a proper name, or is "Christmas" being used as an adjective to describe parade. Jehochman ^Talk 22:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment Thanks Jehochman. I agree. This article is spinning like a top. It's a seven day old, 850 word article with over 850 edit revisions and almost no content addition in the last 350 edits - editors are recycling/reverting the same edits over and over again. It's been interesting to watch. Here are the 16 names for this article in the last 7 days:

Darrell Brooks (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

Darrell E. Brooks (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Attack (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade incident (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

2021 Waukesha Christmas parade incident (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

2021 Waukesha car crash (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

2021 Waukesha attack (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

Milwaukee parade attack (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car rampage (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car attack (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car crash (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

2021 Waukesha Christmas massacre (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

Waukesha Christmas parade attack (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

Waukesha parade crash (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

Christmas parade attack (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

Waukesha parade attack (current)

We might want to shift the focus to content additions.Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support "2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade" rampage (or attack) or "Waukesha Christmas Parade" rampage (or attack) as 2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade is the official name of the event per the Waukesha County Website. Rampage means a course of violent, riotous, or reckless action or behavior. Attack means the act of attacking with physical force or unfriendly words.Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Data: This is how our readers are searching for this article. These are the page views on Wikipedia (using Pageviews tool)...

2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car rampage → 51,637

2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Attack → 45,980

Note - this was the first title given to this article.

2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car crash → 28,038

2021 Waukesha Christmas parade incident → 5,438

2021 Waukesha car crash → 2,732

2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car attack → 2,150

2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade incident → 1,112

Waukesha parade attack → 1,006

Waukesha Christmas parade attack → 129

2021 Waukesha attack → 284

Milwaukee parade attack → 10

Waukesha parade crash → 8

2021 Waukesha Christmas massacre → 7

Christmas parade attack → 1

• Waukesha parade crash Common name in mainstream reliable sources generally preferred by most non-banned Wikipedians, as explicitly verified by the equal-but-opposite mainstream reliable source, a fact conveniently not disputed by the sources said to use it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Don't let those eight pageviews fool you, either, it was never an automatically viewable page and only became a usable redirect on Saturday morning (or midnightish Friday, Waukesha time), well after the "war on Wikipedia" passed the American news spotlight to "Omicron". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  To give you a direct comparison of yesterdays page-views for "2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car rampage" vs "Waukesha parade crash" both of which were redirects on November 27, and correcting for hours accessible, "2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car rampage" had 600 times more page-views than "Waukesha parade crash". I'm sharing the data based on your concern above and to be helpful, not to push my opinions on you. Wiki-psyc (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, no worries. I hope you don't mind me undoing your indentation, either (I wasn't replying to myself ). That title has good views, but probably zero uses outside of Wikipedia and its infinite mirrors. I doubt humans are typing it, too. Possibly social media shares or uncorrected pipelinks coming from inside the house? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I just started a move review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_November#Waukesha_parade_attack. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• Waukesha parade attack. Just as there is no reason to include 2021, there is no reason to include Christmas. They are both indicators of timing, which is not important here as there have been no other parade attacks in Waukesha, either in other years or in other holiday seasons. WWGB (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• Waukesha parade attack. Having "Christmas" in the title does nothing to avoid confusion or disambiguate. Just not a necessary word for the title. Obviously it will appear in the lead paragraph, but it's not absolutely essential information for a title. Among other reasons, there's zero evidence so far that the attack was related to Christmas. The attack is the crucial piece of information, not the reason for the parade. Most reasons I've seen for not supporting this move can be countered by WP:NOTBURO. Moncrief (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• Waukesha Christmas parade attack, as OP (obviously) and as per the discussion that was incorrectly closed. The sources mention that it was a Christmas parade. It's become part of the name. Follow the WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Waukesha parade attack meets the criteria at WP:TITLE for recognizability, concision, and precision. More disambiguators (Christmas, 2021, etc) are unnecessary, and those citing pageviews or Google hits don't understand our naming criteria. VQuakr (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, I preferred it when it had the word rampage, which has "movement" as part of its definition. Abductive (reasoning) 09:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  This story is no longer rapidly evolving. We should wait for the move review discussion to conclude and then you could propose another move to a better title, now that we have a good view of what happened and there may not be many significant developments until the criminal case resolves. Category: Vehicular rampage is what Wikipedia calls such events, and a quick search of the news shows that this term has been widely used, suggesting that your idea is at least plausible. Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Waukesha parade attack, per WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE (we are only as precise as necessary). Having "Christmas" in the title is actually confusing, becuase it was an Xmas-themed parade in November and nowhere near actual Christmas.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Waukesha parade attack - Unless there was another attack during a parade in Waukesha, it doesn't seem necessary to specify that it was a Christmas parade. We could also title it Waukesha Christmas parade attack by Darrell E. Brooks on November 21, 2021 at 4:39pm on the corner of Barstow and Main, and while that would be accurate, there is no need for that level of specificity in the title. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think you'll find it's actually Waukesha Christmas parade attack, suspected to have been carried out by Darrell E. Brooks on November 21, 2021 at 4:39pm CDT on the corner of Barstow and Main. You forgot that he was the suspect, and, of course, the time zone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I filed a request at WP:CR. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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.