Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Adding racial motivations of attacker.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Which charges should be added to infobox?

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, they are not called racist because no RS has said they were.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Add in the Response Section the 2022 Buffalo Shooting

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 Buffalo shooter had written the name of one of the victims on the AR-15 and then wrote "There's your Reparations." 2601:2C7:680:3C90:7019:BC26:1852:323 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

NOt sure that is at all relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It could be pretty darn relevant, given how hard some people tried to push the narrative that the man was a "black supremacist" (whatever that means), and the Waukesha "attack" was racially motivated. Fastr forward half a year and the culprit of the Buffalo shooting writes the name of one of the victims on his gun - something that was indeed covered by reliable sources. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

He praised Hitler, praised the Holocaust, posted about attacking whites on social media and called them savages. If this was a white dude doing this to blacks there would be no hesitation to recognize a racial motivation. Indeed, we see that with the Buffalo shooting. 2601:18D:8D80:A560:4C6D:9591:90A4:7663 (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Only is RS recognised it, they have not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

IP, your comment does not strike me as one made with the intention of improving the article. Reliable sources said nothing about what you claim about the SUV driver. But reliable sources HAVE pointed out indisputable facts that at least suggest the Buffalo shooter, a white supremacist, antisemite and neonazi, seems to be at least somewhat familiar with the kind of people who push this narrative about the Waukesha incident. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of "reliable sources" consistently choosing to omit certain information that goes against the narrative they want. Kind of like how this mass murder was being called a "Parade Crash" by the media. That was even the title of this article for a while. I'm also aware of activist editors using wikipedia rules to try to push a certain narrative. The co-founder of the website Larry Sanger has written on this pretty extensively.

You're accusing people of trying to push a narrative while simultaneously referring to the Waukesha Attack as Waukesha "attack", as if it wasn't an attack. And you claim you don't know what the word "black supremacist" means...Do you know what "white supremacist" means?

Also, like Slatersteven, I'm failing to see the relevance of the Buffalo incident to this. You claim it's relevant because of what you perceive to be narrative pushing by people claiming the Waukesha attack was racially motivated. How would a future unrelated event (the Buffalo shooting) retroactively affect whether or not Darrel Brooks's mass murder in Waukesha was racially motivated? Your logic doesn't follow. 2601:18D:8D80:A560:18E7:A991:8966:BAE2 (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2022 (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.

Previous discussion on possible racial bias motivation

• Talk:Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack/Archive_1#Distinguishing_features_about_Darrell_Brooks_Jr
• Talk:Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack/Archive_1#More_tedious_race_discussion
• Talk:Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack/Archive_3#Why_is_the_racial_motivation_being_censored?
• Talk:Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack/Archive_5#Adding racial motivations of attacker.

EvergreenFir (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

You should put this in a Q&A thing like we have for the Elon Musk talk page June Parker (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This Was Terrorism

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.

---

Publish it truthfully. 2603:6000:A640:DA:414:308C:66AC:BD4B (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

You would need multiple reliable sources for us to label the incident as terrorism related. We only report what has been clearly stated elsewhere in reliable sources. If you can point to some we might consider a change depending on the source(s). -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Are we back to entertaining these instead of removing them as disruptive? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"entertaining these" stop trying to take away from the fact that this was an anti-white terrorist attack. They're not disruptive. (Redacted) InfernoBubbless (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

We need RS saying it was, else it was not. 11:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

All you need to do is reference Math Boi Fly's own social media pages to prove he is a Black Supremacist and this was revenge killing for the Rittenhouse verdict. His social media pages were full of "kill whitey" vitriol. It's all there for all to see. If Wikipedia had any integrity left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4800:3A10:FC4F:2B62:568F:24D5 (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:or, we need wp:rs to say it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Well that presents a problem when the agenda of these "reliable" sources leads them not to mention the long, long history of vitriolic anti-white hatred despite it being a rather important part of the motivation of the attack. It's shocking that not a single part of this article even mentions the word "white". Why on earth wouldn't we use primary sources as sources for the articles? Why would we need to wait for some daddy's money online "journalist" to spin the story for clicks before we can reference it? Fredalot (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Because WP:5P and WP:V. Go read WP:TRUTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The sources that make this tragic crime about race are strongly right-wing and appear to be in bad faith. Until a more reliable source says this man targeted them because they were white (Despite dozens more disproving this) we can't mention race that way. June Parker (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I read through the entire social media myself trying to find any instance of him hating white people. All I found was him obbsessing over police brutality and about how terrible American Slavery/Jim Crow was. a Reliable Source can't report on something that is an objective lie. June Parker (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It can/should be mentioned that he obsessed over police treatment of minorities and how horrible white people have treated black Americans through out time such as Jim Crow. Similar to how the 2022 NY subway attack suspect's own record is commented on on their own page. Considering the Race of the suspect, and the race of the victims it may be of some interest to readers that the suspect often posted critically of the way white Americans have currently and historically oppressed minorities. 66.172.69.40 (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If you're still trying to label this crime as racially motivated you'll need a few dozen sources. June Parker (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

No one here would be labeling this crime as for sure racially motivated, just that via, the suspects own posts, which you have read, were very critical of the injustices enacted against minorities. This could be placed under Suspects Extremist Views. In a similar vein as the 2022 New York City Subway attack suspect's views are described. 66.172.69.40 (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Read wp:or and wp:primary. We describe the 2022 New York City Subway attack suspect's views based upon what wp:rs have said, not based upon our own anaylisis. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2022 (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.

"Terrorism" narrative

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.

---

Opening up by saying I do not believe this crime was racially motivated or a hate crime. I believe anyone insisting such is just a troll or hates black people, and wants to use this tragedy as an excuse because the victims were white.

However, given the 2022 Buffalo shooter had the names of a couple victims of this crash on his gun [1], I feel like we should look into reliable sources that report on (Not support) how this tragedy is being used by the alt-right to push the White Genocide/Black Terrorism narrative. Since it doesn't sound like it's going to stop any time soon. June Parker (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"not racially motivated" looking at the suspect's social media posts would prove otherwise dude Fredalot (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You mean the social media posts where he expresses great sympathy over the 400+ years of enslavement and torment that us black people suffered at the hands of a pwoer structure that hated us? And victims of police brutality, both black and white? As well as sympathy for murder victims Breoanna Taylor and Trayvon Martin?

Those articles intentionally twisted those ideas to a hateful, fearful audience into an "Anti-white" thing. All sources claiming there is a racial motivation are biased and opinionated, this is why we don't use them. Kindly stop, dude. What do you have to say about my proposed edit, not the subject? June Parker (talk) 04:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

PLease read wp:rs. Also just because some loon thought it was terrorism and "exacted revenge" on innocent people, does not mean it was, it just means he was a (fill in your own insult here). Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2022 (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.

New comment

Shouldn't there be at least an entry that tries to address motive? Perhaps: No one has any idea why he intentionaly murdered all those people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C401:72D0:DD45:C71E:DBF6:DBE0 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The article already states that he was intoxicated at the time of the incident. There has been no evidence of premeditation. Dimadick (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this a joke? How about you stow it with your bias. Same with the dude below who said "Opening up by saying I do not believe this crime was racially motivated or a hate crime. I believe anyone insisting such is just a troll or hates black people, and wants to use this tragedy as an excuse because the victims were white." Not only was the dude racist against whites, but also Jews. https://www.foxnews.com/us/darrell-brooks-facebook-white-people-violence Jmajchrz (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

So then it WAS an accident? That's what the prosecution is going with? 2601:642:C401:72D0:5DFC:F982:D4CF:6F8A (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

No, they say it was a "Vehicle-ramming attack". Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Here's the deal. We only repeat what has been reported in reliable secondary sources. At the moment we are not stating this was racially motivated because that has not been reported by reliable sources. We have also not stated that it was not racially motivated, for the same reason. We do not deal in conjecture. Do I find it odd that both the authorities and the MSM have chosen to avoid the question of motive thus far? Yes. But that's neither here nor there as far the encyclopedia goes. If you can find solid reliable sources (not op-ed pieces) that discuss a motive for the attack, drop a line along with a link and we can talk about it. Until then this is going no-where at the speed of light. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  If MSM and the authorities avoided the motive, then it stands to reason that there was no motive. No motive is required for drunk driving. The only reason the claim that this was some premeditated thing with a concrete motivation even exists is because right wing pundits have tried to push this narrative. No evidence of it exists. If this is ever mentioned by any chance, it will be in the context of right wing media pushing a false narrative, and how that false narrative may have influenced the 2022 Buffalo shooting, as pointed out above (but that is much more likelyto happen on that article, rather than this one). 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  They do not avoid the motive, they just do not agree with the OP about what the motive was. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

clarification

Wilhelm's wife was a member of the Milwaukee Dancing Grannies. Wilhelm was a helper. I think it is important to tidy up the section regarding the members of the dance group, as the article mentions the dancers were solely grandmothers, yet the number of members who died is being shown as four. Here is a source: [2]. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

And who is Wilhelm? And being a wife does not preclude you from being a grandmother. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Wilhelm is a victim. My understanding from the source above is he was a helper and his wife was a member. Please change Four to Three and include the source above. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

"Four of the five people killed in the Waukesha Christmas parade attack on Sunday were affiliated with a dancing group of older women called the Milwaukee Dancing Grannies." is what your source says. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Closing request while under discussion, per template instructions. Please do no re-open it unless there is consensus for specific prose to be added, not a general request for tidying up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe being affiliated with something necessarily means you are a member. The NY Post source lists three names as members and one as a helper. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

But you can be, as many people who help as volunteers are also members of the organizations they help. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like we have a difference of opinion. If you are calling Wilhelm a member, I do not see how the Wikipedia article can mention that the Milwaukee Dancing Grannies is composed solely of grandmothers. Please be aware, I am not discrediting any work Wilhelm did for the Milwaukee Dancing Grannies. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Now that is a better point, yes its clear they are not all women. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Name change

The name of this article needs to be changed from “Waukesha Christmas parade attack” to “ Waukesha Christmas parade car accident”. It was hardly a purposeful attack 218.215.116.200 (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Was it not? Do you have sources saying this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems the OP is a troll. Sending this to archive. WWGB (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

WI vs Darrell Brooks

State just finished closing arguments.

(Btw. At one point earlier you have reported Brooks was out on bail Nov 19, 2021, but the further down in another section you report it was 2weeks before Nov 21, 22. 2604:2D80:DF0C:5B00:8B4:D3E2:A5C0:BC27 (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Reddit Post

Should the Reddit post incident be described in the article? 2600:1008:A100:CEDB:2DC2:A922:F6A1:A279 (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I see no good reason why it should. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"Attack" vs "Incident" or "Alleged Attack"

This is not obviously an attack at all. The defendant is currently arguing the case that it was not an attack, but an attempt to escape from police. Police officers even fired at his vehicle. Due to the current state of police killings of colored people in America, that could speak to the driver's state of mind as running from police, rather than attacking a parade, and negligently causing (a large number of) casualties in the process. Until the justice system resolves the issue, the terminology "Incident" or "Alleged Attack" or "Massacre" would be appropriate, as none of these terms include a connotation of intent, which is particularly important since intent has not yet been proven in the case. The incident is certainly a terrible tragedy, but it is not obviously an attack (yet). Wikipedia should not take opinions on current events. It is an encyclopedia, not an editorial column. DanaValerie (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources, dozens of which refer to the "Waukesha attack". Therefore, so do we. And since when does massacre not connote intent? WWGB (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

A massacre is defined as an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people. That is what happened. It focuses on the people, not the perpetrator. DanaValerie (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Footnote: I still think "incident" is a better term. I was just offering a few alternative choices. But "attack" does connotate that Brooks meant to kill people, which is not entirely clear at this point. "Incident" does not. And "Massacre" has nothing to do with Brooks, it shows respect to the victims of the horrendous event without placing any motive or intent; it simply means a lot of people were killed. The fact that other reliable sources use the word "attack" simply means that those sources thought it was obviously an attack at the time those articles were written. But after watching the trial for 12 days, Brooks has portrayed plausible explanations that make sense as to how this *could* be something other than an attack. After the trial is over, if he is convicted for the "intent" charges, then sure, call it an attack. But at the moment it's simply an "incident" or "massacre". DanaValerie (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

As others have said, we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Understood. DanaValerie (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I just changed it to accident to eliminate all biast 2001:8003:7CCB:A901:B4AB:8F1C:2B10:49D3 (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Its a valid point, at this time he has not been convicted and this is a wp:blp. We can't imply he has been by saying this was an attack. But this would also need apage move, as it would seem odd to call it an attack in the title, but not in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

He has been convicted on all counts. Point is now moot.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

He actually never argued that, no police were pursuing him at any time during the events leading to the attack and the officer who did fire on him did so as Brooks had reached the terminus of the parade route and was speeding away. But also, he never argued that he was fleeing police or anyone else. In fact, it's hard to discern what his defense brief was, as he appeared to simultaneously claim that it wasn't him and that it was an accident, somehow.

Intent was firmly established. The jury ruled on intent. It is not possible to proceed for three-quarters of a mile over sixty bodies "accidentally".

However, it is true that the state assiduously avoided bringing in evidence documenting the racial animus which would've established motive. In Wisconsin criminal law, "murder" is replaced with "intentional homicide". 01:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Notanipokay (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2022

Remove: Brooks had a history of social media posts advocating for violence against white people and Jews. Brooks was reported to have posted the phrases "Hitler knew who the real Jews were" and "Hitler was right" on Facebook. During his amateur rap career, Brooks rapped about being a "terrorist" and a "killer in the city".

Remove: Fox news source (45) cited for this section (https://www.foxnews.com/us/darrell-brooks-facebook-white-people-violence)

Reason: It uses Fox News (Unreliable source) which attempted to paint the incident (Referred to as a reckless accident) as an intentional anti-white hate crime with no real evidence beyond the perpetrator being black and the victims being white, a claim that was debunked by multiple sources used after this section. This is an idea expressed exclusively by right wing sources with no real proof. 2603:8080:F600:27A2:C86:67C8:C236:D777 (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely laughable. Fox News is no more unreliable than CNN, MSNBC, or any other mainstream media outlet. Jmajchrz (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

There are not multiple sources which "debunk" Brooks' racial animus and ideology, which is evident not in the few "rightwing sources" which reported on it, but by the document of his social media content and his persistent attempts to cite Moorish Traveler crypto-legalism in court. The ADL, while clearly intending to minimize this content, acknowledges it and verifies it's authenticity. 02:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Notanipokay (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The Fox News source is simply stating what the perpetrator did before the attack. In addition, the Wikipedia article simply states the perpetrator's history and does not paint the incident as an intentional anti-white hate crime, which is your reasoning on why some text should be removed. Inspector Eevee (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Inspector Eevee: Was there not a consensus to both not use Fox News articles as well as to not include mention of the suspect's social media posts (Which are only mentioned by Fox News) specifically because it implied this was an intentional anti-white hate crime? Going against what the sources say. Not to mention the section i requested be removed is already contradicted by the section after, given the former does incorrectly imply he has extremist views:

"According to the Anti-Defamation League, while Brooks had expressed many anti-semitic beliefs and opinions online,[46][47] "there appears to be little evidence that Brooks actively subscribes to an overarching extremist ideology."[47]"

There are numerous posts that were archived that went into detail about this and I'm sure you know about them. Please read some of them. 2603:8080:F600:27A2:F913:23DF:837F:561A (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

As familiar as you clearly are with the talk history of this article, it reveals something that you voiced these objections unsigned. 02:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Notanipokay (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Section ordering

To keep the narrative of the article in temporal sequence, I would suggest that the "Aftermath" section be moved before the "Perpetrator" section. Tevildo (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree and I came here to say the same thing, so I have BRD. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Fines/fees

He was ordered to pay an extremely hefty sum, I do not recall the exact amount, but should that be added to the sentence? DarmaniLink (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

If so, yes.XavierItzm (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I tried to add it but Dudhh immediately reverted it because for some reason, despite it being a recording of the live footage, it can't be a source.

If you wanna find a better source, go on ahead. Its in the edit history. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the WP:NOYT policy and it absolutely is a source so I reverted.

Should restitution be moved into its own section? DarmaniLink (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

appeals/motion to stay pending appeal shenanigans

Should this be put into its own post-trial section? DarmaniLink (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think creating a "Post-trial" subsection under Waukesha Christmas parade attack#Legal proceedings seems appropriate. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the use of trial footage as a source

So the trial footage has already been used as the basis for some reverts.

To avoid any possible edit wars, i think we should note how it should be sourced, what the acceptable channels which hold the archives are, and whether or not later uploaded highlights (by an official channel, without commentary) are acceptable. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, it's fairly unlikely the trial footage should be used as the sole source for anything where you find it. If you can't find a secondary source discussing it then it doesn't belong. This is a very high profile case so it simply implausible there's something that matters that can only be found in trial footage or transcripts. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Mugshot revisited

I have read the archived discussion about a Brooks mugshot.

This mugshot image was taken after his arrest for the parade incident. It was released by the Waukesha County Sheriff's Office on November 23, 2021. The discussion began on that date, but participants were apparently not aware of it at that time as it was not considered. One of the objections to a mugshot at the time of the discussion was that no mugshot was available related to the incident described in this article.

One of the caveats about mugshots is that they may be prejudicial to an accused. This no longer applies after conviction. Brooks is presumed to be guilty of the crimes unless an appeal results in a new trial and an acquittal.

I believe this mugshot is in the public domain under the Wisconsin Open Records Act.

My rationale for inclusion in this article is that Brooks was the sole instigator of the incident described in the article; the article would not exist but for his actions. Therefore his likeness is relevant and informative – at least as much so as the photo of an SUV like the one he drove through the parade, which already exists in the article. Any photo of him would do for this purpose, but others are far more likely to have copyright issues.

My intention is to (1) upload the above-linked mugshot to Commons, then (2) include the image at the top of the Perpetrator section of this article.

Comments? (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Notification of previous discussion's participants: @Harizotoh9, NorthBySouthBaranof, Lightburst, WWGB, Bueller 007, XavierItzm, Nil Einne, ScottishFinnishRadish, Samboy, and Helpfulwikieditoryay: (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work for for me for some reason, but I was able to obtain access via archive.org [3] and I don't see any evidence the Open Records Act releases material into the public domain as it pertains to copyright. It looks more like a classic freedom of information law which guarantees access to the public to various government records which may include the right to redistribute the material, but does not automatically release any claims to copyright to the material. We have a similar law in NZ Official Information Act 1982 but the government still has Crown copyright over most of their work. And see e.g. Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NCGov for a similar case on commons for a different state. Still if you believe different for Wisconsin, you're welcome to check on commons. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It will still be copyrighted in Wisconsin: https://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/wisconsin/. IIRC, the only states in which it will be in the public domain is Florida, Massachusetts, and California. (See c:Template:PD-FLGov, c:Template:PD-FLGov, c:Template:PD-MAGov, but not Template:PD-WIGov). Don't quote me on that though. Endwise (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Mugshots in the US are in the public domain if they are taken by federal LEAs (FBI or Federal Bureau of Prisons), but state ones are in general copyrighted. There are some exceptions, e.g. Florida (see c:Template:PD-FLGov), but Wisconsin is not special in this regard; the act you're referring to is about freedom of information, not copyright. Regardless though, I think you can still upload it if you want. Just locally, on Wikipedia, as a non-free image. Per WP:MUGSHOT this may be problematic if he was not convicted, but he has been convicted, so I don't think it's a problem. Endwise (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: Do you know what licensing template(s) would be expected for that approach? (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If it's appropriately licensable on Wikipedia, I have no objection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I took my best shot; see File:Darrell_Brooks_mugshot_2021-11-23.jpg. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)