Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2021 (2)

97.71.249.226 (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2021 (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. — IVORK _Talk 21:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

Police identified the suspect as Darrell Brooks Jr. Powerville (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2021 (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) 19:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

He is already in the article if that's what you want included. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Motive

Do not speculate or conduct your own research on potential motives of Brooks. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
His social media has Black Nationalist and racist posts. He promoted hate against Caucasians. This was a terrorist attack, fix the title. Don't minimalise it just because he was black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3A0:4940:706C:4C9E:E2FE:B990 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Unless you have a very good source, that's not going to happen. See WP:BLP. clpo13(talk) 18:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia follows the sources. The title will be updated to "attack/vehicle ramming/etc." if and when officials and news sources refer to it as such. At the time of writing this has not yet happened. 2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:15 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Here is an archived source of all his social media posts The attack was (Redacted). Modern NFL Historian (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Nothing there indicates his beliefs were the reason for his actions here. Claiming they're connected without reliable sources to support that claim is original research. Speculating on his motives may be fine on social media, but Wikipedia has higher standards. clpo13(talk) 20:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protect talk page?

Should this talk page be semi-protected? Jim Michael (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

No need currently. There was one misbehaving IP, which has been rightly blocked. Other IPs haven't been disruptive. --MuZemike 15:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspect name

Someone wrote the name of the suspect, and another user erased. However, Newsweek identified the suspect and so did other media: Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/darrell-brooks-identified-waukesha-christmas-parade-suspect-1651770 Topjur01 (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/20-injured-suv-drives-wisconsin-holiday-parade-route-rcna6292 NY Post: https://nypost.com/2021/11/22/officials-identify-person-of-interest-in-wisconsin-parade-rampage/ Topjur01 (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, NBC has identified the person of interest by name, and their source is "officials". So, it is due and proper to incorporate into article.XavierItzm (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Should Wisconsin be in the title?

Waukesha may not be familiar to many, so maybe including the state in the title would make it more accessible Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 01:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's helpful Brookline Fire buff (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

There aren't any other cities and towns in the U.S. named "Waukesha". I don't think naming the state in the title is necessary. Love of Corey (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Journalistic integrity

Why does this article read like a conspiracy theory? There is no evidence that this was carried out by the government. This needs to be a neutral article. Please correct immediately. 2600:1012:B051:4020:0:25:158C:A301 (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Where exactly does this article imply this was carried out by the government? TheEpicGhosty (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Not where, but when. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Oof, fair enough. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Potential motive for incident

This can't possibly be an accident or brake failure Brookline Fire buff (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that an accident can be safely ruled out we can’t say it’s political at this time since accident or politically motivated are not the only possible explanations.--67.70.100.169 (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Brookline Fire buff:Doubtful based on police reports and aerial video. Lightburst (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Please do not speculate on this. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The article title itself reflects this speculation. Rklawton (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That's being discussed above. And RS have been calling it an attack. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Lock this page

Trolls have been editing this page to exaggerate the casualties and pin the blame on celebrities such as Ariana Grande. I would think it should be locked for the time being. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:9C77:CE3D:B60B:DC50 (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wait, what? Brookline Fire buff (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I submitted a request for page protection. Love of Corey (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, just noticed. Love of Corey (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

See also

The theme here was Christmas vehicle attacks. Someone erased and edit summary said the theme of these was Muslim attacks. Just clarifying.

• 2014 Nantes attack
• 2016 Berlin truck attack
• 2018 Strasbourg attack

Lightburst (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Attack?

Is there a reliable source that states this was an attack? I haven't found one, and we're not here to speculate. This wouldn't be the first time a disoriented driver slammed into a crowd. Rklawton (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Typically called a ramming, not a slamming. But yeah, sources seem more cautious about "attack" this time, at least at a glance. "Ramming" could work for us, too, meanwhile. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Some of the sources cited use "plow" Rklawton (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, bit filthy, but arguably doable. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If the word "attack" does remain, I don't believe it needs capitalization ... correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct, but it can wait until the name is decided. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit sad to have the English Wikipedia look bad at English for weeks on a technicality, but at least the backstage sorting software is satisfied, and who reads current event articles in the first days, anyway? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If this is confirmed to be an accident, we can always use "crash" instead of "attack", per 2015 Oklahoma State University homecoming parade crash. Love of Corey (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We could just continue with crash until more details are available. Empire of Ohio (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Car crash suggests impact with another car or a fixed object, not really against bodies. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove the "2021"

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.

---

There is no need to put 2021 in the title, it's not like this has happened before at this specific event. HumanHistory1 (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Cut 2021 keep Christmas Parade attack in the title. That was how I found the article. Profhum (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the title (I think) should be "Waukesha Christmas Parade attack". HumanHistory1 (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The naming convention for events (WP:NCEVENTS) recommends the use of a "when, where, what" format, so 2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade attack should have been preferred. On top of that, titling policy should remain WP:CONSISTENT and so it should be aligned with past article titles, such as 2016 Nice truck attack and 2018 Westminster car attack. See Vehicle-ramming attack for a consistent list. Pilaz (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

But this is the only notable attack to occur at a Christmas parade in Waukesha. We really don't need the year for disambiguation purposes. Love of Corey (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

NCEVENTS doesn't seem to think that's an impediment to adding a date. NCEVENTS gives the useful example of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami: "When: 2011. There are no other 'Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami' articles in Wikipedia, but the year is a useful identifier." Other reasons to support inclusion of the date in the title are that we must remain consistent and that we should provide context for the reader. Pilaz (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We tend to not include the year in the title unless it's necessary. This is a high profile event, whose title doesn't context or disambiguation. Jim Michael (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I would take the 2021 out and leave the rest of the title Powerville (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Recommend leaving the 2021 in as people searching for this may well try any combination of 2021, waukesha, xmas parade, car, killings/rampage or similar. A person searching for information in the near future may well (I know I did) put in "2021" in the search string to make sure they don't get results from something old that they don't know about but know they're not looking for. If so, leaving 2021 in the title will help uninformed people get informed faster, which is what we're about, right?Oathed (talk) 03:13, 23 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.

Person of interest

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.

---

(Redacted)

• Wikipedia is not a newspaper. See WP:NOTNEWS. As part of that, Wikipedia cannot hope to keep up with the for-profit media such as Heavy.com. Accusing Wikipedians of having an agenda only reveals your agenda, and I can see that it rhymes with Abductive (reasoning) 08:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

He's a person of interest, which is neither a suspect nor a perpetrator. If he's charged, naming him will suit my agenda. Till then, just a guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A reputable news outlet is reporting that the perpetrator was (Redacted). He had a number of prior serious convictions and was on bail. He was fleeing from a stabbing incident involving him, and entered the parade after breaking through police barriers, eventually ramming into the parade. His social media is full of posts supporting BLM and black people.

(Redacted) OldPeace7068 (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

IB Times isn't that great, and it does a lot of internet based quick reporting. Waiting until more reputable sources come in like NBC, NPR, UPI, AP,etc. There's no rush and Wikipedia isn't the news. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, NBC News mentioned his name as POI in an article.[1]

He made a music video as (Redacted) and the vehicle used in the attack is shown in it near the end, with the license plate visible.(Redacted). Someone Not Awful (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Harizotoh9 How do you define reputation? What criterion have you used to rate NBC news more reputable than IBT times? Abheygpt1 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Abheygpt1: There is consensus on Wikipedia that IBT is generally unreliable and NBC news is generally reliable. See: WP:IBTIMES and WP:RSPSOURCES for other sources. Pilaz (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the name; until the subject is named by authorities this is a WP:BLP issue (especially if this turns out to be false and we're accusing someone nowhere near the scene of this), and this should stay out of every Wikipedia space. Do not re-add it. Right now the most up-to-date press conference is planned for 1 p.m. Central, and we shouldn't be rushing this article. Nate • (chatter) 10:51, 22 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.

Mainstream media (Newsweek) has identified the detained person

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.

---

https://www.newsweek.com/darrell-brooks-identified-waukesha-christmas-parade-suspect-1651770

His name is Darrell Brooks and is undergoing questioning and has not yet been charged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.69.229 (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:2021_Waukesha_car_crash#Person of interest for why the alleged perpetrator is unnamed in the article. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 14:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Many news websites have reported the name. Don’t know what are they waiting for. Maybe they’ll add the name when their favourite media outlet will report it. Abheygpt1 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Fox News , Independent, CBS Chicago have reported the name. Abheygpt1 (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek is a tricky source since it's been a low quality online source for years so the modern net version is not considered reliable. Fox News and other partisan sources should be nowhere in this article. NY Post, Salon, Huffpost, are other sources commonly used in current events which should be avoided as well. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If Fox News is partisan, then CNN and MSNBC are, too. Dogman15 (talk) 00:42, 23 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.

Critical condition

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.

---

AP said Monday that "at least nine patients — most of them children — were listed in critical condition." – Sca (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The victims section is a bit of a mess since it's based on several reports and several are out dated. Multiple soruces would have said slightly different things or used slightly different metrics. The entire section should be re-written using the latest gold standard sources for events like this: UPI, Reuters, and AP. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:02, 22 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.

Distinguishing features about Darrell Brooks Jr

This discussion contains several IP editor comments that push the limits of WP:BLP and WP:TALK. Best not to respond further.

Why does the article not state "Darrell Brooks Jr, a 39 year old Black man"? I thought the general consensus was to identify the subject by their race and age if they were Black, for example: "Jacob Blake, a 29 year old Black man" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jacob_Blake or "George Floyd, a 46 year old Black man" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd 2600:387:F:4834:0:0:0:6 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Why should it be mentioned? Is that information relevant? clpo13(talk) 23:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC) In both of those cases, that information is germane to the context and legacy of those events as examples of Black men being killed by the police. At this point, there's no racial aspect being indicated by reliable sources, and no reliable sources are focusing undue attention to the alleged perpetrator's race, so there's no reason for that information to be in the article. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 23:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Just looking for consistency and following precedent. I believe this article would be improved by adding that information, reducing confusion and adding clarity for the reader. 2600:387:F:4834:0:0:0:6 (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Here's consistency and precedent for you: comparable events such as 2015 Oklahoma State University homecoming parade rampage -- let alone 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting -- don't mention the race of the perpetrators. I'm not sure what "confusion" and "clarity" you're referring to, but my personal opinion is that you're being a troll. Moncrief (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC) The examples I gave weren't about "perpetrators". I'm specifically referring to the practice of "name, age, race, gender" that seems to be the style when referencing Black persons or subjects: "Darrell Brooks Jr, a 39 year old Black man". 2600:387:F:4834:0:0:0:6 (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC) So you're saying that Wikipedia has, or should have, separate criteria to refer to Black people at first mention? If it's the former, that isn't an accurate description of articles where race isn't contextually germane; if it's the second, that's your own issue to work through. Moncrief (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Reducing confusion only makes sense if you're talking about something that has the potential to confuse people. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 23:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC) And it appears there's a photo of him in the article anyway. Not sure what the policy is on including that, but if it's there I don't see the need. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 23:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC) If it becomes relevant it will be mentioned. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC) It seems there might be two operational standards here: in some cases, the race of the individual is mentioned, in some isn't. See for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd. It seems we should be consistent. XavierItzm (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Well, we don't mention that the woman who murdered four people in the 2015 Oklahoma State University homecoming parade rampage and the man who killed 10 people in the Santa Monica Farmers Market crash are white, so, I suppose we are being consistent here by not mentioning that Brooks is black. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC) I think you're missing the point where there is no consistency of which to speak. Continuing to refer to other articles is pointless if just as many indicating the opposite can be pointed out. I think there is consistency - we mention it where it's relevant to the incident. Given the ongoing national debate over law enforcement interactions with African-Americans and the allegations of bias and unnecessary use of force in that regard, it is arguably relevant when a black person is killed by a police officer, to note that fact. Or, as in the case of Killing of Ahmaud Arbery, where one of the alleged perpetrators called the victim a "nigger" and where debate revolves around racial perceptions of a black person jogging in a predominantly-white neighborhood, it is also likely relevant to note that fact. It wasn't really relevant to anything that the perpetrator of the Oklahoma State rampage was white, so we didn't mention that fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC) To make sure it's apparent for me and everyone here then, it would be unnecessary to list race unless it was alleged by media outlets that the attack was race based, or had something otherwise to do with race/ethnicity? Could you please sign your posts? Moncrief (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC) why are we capitalizing black? Kaleeb18 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC) MOS:PEOPLANG explains it EvergreenFir (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC) OP is clearly a troll, as anyone with a brain should be able to figure out why the perpetrator's race isn't mentioned: based on what we currently know, it's not relevant. If it turns out that Mr. Brooks was motivated by Black supremacism or hatred of white people, then, and only then, it might be worth mentioning his race. Mlb96 (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Motivation by racial supremacy isn't a prerequisite for listing race. Plenty of articles name the race of the person or subject when racial supremacy has nothing to do with the rest of the article. Example: The page about the Kenosha incident lists the race of the shooter and those shot, even though everyone involved was of the same race (white). But, back to the subject at hand, it seems that it would be in line with the style of similar pages to list Darrell Brooks as "Darrell E. Brooks, Jr., a 39 year old Black man", and seeing as one of the previously presented arguments against it is no longer applicable ("And it appears there's a photo of him in the article anyway." The mugshot has been removed due to potential copyright issues it would seem?), I feel it would be appropriate to add this information for the reader. Also, please assume good faith of other users. Calling names is non-constructive and doesn't advance the conversation in any way. Thank you. 166.205.91.38 (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Motivation by racial supremacy would be a prerequisite for listing race in this particular article. The race of the perpetrator is only listed if it's relevant, and the only scenario in which Mr. Brooks's race would be relevant is if he were motivated by racial supremacy. Mr. Rittenhouse's race is listed because the context of the incident was a Black Lives Matter protest. There is no such context here. Mr. Brooks's race is not relevant at all based on what we currently know, and it should not be mentioned in the article unless and until information comes to light which would make his race actually relevant to this incident. Mlb96 (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC) (EC) I see no evidence race is relevant to this incident at the time. In all of the other examples mentioned, race became relevant for a variety of reasons according to reliable sources. For example about the Kenosha case, I just read this on the BBC [2]. Clearly the shooter wouldn't be talking about how the case "has nothing to do with race" if there weren't a lot of sources which had said it was relevant. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Here are the five most recent articles on List of mass shootings in the United States: Collierville Kroger shooting, perpetrator's race not listed (aside from noting that his parents were immigrants from Myanmar). 2021 Hialeah shooting, perpetrators' races not listed. 2021 San Jose shooting, perpetrator's race not listed. 2021 Colorado Springs shooting, perpetrator's race not listed. Indianapolis FedEx shooting, perpetrator's race not specifically mentioned despite the article noting that he may have been a white supremacist. Clearly there is no consensus to list perpetrators' races in crime articles. Mlb96 (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

“No evidence of 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.

---

The CNN article cited does not say there is no evidence of terrorism. It says that the chief said that it was not a terrorist attack. That doesn’t mean there is no evidence, so that leap should not be made in this article. 199.241.231.199 (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The wording needs to be exact as this is an on-going investigation and they have not found a motive yet. Obviously more information is going to come out. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

CNN actually has a good primer on this: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/04/19/us/hate-crime-or-terrorism-definition-trnd/index.html It seems like there is a blurry line here...warning. This could be terrorism; it could be a hate crime; it could be both; it could be neither. Until anything is officially reported, I don't think media speculation should be incorporated here. For example, if an official report from investigators says "hasnt been ruled out", we should include that, verbatim. Be very careful with verbiage here. 2600:1012:B060:9080:A022:E14:9053:CF0B (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not terrorism. The guy has an arm-long felony record and is just plain rage-filled - he tried to run over his "gf" - the mother of his child - in an earlier event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.58.135 (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. 174.193.195.154 (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No, that's the "opinion" of the CoP of that city.50.111.58.135 (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

And what if it comes out if that's true, that he did try to run over his "girlfriend"? With all the other things on his criminal record, that wouldn't surprise me. Dogman15 (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It is true - watch the police press conference.50.111.58.135 (talk) 10:16, 23 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.

tone, word choice, whitewash

Usual trolling, nothing to see here. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

this article breaks from the standards applied to other high profile vehicular homicide cases with a suspected element of intentionality. We have obfuscation of facts, such as that the accused's social media featuring (Redacted). We also have tone differentiation, starting with the avoidance of the word "attack", description of a "drive through", to name two points. Let's compare two pre-trial articles. pre-trial, Waukesha car ramming: On November 21, 2021, an SUV was driven through the annual Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, United States, killing five people and injuring at least 48 others. The alleged driver of the vehicle, 39-year-old Darrell E. Brooks, is in custody. On November 22, police announced that Brooks would be charged with five counts of first-degree intentional homicide. pre-trial, Charlottesville car attack [3] On August 12, 2017, a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The 20-year-old driver of the car, James Alex Fields Jr., had previously espoused neo-Nazi and white supremacist beliefs.[8][9] Fields was charged with hit and run, first-degree murder of 32-year-old Heather Heyer, multiple counts of federal hate crimes for injuring 28 others, and other crimes. A memorial service and vigils were organized. The mayor of Charlottesville, the Virginia Secretary of Public Safety, the Attorney General and the FBI director called the attack domestic terrorism. Whatabunchofbs (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Edit: nice try trying to wipe away the discussion about the tone and facts included in this article with a "not a forum" Red herring. Is your goal to prevent a discussion of the article? If so, why don't you just say it? Why do you have to hide behind lies to try to justify your behavior? Whatabunchofbs (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Note that the quote from Charlottesville has sources attached. You must do that as well. And not 4chan screencaps or Infowars EvergreenFir (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC) On social media posts, this is the closest you get to a WP:RS commenting on Brooks' motivations and the "link" to BLM, in that the RS firmly rejects the idea this was motivated by BLM as trolling. I am unconvinced this needs to be noted as a response. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC) A few things are going on, which I can attempt to outline briefly: Above all else, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. If you have data in reliable sources that you'd like to have included, then give us the links and make a case for why they're relevant. Unlike centralized news media, Wikipedia is all-volunteer and decentralized. Unless we worked on the article, none of us is in a position to explain why the Charlottesville article looked as it did on December 1, 2018 (which I will note was a year and a half after the event, so not directly comparable to two days after). If you have concerns with other articles, your best bet is to comment on those articles' talk pages. I can see some obvious differences between Sunday's incident and Charlottesville, but, again, we are working on this article now, and applying Wikipedia's policies to this article to the best of our ability. One of those policies is MOS:ETHNICITY, which states, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." No evidence has yet arisen (at least that I'm aware of) in reliable sources that Brooks's ethnicity is any more relevant than, say, that of Stephen Paddock, whose race is not mentioned anywhere in that linked article. I do resent the idea that we would "whitewash" or exclude information about Brooks's race if it were known to be relevant. Wikipedia has an entire category called "Racially motivated violence against white people" (with a US-specific subcategory; see top of the linked page), and you can see that the race of the perpetrators is made clear in each of those articles because it is directly relevant to the topic at hand. Just as, say, the article Killing of Breonna Taylor would be incredibly confusing without reference to the races of the people involved, so too would, say, Murder of Kriss Donald be a confusing read without reference to the perpetrators being nonwhite -- and thus the perpetrators' ethnicity is mentioned right up front. My point: There's no issue with including anyone's race if and when, per policy, it's directly relevant to the subject's notability. Tying into WP:RS above, Wikipedia is never in the position to be in the vanguard on descriptions of events; in fact, we are (at our best) more cautious than most mass media. In my reading of RS about this incident, I have yet to see a reliable source that identifies Brooks as a Black man as a general descriptor. Even Fox News, whose straight news is at the edge of what Wikipedia considers an RS, isn't starting its articles with phrases like "...a 39-year-old Black man." (They've run a lot of articles on the topic, as you can imagine, and I haven't read them all, but I've yet to see that description.) Moncrief (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Exactly, the double standard is ridiculous. HumanHistory1 (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Intentional.

The police came out already and he is being charged with intentional homicide ... so yes it is 100% considered an attack. Who is trying to down play this? Why don’t you post the facts? 97.119.242.166 (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021 (3)

Change “car crash” to “attack.” To suggest this incident was simply a car crash or accident is purely asinine. Kl3nzzz (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - There is already a requested move discussion about the page title. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

revise title accurately reflect what happened

This tragedy was not a "car accident". A man intentionally drove his vehicle into 50+ people. Period. I was not a "car accident". It's disgusting that I have to even be here to say this. 2601:600:A080:4310:552A:49FB:9D5:94AB (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - The word "accident" does not appear in the article at all, so there is no actionable edit to be made. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Change the Title to “Massacre”

It was NOT an accident. The killer already confessed to police that it was intentional. Confirmed by witnesses at the scene. The driver intentionally drove through barriers, steered toward innocent people, stepped on the gas, and kept driving after running them over. It was a massacre and should be referred to as such. 68.207.9.238 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - There is already a requested move discussion about the page title. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021 (4)

This was a deliberate attempt to kill people. Crash denotes an accident involving a moving vehicle. 216.144.161.5 (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - There is already a requested move discussion about the page title. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Change "car crash" to "hate crime" or "mass murder"

Change "car crash" to "hate crime" or "mass murder" 2604:2D80:9692:A600:814:3ABD:C3D0:3A22 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - There is already a requested move discussion about the page title. Fuzheado | Talk 16:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021 (2)

There's an omission here that requires attention. It is misleading to suggest he was fleeing a prior event. While there appears to be a prior incident it is unrelated to the attack. We know this as police indicated there was "no pursuit". This is why it is deemed intentional.

The edit required that simply must be made is that there was "no pursuit" prior to his actions and hence the intentional charge. Origin1tech (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Why would this be labeled a car crash?

Like the question asks why is this labeled a car crash? It was released that he intentionally drove into these people. This a terrorist attack/massacre, not a car crash. 97.119.242.166 (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - There is already an ongoing move discussion related to this, and previous posts show that authorities have said this is not a terrorist incident. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021 (2)

Change "car crash" to "massacre" in title. 70.98.101.34 (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Misleading Title

Change the title to Massacre because thats what it is. Nothing less. 67.53.181.234 (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - There is an ongoing move discussion already. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

“Car Crash”?? Why not act of terrorism?

He clearly had this planned and did not “crash” accidentally. This was a premeditated act of terror. Change the title 24.189.214.68 (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - Multiple reliable sources have reported that authorities said it is not a terrorist incident.

• https://www.dw.com/en/wisconsin-driver-faces-homicide-charges-over-parade-deaths/a-59904055
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/waukesha-police-chief-parade-terrorism-b1962405.html

- Fuzheado | Talk 16:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

Please edit page title to "2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Attack" as it more accurately reflects reality. 67.221.223.66 (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Victims age

Youngest victim deceased was 8 not 52 Justcallmegoogle (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Where do you see that? Information about the sixth victim was added, so this must be a relic of a previous version. Could you be clearer about where this appears in the article, and we will change. Moncrief (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done: I found it and fixed. Thank you for pointing that out. That was a big miss to have that in the article all day. Moncrief (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem Thanks for changing it Justcallmegoogle (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021 (3)

Please change with title of the article to mass murder. This was not a “car crash” or something so innocuous. This was mass murder 68.110.15.114 (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We do not call anything "murder" unless there's a trial and conviction EvergreenFir (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Style

On November 21, 2021, a driver of a sport utility vehicle

should be

On November 21, 2021, the driver of a sport utility vehicle

Reason: 1. "a" suggests there was more than one driver. 2. "a driver of a sport utility vehicle" is repetitive "a driver of a"

Dlm8751 (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done:

@Dlm8751: I edited the lead sentence per your comment. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

ATTACK is wrong it's a massacre

This was not an attack nor merely an attempt at hurting people. It was purposeful massacre, racially motivated by a criminal with priors - he aimed for people while driving his car during a parade on closed streets - 3 different police officers urged him to stop his vehicle and one officer shot at the vehicle to stop it. A man massacred children purposefully, please consider changing the name to reflect accuracy. 2601:198:0:89F0:1D40:CAB4:20BF:C8F2 (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Please provide links to multiple reliable sources that describe this sad event as a "massacre" or that the incident was "racially motivated". Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Intentional Homicide Acts

Perhaps change to the charging count above. 2601:800:C100:2:793B:3627:BF35:C110 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

that doesn't work because it includes the language of either an admission that has not come yet, or a completed trial, where the charges against the accused are proven in the eyes of, for example, the jury. Attack makes sense because that is what the victims were - attacked --Seriouslywhat (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021 (2)

173.80.162.36 (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2021 (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.WikiLinuz (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Car crash.

A car crash usually describes a car accident. Not an event regardless of motives where a person purposely drives his vehicle through a parade route hitting over 40 people killing many, seriously injuring many more. Regardless of motives, or the back story the events were caught I video, it's an attack, massacre, killings, ramming incident etc. Not a "car crash". 2600:1001:B114:AC67:D38:66E5:F0EC:1A83 (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but am relieved to see the Wikipedia guardians of truth finally had the sense to remove the cantankerous, inappropriately-laughable phrase "parade car crash"; should anyone have the urge to change it back or use anything similar, be aware that there is such a thing as a parade car [4] and the "parade car" certainly did not "crash" (or do anything else). There's supposed to be this insistence on quoting the RELIABLE SOURCES (TM), yet this phrase "parade car crash" did not come from any of them, so who insisted on this formulation and took the liberty to block everyone out who suggested something else for almost half a week now? Unreal. Seriouslywhat (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Are the words car crash in the article anymore? Why are you complaining about something that was resolved many hours ago? Moncrief (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

More tedious race discussion

I'm unsure exactly where off-wiki all of these random accounts are being recruited from, but they're getting very tiresome now.

The wikipedia article for the Rittenhouse shootings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting) makes sure to establish Rittenhouse is white in the opening paragraph. Then devotes a significant portion of the article to race issues, including accusing Rittenhouse of racism. Even though all of this information is utterly inconsequential to the actual article, which is about a white teen killing other white people (including one who repeatedly used a racial slur for Black people at Rittenhouse, but Rittenhouse is the racist). Meanwhile this Black man killed a shitload of white people, put a whole classroom worth of white children in the hospital, injured over 60 in total. And before killing numerous elderly white people wrote "“So when we start bakk knokkin white people TF out ion wanna hear it…the old white ppl 2, KNOKK DEM TF OUT!! PERIOD,” https://nypost.com/2021/11/24/darrell-brooks-called-for-violence-against-white-people/ And none of this is in the article. Because this happened in Wisconsin and so soon after the Rittenhouse verdict there was a lot of early media speculation about a link between this and the verdict. But as on this page, when it became clear it was a racist Black man who committed mass murder of white people, race got washed away, utterly absent from this article. Riddled with accusations against Rittenhouse with absolutely no justification for why it's relevant to his case but here, completely absent, as in most media reports. Instead you are arguing about how you can water down the title so thoroughly to sound like the same thing that happens every day in grocery store parking lots. Where is the consensus at right about now? "2021 Car Oopsie"? So I'm proposing there should be at least as much coverage in this article as Rittenhouse's making Darrell Brooks' race clear, as well as covering every example possible of anything remotely racist he has said or done in the past, as is your set precedent, to be objective and not biased of course. Because you wouldn't want to be biased. Just post the facts. This shouldn't be controversial at all. You find it necessary in other articles, you bend over backwards to link anything other people have done to racism. I wouldn't want this article to fall short of such high standards. J1DW (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC) -- Support: This is highly inconsequential documenting of facts Dg21dg21 (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Change Charlottesville to crash or incident

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

If you think that article title should be changed, bring it up there, not here. clpo13_(talk) 23:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

LOL. This isn't the corrections desk at the New York Times (or other centralized media outlet of your choice). Go to the talk page of the article you want changed and bug them. (Not to mention, the words crash or incident aren't in the title here; you missed your window to be outraged.) Moncrief (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I Do agree its pretty much the same thing, but until theirs more reliable sources talking about how the suspect supported BLM, made anti-white statements we cant do anything about it. --Zyxrq (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There's the Daily Mail [[5]] I'm going to bring this up in a new section. Seriouslywhat (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This page is called "attack" now. Originally it was crash and incident because intentionality was not clear. Then reliable reporting of witnesses came forward showing an intention to drive in a waving pattern to hit as many people as possible, then he was formally charged with intentional homicide. The page title and content follows reliable sources and reporting rather than rushing to judgement. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

Waukesha Parade Car Rampage Felix Leiter2021 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2021 (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. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It's got to be another article title move request, which has already been discussed thoroughly above. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Consensus is for "attack". See #Requested_move_22_November_2021_(2) for details. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 01:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Background section

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

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

I read somewhere earlier that it's always fallen on the Sunday before Thanksgiving. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this newspaper account is dated Nov 23, 1970, so it looks like it's always taken place on this day. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Possible cause

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

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

Do you have any source for that speculation, or are you mistaking this talk page for a forum to air your personal theories? nableezy - 04:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

He's considered the 'suspect' now, per law enforcement, and has been charged with six counts of homicide.50.111.58.135 (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

References

It looked like he was running from something, as if there were a chase, but there was nobody pursuing him - until after he rammed the parade. A few important facts worth noting that may shed some light on the matter. He's not from around Waukesha and very likely doesn't know the area very well. Waukesha's streets are a maze, most of the side-roads are cul de sacs (this is generally true for the entire county, once you get more than a few miles west of Milwaukee county), and the only large road that heads out, from where he started at, toward the central and northern part of Milwaukee county is Main Street - the one the parade was on. You can get to North and Moreland, but you have to cross west over Fox River first ... and you have to know it's there. Likewise, Arcadian and White Rock can be reached - if you know they're there, but both require going through Main Street first, and getting to Arcadian requires a sharp turn. It's doubtful that he even knew there was a parade, since hardly anyone from outside that area knows about it other than those who live in the area or who have special connection to the event (I didn't know, for instance, and I have friends who were there). The earliest footage shows him zooming through whatever clearances he could find, missing people by a few feet, and later dodging and weaving. But once he got to the parade, the clearance ran out, and with his history of reckless endangerment, he drove straight through it without any regard for human life. He was charged with 6 counts of first degree murder (Wisc. Statues 940.01), which is a class A felony, that has a life term for each count. More likely, he'll be convicted on first degree reckless homicide, which more closely fits the case (Wisc. Statues 940.02(1)), a class B felony, which has 60 years for each count, or 360 years in total, effectively a life sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA4D:C5B8:0:3361:EAF8:97B7 (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

BLP and use of "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.

---

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

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

I agree completely. This change should be made immediately, no questions asked. It's irresponsible to call it an attack until there is an official statement declaring it as such. I imagine that we will be changing it back to "attack" soon enough, but for now, it should be "incident". Bueller 007 (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Support, a necessary change although having seen a video I agree with @Bueller 007 that we'll be changing back to 'attack' soon enough. Retswerb (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Love of Corey: BLP overrides RM protocol imo EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Please participate in the above WP:RM first for input. Love of Corey (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

BLP is paramount. It comes first. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand how BLP comes into play in an event article with an unnamed perpetrator. Besides, you should wait for a clear consensus to emerge before venturing into bold page moves, especially since there's already a requested move being discussed, like Love of Corey rightfully indicated. Pilaz (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. While authorities are yet to comment on the intentionality of the act, the New York Times reported the words of Mr.Kotlarek, a witness: "Mr. Kotlarek said the driver appeared to intentionally steer toward people." Per Kotlarek: "He was flying through there going intentionally from left to right". To me, this looks like early evidence that the word "attack" is appropriate in the title. Pilaz (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

only one source quoting the opinion of an eyewitness. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion is to wait until authorities pronounce themselves on the motivations of the perpetrator. Pilaz (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP that's backwards. We don't assume motivation when none is being confirmed by RS. Retswerb (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm still hoping to understand how "attack" instead of "incident" in the title allegedly violates BLP policy (in a non-BLP article). None has been provided so far, which suggests a case of WP:CRYBLP to me. Pilaz (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere and this article clearly deals with living and recently dead people. I expect it'll change to attack or something eventually but at this moment it's not supported by RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page - the driver is a living person, and as stated on the top line of WP:BLP we must take care with any page including information about living persons. Retswerb (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Support I looked at news coverage from BBC, CNN, Fox News, NYT, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, among others, and none have reported anything concrete yet as far as intent. When the facts become clearer, the page can be re-moved and article language re-worded as appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Oppose. Washington Post is calling it an "attack", as is Deutsche Welle. These are world-class sources; I see no need to move it at this time, given how these reliable sources are describing the act. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Independent also calls it an attack, which is what it was. WP:NOTCENSORED. XavierItzm (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support with urgency there's no harm if we call this something else for a few days while we wait for details to solidify. There is harm if we make a claim about what a living person did that is misleading or untrue even for a few days. While we may be only a bit player in this, we're still a player and are responsible for the harm we cause to living persons. While it may be true some reliable sources are calling this an attack, we should always be wary of late breaking news when the details are unclear. I'd note CBS say sources familiar with the investigation say the suspect was feeling another scene when came across the parade [6] Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Multiple RS refer to this as an attack, so it is an attack. WWGB (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support - but something like "ramming" would be more descriptive than just "incident". It still appears likely it was a failed getaway. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support it's an incident. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support obviously. WaPo: "crash" in headline. NYTimes doesn't characterize it (as an attack or otherwise). CNN: Ditto. The fact that some sources use an unsupported name is not a good reason for us to use an unsupported name. --JBL (talk) 13:34, 22 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.

Requested move 22 November 2021 (1)

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

---

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

• Support per nominator but I've noticed a tendency with pages about similar types of attacks to use concise names: Toronto van attack and Charlottesville car attack. The 2021 part feels superfluous. --Killuminator (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that too. Forgot to address the year. Love of Corey (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per above. But is there a manual of style policy that discusses the extent of specificity in titles? Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 02:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. Love of Corey (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• WP:TITLE guides titling conventions, and WP:PRECISE discusses the extent of specificity in titles. WP:CONSISTENT should also be helpful in guiding this discussion, since we have many articles about vehicle-ramming attacks on Wikipedia. Pilaz (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support the proposed title is clearly more descriptive. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - The article has been moved to remove the year from the title. Love of Corey (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose In a lot of rammings, the victims are a hodgepodge of street folk, not as easily defined as the vehicle is. A Christmas parade, as a cohesive unit, doesn't have that problem and is more distinctive. Plus, is an SUV really a "car" or "van"? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The page sport utility vehicle defines SUVs as cars so it's a nonissue. As for the first point, check the names for the linked similar pages. There was an attack in Berlin with a Christmas market as the target but truck attack is what made the cut. --Killuminator (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • A market is a location, collects the same generic foot traffic a street does. A parade is made of people. As to an SUV's true nature, aye, a valid guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Though, by American rules, "light truck" seems technically correct. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment No top Google News results for "car attack" mention Waukesha, just Charlottesville and Greek trouble, can't be the common name. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support renaming to 2021 Waukesha car attack, but oppose if no date. Per title policy at WP:CONSISTENT, the title should be "consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Other vehicle-ramming attacks use the formula year-location-vehicletype-attack for their title, such as 2016 Nice truck attack, 2018 Westminster car attack, etc. I don't see any reason to deviate from this format. Pilaz (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I also support a rename to Waukesha Christmas Parade crash or something along those lines if police determine this to be an accident. Love of Corey (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  As discussed below, per WP:BLP we need to start without motive - and then add it in later when (as I have no doubt) it is reported as such in RS. Waukesha car ramming incident or similar would be most appropriate at this time based on what is currently being reported. Retswerb (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support rename to 2021 Waukesha car attack; agreed with Pilaz. Please see WP:NCEVENTS. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. "2021" not needed in the title, there are no other significant car attacks in Waukesha. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 05:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Current title 2021 Waukesha car crash works best until more details are known. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Events have a date by convention because "the year is a useful identifier" (WP:NCEVENTS), even if it's their first occurence. This is why the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami has a date despite the fact that there have been no other Tōhoku earthquakes and tsunamis, and why all the previous car attacks have the year in the title. Pilaz (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

But this is the only notable attack to occur at a Christmas parade in Waukesha. We really don't need the year for disambiguation purposes. Love of Corey (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The year wouldn't obviously be used for disambiguation purposes, since the goal is to convey key information to future readers. Readers expect articles on Wikipedia to be named in recognizable and similar patterns. Can you otherwise offer any good reason or policy as to why this title deserves to deviate from the naming convention for events and from the titles of similar vehicle-ramming incidents? Pilaz (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support, and one would hope a snow close. Per WP:CONCISE. And please lowercase attack per Wiki style. Moncrief (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that the current title is more WP:PRECISE and WP:NATURAL than the proposed title. While the proposed title is more concise, I don't think that the tradeoff is worth it in this case—descriptive titles should be descriptive, after all. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support for consistency, no point specifying year or parade given that no other notable car attacks have happened in Waukesha. Weird uppercasing of "a" in Attack too, someone tried to fix but got reverted. WakandaQT (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support as long as the year is included. No reason not to include the year. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - the current title is descriptive and WP:NATURAL. Keep the current title. XavierItzm (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - support renaming but avoid words like "attack". Current news reports (in the UK) are suggesting that the vehicle may have been escaping another incident, rather than targeting or attacking the parade. So, we should use neutral wording until more is known. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Include SUV in the title: Waukesha SUV attack. Jim Michael (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Moved for BLP reasons - The conversation can keep continuing, but the article has been moved in the meantime for BLP reasons from 2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade incident to 2021 Waukesha car crash. See the conversation and speedy close at Talk:2021_Waukesha_car_crash#BLP_and_use_of_"attack". Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – as per WP:NCEVENTS -- FMM-1992 (talk) 14:08, 22 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.

Car crash?

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

---

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

See Talk:2021 Waukesha car crash#BLP and use of "attack", which was closed early IMO. --MuZemike 14:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @MuZemike: - I will take a drive out there for some photos today. The same happened in Kenosha, it went from Kenosha riots to protests to unrest. We should probably follow the RS. Lightburst (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Concur that it was closed early. The results of the short-circuiting of discussion: the nature of the current article tile. XavierItzm (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you have something constructive to say, or are you just ranting? --JBL (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I think some are a little frustrated that it's not being called what it is. That said, things are still developing, and the naming discussion can (and may likely) resume once more information comes to light. --MuZemike 14:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you continue the conversation at the move request, as I stated in the speedy close comment that this was not meant to be the final word: "The conversation can keep continuing, but the article has been moved in the meantime for BLP reasons." I cited two previous high profile incidents of the same nature with the same title naming system. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple standard formulations such as 'Christmas parade incident', etc. You could not really have chosen a worse title. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• 2021 Waukesha SUV ramming of pedestrians would be a more accurate title IMO. Polyamorph (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

it wasnt "a car crash," re-name this. Jaygo113 (talk) 21:18, 22 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.

Change "car crash" to "incident"

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

---

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

At this point, it's announced that he's being charged with intentional murder, so it's safe to characterize it as an attack. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree now that murder charges have been issued. Thanks for the update. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so "being charged" is equal to "guilty"? (Though nothing would surprise me after last week's trial). It should be "incident", as many people have said all along. Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Incident still beats car crash Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

No, because incident is more vague than the current, previous & suggested titles. Jim Michael (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If someone were guilty, it would be "murder". It is a multiple-homicide though, regardless of whether anyone will be found guilty of anything. I've opened an RM below so we can collect these discussions into one actionable proposal (regardless of what title is ultimately chosen). Levivich 19:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Charged but not convicted is enough to categorize as attack even in a BLP when there is clear evidence that it was an attack. E.g., October 2021 Tokyo attack, [7], [8], etc. Multiple sources are calling it an attack: [9], [10], [11], [12], etc.Bueller 007 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I think perhaps this article would be better called "2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car crashes" since it seems like a series of car crashes. Nicholassantos99 (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Killings Jaygo113 (talk) 21:21, 22 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.

change "Car Crash" to "Killings"

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

---

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

The word killings just doesn't seem to fit here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - "pedestrian killings" is appropriately descriptive of what occurred, yet does not prejudge the level of criminality involved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

Photos

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

---

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

Perhaps any sort of debris, such as a fallen over baby stroller or something like that. HumanHistory1 (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

User:HumanHistory1 Looks like there is a busted stroller in this photo - also multiple chalk circles in the street. Photo of stroller Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The Waukesha police announced that Main street will be closed for 24 hours as a crime scene. I will see what I can see. The Waukesha school district cancelled all schools. Waukesha is relatively large metro area of MKE. It is also very Republican, so i am interested to see what is said locally. Lightburst (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Lightburst I do not know how to thank for your dedication and contribution, so I thank here. Topjur01 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I also appreciate your dedication here. The more photos, the better really, any ones not used here can be uploaded to a relevant category on Commons. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Thanks, will do, check out the ones for the Kenosha Riot (unrest) that I took. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Photos uploaded Not sure how to link to specifics, so you can look at my contributions

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

I was just about to add File:Abandoned items from Christmas Parade Broadway and Main Waukesha Wisconsin parade.jpg to the article's infobox but you already did, Lightburst! That is the best of the photos, imo, so good choice. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thanks, iphone 13 - someone has my Sony A6300 sadly. Do you know how to link to like {{commons|?}} or perhaps collage. I figured it out somewhat Sadly there was not much to see there - just lots of closed roads and caution tape. By the way, I much prefer your suggestion "incident" to the bland and inaccurate "car crash". Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

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

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

Shock! The New York Times has reported about Roberts’ past in detail.[13] Go for it. Boscaswell talk 22:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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