Wikipedia

Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack/Archive 2

< Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack
(Redirected from Talk:Waukesha parade attack/Archive 2)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Picard's Facepalm in topic Redirect: Darrell Brooks
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

"Darrell Brooks" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

2015 Oklahoma State University homecoming parade crash

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

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

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

References

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

Page protected

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

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

Requested move 22 November 2021 (2)

Latest comment: 3 years ago96 comments56 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved to 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade attack. Consensus is against against moving to 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade incident, and additionally consensus is against the current title (2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car crash). Overall editors feel that both "crash" and "incident" are euphemisms and don't accurately describe the event. Various verbs were proposed in the discussion, of which "attack", "rampage" and "ramming" were most prominent. As usual, since the RM system centres the discussion around the originally proposed title, it is difficult to decide which of the titles proposed within the discussion has consensus. However, it would also be inappropriate to close this with no action and require folks to start another RM to have the page moved, given that there is clearly consensus against the current title.
In such a situation, I'd generally lean towards choosing the most conservative of the proposed titles, so long as it has support and doesn't violate an overriding policy (eg WP:BLP). In this case, given that there was some debate over whether a particular phrasing implied 'intent' (on the part of the driver), the most conservative option would be whichever doesn't imply intent. However, there was some disagreement on which of these proposals imply intent; some felt that "attack" implies intent and that "rampage" didn't, and some editors felt the opposite way, so it's difficult to decide which of these doesn't imply intent. Few editors analysed what term RS are using, which makes that option a dead end too. I've read the discussion up and down twice and cannot find a reasonable metric to decide which formulation is the more conservative option, so I think a straight vote is the only fair way to decide here. By the numbers it seems "attack" has the most support, although I note the caveat that "attack" was proposed before the other options which skews the numbers (earlier voters may have preferred another variation but didn't see it at the time they voted).
Of course, this is without prejudice to another RM to change the verb. On that note, it may be worth noting that other proposals within this RM included dropping the "2021" at the start and/or dropping the "car". There were also less prominent, but still promising, variations such as "pedestrian killings", which tried to deal with the 'intent' concern. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Dropping the car as well, since on second thought it does seem there is a consensus here to do that too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Survey

That said, in Wikipedia's world, List of rampage killers lumps in mass killers. It shouldn't, but it does. Something to consider. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support name change regardless the correct article title name is, but i Oppose incident because it was not natural disaster. I also suggests "2021" to removed because there was only events that happened in Waukesha Christmas Parade. 36.77.64.164 (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The vast majority of these !votes were before the current name change. That might be significant when determining consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep it at rampage nearly a day ago I said we urgently need to change the title from attack since we need to wait a few days for things to sort themselves out instead of implying it was an intentional act of violence. However after I said it I begun to think a bit more ad have since formed the conclusion I was wrong then about the latter point. While we did need to urgently change the title, calling this an attack just like calling something a murder implies something about a living person we need to wait for a court case to resolve. So realistically there was a good chance a few days was never going to be enough. While we no longer have the uncertainty we did yesterday e.g. the chance this was simply someone who did something crazy in a panic now seems very low, and it does seem quite likely this was an attack, we still should wait for a court case to resolve that. When I came today and found this at rampage, I was initially thinking WTF? But having read the discussion and look at the other exampled and thought about it more I've decided it's the best solution to the problem of not implying something about a living person while recognising how horrifying the event was something which can't be conveyed by either crash or incident. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    Say "tragedy" or "horror" then. When you say "rampage", you're basically saying he went on a course of violent acts. At least an attack is just one violent act (as was this lone incident/crash/thing). And it doesn't suggest the killer was angry, crazy or wild, like other dictionaries say "rampage" does. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    And in case you think recklessness implies presumed innocence, think again. Highly illegal all across Wisconsin. The suspected quintuple murderer here hasn't even been charged with recklessly endangering safety yet, much less convicted. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    And in case you truly believe the court will hear how this potential defendant was "simply someone who did something crazy in a panic" and thereby not criminally responsible for this "horrifying" act, the onus is entirely on him to make a not guilty plea, knowing full well that habitual antisocial criminality does not constitute a "mental disease or defect". Until such time a plea or intent to plead is published in a reliable source, speculation on this or any other imaginable defense strategy should be considered utterly unverifiable and have no bearing on article content creation, up to and including the title. I have nothing further, judges. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The WP:NATURAL title "2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car rampage" is highly descriptive and unique. The purpose of titles is to help users find content. The mealy-mouthed "incident" could apply to anything. There is no need to bowdlerize Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Use attack. Attack doesn't require there to be premeditation, just intent. The vehicle was clearly wasn't a runaway, it was driven with intent as it dodged and accelerated. Sources discuss the car weaving around barricades to enter the road. In normal parlance if a person running down a sidewalk pushed people out of their way they would be said to be attacking people. InverseZebra (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was curious what the other Wikipedias are calling this (as translated, arguably imperfectly, by Google Translate). Most include the word attack, with two interesting additions: car-ramming (French) and crowd hit (Russian).
Ramming is an interesting possibility for our title, but then I'm reminded we need to be mindful of what WP:RS are saying before we get too creative. So, today in English-language media we have "vehicle attack" (New York Times, [1]), "Waukesha incident" with an implication of it being a "ramming attack" (Washington Post, [2]), and "Waukesha Christmas Parade incident" (NPR, [3]).
Personally I think "attack" is certainly warranted when a suspect is charged. An attack is merely a "belligerent or antagonistic action" ([4]), and this event reasonably qualifies as such. A strong case could in fact be made that attack is more NPOV and not as strong as rampage. But I'm certainly on board with taking a short break from another round of !voting -- this one has gone off the rails a bit. I just wanted to put this data out there into the mix, for consideration. Moncrief (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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

  • Oppose rename to "incident" per WWGB. Needlessly vague. Oppose renaming to "crash" as well, as both misleading and vague. That being said, since it was an SUV, I think "vehicle" would be a more accurate description than "car".--Tdl1060 (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I recently opposed, saying we could find a better name for car crash, I think we found a good name in car rampage. Kaleeb18 (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I cannot believe this was moved back to car crash. What a terrible decision. Moncrief (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Incident is downplaying the severity of the event, with 6 died and the suspect been charged with 5 homicide. Similar incidents such as Charlottesville car attack, 2017 London Bridge attack, and London, Ontario truck attack all clearly have "attack". From a standpoint of someone who never heard about the event, "incident" looks like a fistfight or a crash against a tree instead of a SUV ramming people and killed 6 of them. SunDawntalk 13:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please change the title from "car crash". Car crash is essentially equivalent to "car accident" and this was clearly not an accident. I do not think "attack" is appropriate either as no premeditated motive has been established yet. I thought "rampage" worked well, as it implies violence and recklessness, both of which were clearly present. Please change away from simple "crash"! DropShot244 (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Support move to previous status quo of attack. Suspect was charged with intentional homicide and had used the same modus operandi in a previous case. If he was running from a previous altercation, it is still an attack. WP:BLPCRIME is not an excuse to whitewash language of suspected criminals. This has been labeled as an attack by multiple WP:RS [5][6][7][8][9] Loganmac (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Kyle Rittenhouse was also charged with intentional homicide; we (correctly) did not describe that event as an "attack." Just as Rittenhouse was, the alleged perpetrator of this incident is entitled to the same presumption of innocence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Then we need a better word or phrasing than crash to indicate that presumption of innocence. The Rittenhouse article had shooting, which implies a magnitude of seriousness that crash does not, even though the loss of life was less in the Rittenhouse incident. This is a bad look for Wikipedia to have this innocuous-sounding title for such a serious event. I'll try and do some research about other options and how other articles have been phrased. Maybe vehicle-ramming? I just know that the current title is awful, and I hope it doesn't last through the US Thanksgiving holiday, when many editors have other commitments. This car crash title is ripe for all kinds of unwarranted ridicule of Wikipedia's supposed bias. Moncrief (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion on the Rittenhouse case was entirely on who was the one being attacked, Rittenhouse (self-defense) or the people killed. One being attacked cannot attack, it's called defense, and this argument was cited in WP:RS at the time. If you can find WP:RS arguing for this being an accident go ahead and link it please. Loganmac (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
And the discussion here will be whether it was a premeditated/intentional attack on the event, criminally reckless driving, or something else entirely (unlikely?) Just as with Killing of Ahmaud Arbery, we cannot prejudge the level of criminality inherent in this incident prior to a conviction. There are lots of people who think Ahmaud Arbery was attacked and murdered, but until a court of law convicts someone of murder in that case, the article will remain at "Killing." I would not be opposed to "pedestrian killings" or some other construction which clearly shows that homicide was involved. But declaring this to be an "attack" is assuming facts not proven. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
"Vehicular homicide"? Seems an accurate and neutral description, but also perhaps awkward and I'm not seeing it in RSes (but neither do I see a lot of "rampage" or any "incident" for that matter). Levivich 16:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm still not clear on why this was changed from rampage, which seemed to be the best option, at least as a stopgap. Rampage: a course of violent, riotous, or reckless action or behavior [10]. No disputing this was a violent and reckless action. Was it switched to the awful car crash because of procedural concerns? If so, please mind WP:NOTBURO. This current dumb title is making the rounds of RW outrage media (example: [11]), so be prepared for a troll onslaught that makes the current inflow look like a trickle. And, you know what, they'd have a certain point. !Vote here to change back to yesterday's rampage title. I'm going to take this to the admin noticeboard if no action is taken soon. Moncrief (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The article was moved back to "car crash" because there was an improper unilateral and out of process move to "rampage" while an WP:RM was open. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Not "car crash", as that sounds like a crashing that only involved cars (and perhaps some other inanimate objects) rather than one in which an SUV (which is more of a truck than a car) struck unprotected people. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose car crash or incident, support attack. The defendant deliberately drove his car into the crowd of people, killing six and injuring dozens, per police. A car crash or incident would imply that this was accidental, which it was not. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 17:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Car Crash. Anything, literally anything, from incident to rampage to attack is more approprate than the current title. Shame on Wikipedia for even entertaining such a title. Not even close to what a "car crash" is. Airplanegod (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Car Crash or Incident. The event does not appear to be accidental or incidental. The name doesn't need to deal with motive or blame, but it should be descriptive (not vague). Prefer the following: Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Waukesha Christmas parade mass casualty event - as defined by the Department of Justice
  • Waukesha Christmas parade mass killing - as defined by the Department of Justice
Mass casualty event is a good option. Objectively true without assigning intent. Moncrief (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Words like "car crash" and "incident" give the impression that the tragedy was an accident. Suspect has been charged with five counts of intentional first-degree homicide. The event has been deemed an intentional act by law enforcement and numerous reliable sources refer to it as an "attack." The most accurate title would be "2021 Waukesha (Christmas parade) SUV attack". Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 18:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
However this tragedy is remembered, "Christmas parade" will likely be part of the name.Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think discussion has gone on long enough, and both the comments above and the evidence in the discussion section below indicates that "crash" and "incident" are too milquetoast, and that a stronger word denoting extreme violence, like "rampage" or "attack" would be more accurate. Many editors have said that they would like a shorter title. I suggest something like "2021 Wisconsin parade SUV rampage", "2021 Wisconsin parade SUV attack," or "2021 Wisconsin parade massacre," or "2021 Wisconsin parade tragedy." We don't need perfect; we just need good. "Waukesha" is probably less helpful for a global reader who has no idea where Waukesha is, but would probably know Wisconsin. Once the discussion is closed and the move is done, we can regroup, see how events develop and a further refinement of the title might be needed. Could some intrepid admin please close this? Jehochman Talk 19:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Terrorist attack accusations and name change to Waukesha Massacre

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Requested move 24 November 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago25 comments11 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Usually, for a move to be implemented, it requires a consensus for it, rather than a lack of a consensus against of it (we are biased towards stability) - and I'm not even sure I would agree that there isn't a consensus against it. And I fully agree with letting the RM discussion decide, which is why we should revert the bold, mid-RM move until the RM can decide. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The proper time to judge the consensus, and where the consensus is to move the title to, would have been at the end of the RM. The move was premature, hence why I requested it be reverted - I've opened a discussion on Anthony Appleyard's talk page about this decision if you want to contribute. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Point of information - the page was reverted from "rampage" back to "car crash" shortly after this conversation. See the diff: Special:Diff/1056940376. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    Not sure what is the best descriptive but calling this a mere car crash is preposterous.--MONGO (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    And with everything else, it's also not even a common term in the variety of English spoken where the event occurred. I have never seen a title so wrong-headed as this one, in my 17 years on Wikipedia. Moncrief (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    It may not be a good article title here, but it's a very common term. Google "car crash" wisconsin -parade for recent local news from Madison, Kenosha, Sheboygan and more. Some involve SUVs, some wrong-way driving, most death and police. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    The word crash is certainly common when describing a car accident, as are compound nouns such as two-car crash. The standalone phrase car crash as a general descriptor is not particularly common; the usual term is car accident. I'm sure you can find references to car crash -- I didn't say it was unknown or unintelligible -- but it's not the most natural term in this variety of English. Moncrief (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    I just read a bunch and I know which two words I repeatedly saw. A car accident is a subtype of crash, where no intention is suspected. A car attack is on the other side of neutrality. Anyway, it's sure more natural than "car rampage", on any continent. A course is a course, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    The term usually means a collision between a car and another car or a fixed object. This is supported by US Lexico: An instance of a car colliding with another vehicle or with an object.[12] Human bodies not usually considered objects. It seems completely inappropriate where a vehicle is driven into pedestrians. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    Yes! And I think your description goes a long way in explaining the viscerally negative reaction that many North American editors have to this title. A crash normally implies a collision with an inanimate object in North America. In the UK, which I believe is the location of the editor who invented this title, the term car crash has a more generalized meaning. Moncrief (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    I'm a North American, FWIW, and consider our bodies physical objects. I don't consider an SUV a car, viscerally. Do you consider the 2009 Yambol bus crash as badly mistitled or any worse? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    The 2009 Yambol bus crash and this event appear to be significantly different. The former was a case of bus that was driving over the speed limit in the rain, colliding with 3 cars. The latter is a case where a person intentionally drove an SUV into a parade route, running over many people and killing at least 6. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the Yambol article is mistitled, but this one absolutely is. GoPats (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    That bus hit a group of tourists, not three cars. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    I think you're right, I was looking at a story on a different bus crash in Bulgaria. Still, in the case of Yambol, there were mechanical issues with the bus, rather than an intentional act. "Crash" does not properly describe what occurred in Waukesha. GoPats (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    There was some element of criminal intent in Yambol, or the driver wouldn't have been convicted. Speed played a factor in both crashes. You might be right about intent in Waukesha, too, but the Canadian thing to do is wait to hear what the suspect has to say. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    Wait for facts to come out before jumping to conclusions? Nah, this is the Internet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    Criminal law covers intentional and reckless acts (as well as strict liability offences which might concern acts neither intentional or reckless), so criminal intent is not always a must. I am no expert on Bulgarian law or language, so will defer to your knowledge of the 2009 incident. (Edit: But the 2009 incident involved several people on board dying from the vehicle's impact with a tree, so a "crash" with an object was a key part.) Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    You need to know you're endangering people's safety, know it's wrong, and willfully do it anyway to be found criminally reckless in any act of "great bodily harm". In Wisconsin, anyway, unsure of regular Bulgarian justice. There are more alleged crimes than first-degree murder afoot here, my friend. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Redirect: Darrell Brooks

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

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

I created the redirect Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Really? Seems like a violation of WP:BLPCRIME to me, presuming someone as a suspect before they're charged or convicted. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
If they're charged, they're the accused or defendant rather than a suspect. If they're convicted, they're certainly not a suspect. Suspect has a very specific meaning. --Killuminator (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Joseph2302, Brooks has been charged with five counts of first-degree homicide. Moonraker (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack/Archive_2&oldid=1062993077"