Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Victims

Please include the names and ages of the victims. Here is a source: [1]. 161.77.227.47 (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion of victim names requires consensus of interested editors. No such consensus exists at present. WWGB (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Clarify We don't generally list non-notable victims in articles. Obviously when describing a crime, persons who may not be independently notable, but who were materially involved in the WP:EVENT, will be identified. That said, the usual practice in cases of mass tragedy is to include an external link in the EL section to a list of the deceased. I have no objection to that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
They are notable, though. They've all been covered in multiple independent sources, globally and locally. They pass WP:GNG, and since they're notable for WP:ONEEVENT (discounting the three named on Payton Gendron's gun), this event article's Victims section is the PAG-recommended and frankly logical place to discuss them. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
See WP:VICTIM. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, since there are great points above that show why we should include the names of the victims in the article. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Love of Corey (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
    Here is the text of that policy: "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements"
    What does that have to do with the topic at hand? 02:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Notanipokay (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Victims clearly relevant to the tragedy they were sadly apart of, multiple other tragedies more recent to this include a victim list so I am not really understanding the WP:NOTMEMORIAL votes. Tweedle (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - This is absolutely ridiculous and (as many times seen in Wikipedia) some editors being complete douchebags by abusing their admin powers. There are literally HUNDREDS of Wikipedia pages with all kinds of cases where victims are listed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_O._Barton#Victims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ric_Borel#Victims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Dornier#Victims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velika_Ivan%C4%8Da_shooting#Fatalities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domingo_Salazar#Victims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkankergen_mass_murder#List_of_victims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_post_office_shooting#Victims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting#Fatalities
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 2022-10-27T04:50:56 (UTC)
If the first argument of choice is WP:WHATABOUT, you know there's no strong case for support. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 01:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, but it does say something that so many articles include these lists. It's basically silent consensus at that point: the victims are germane to these topics. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Additionally, we must make a presumption in favour of privacy for non-notable victims of crimes, much like other low-profile living (or recently deceased) people. Their names don't tell us anything encyclopedic about this incident in particular, so they should be left out. Endwise (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
"we must make a presumption in favour of privacy for non-notable victims of crimes" - If they were not notable then they would not even be an article on this to begin with. Tweedle (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, This is pretty standard for many shooting articles, as another editor demonstrated above. Eorekan (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, It would seem pretty obvious that the victims of a notable mass-casualty crime would be pertinent content to the article about that mass-casualty crime. I've seen no valid objections raised and am at a loss as to what the authentic reason for opposing inclusion in fact could be. 02:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notanipokay (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose per arguments above, most pertinently WP:BLPNAME and to a lesser extent WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There is simply no inherent encyclopedic value in listing victims' full names; presumption in favor of privacy weighs much heavier here. Victims' ages and (in part) backgrounds are already covered. That's entirely sufficient. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 01:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
"most pertinently WP:BLPNAME" there names are already listed in a New York Times article?
"to a lesser extent WP:NOTMEMORIAL" in what way does listing those who died in this attack breach "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements" ???
Are people even reading the policy they are citing? This rule is for making an article on someone's dead relative not for someone who was killed in arguably something which constitutes a terrorist attack.
"There is simply no inherent encyclopedic value in listing victims' full names" There clearly is if they have one been referenced in multiple sources and two we have a precedent of including victim lists on every other mass tragedy article? Tweedle (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Answer me just a few simple questions, and I ask you to answer them clearly and directly. What informational purpose does name-dropping six non-notable people (in terms of Wikipedia's general notability guideline) serve except for name-dropping's sake? Think about that for a minute.
Note that we do not exclude any information whatsoever about the victims; we already provide relevant information, including backgrounds and ages. Precisely how does listing six names, that readers are going to forget about two minutes after closing the page, contribute useful information to this article? Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 23:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I have already answered you "clearly and directly", how more straightforward could I be if I tried? They exceed the bar for inclusion, off of your link from the general notability guideline; Presumed + Significant coverage + Sources + Reliable? Check:
The only policy you have cited which comes even close to potentially disqualifying their inclusion is BLPNAME, but the fact that this event happened almost over a year ago now and their names have not been redacted in any of the above sources (for privacy reasons) already means we can safely assume that there are not privacy issues surrounding their inclusion. Off the sources above, there should not even need to be a discussion on this, yet alone it drag for 8 months when a similar one, the Buffalo shooting article, ended within a week in support of the addition of the victims names.
Your second paragraph I have practically answered in the above. For the record, if "readers are going to forget about two minutes after closing the page" is the logic you operate on, then why bother adding anything to Wikipedia at all, or in detail? After all the majority of your contributions will be "forget(ten) about two minutes after closing the page" by the vast majority of readers anyway. Just because most people might not see, or perhaps forget something we have included after clicking off does not mean we should forsake detail for detail's sake. Tweedle (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No, the victims of the Waukesha Christmas parade attack do not pass GNG, and even if they did, they are quite literally known for only a single event. Notability is not at all as clear as you make it out to be. The underlying policy is WP:VNOT; no content—even if verifiable—is guaranteed inclusion in Wikipedia. Content on Wikipedia has to have a cut-off point; otherwise, we'd have to include everything. Some information is deemed more essential than other. I consider namedropping the victims' names nonessential in this case. That's all. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 09:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
'they are quite literally known for only a single event.' - thats because they ARE the event, this tragedy does not exist without them nor the killer but nobody is using such silly arguments to lobby for the removal of his name. Tweedle (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@Throast and Tweedledumb2: See WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Locke Cole, I still believe that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is analogous to this situation, but as the discussion has progressed, I've mainly based my opposition on WP:VNOT and, more precisely, that the names by themselves are simply irrelevant to the reader. I don't see how the first and last names of the victims add any material value to Waukesha Christmas parade attack#Victims. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 17:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
See WP:RELEVANCE, but to surmise, this incident would not be notable if the perpetrator swerved their car around an empty street hitting nothing (actually, if he'd hit streetlights and maybe destroyed major monuments, we'd probably talk about that if the incident gained enough attention to be notable; and that's saying something, that we'll happily talk about downed streetlights, power poles, monuments, but when it comes to real living people, some are quick to omit them because... <reasons>?). These discussions are always baffling to me, that real actual people mean so little to some editors here. But inanimate objects are just so important. Basically: you're telling me the year, make and model of the car he used is more relevant to readers than the names of the people he killed? That's wild. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
And as much is already included in the article. In fact, we already have an entire section dedicated to them, telling us their genders, roughly how old they were, and the dance group (!) some of them belonged to. What more can you ask for? There is a key difference between the make and model of the car and the individual victims: The car passes GNG whereas the victims don't. That's not to say that the victims are "unimportant", it's just a reality of how this encyclopedia works. Looking at this line of arguments, I'm only becoming more convinced that there is not a single substantive argument for inclusion outside of "the names are verifiable", and the only purpose for inclusion is to memorialize them. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
we already have an entire section dedicated to them, telling us their genders, roughly how old they were, and the dance group (!) some of them belonged to. What more can you ask for? Their names. You'll note we also have two subsections dedicated to the perpetrator, as well as significantly more words. These were people. They had names. The car passes GNG whereas the victims don't. Please see WP:NOTEWORTHY, notability guidelines do not apply to article content. Only to whether or not a subject is notable enough to have an article at all. The victims are an inseparable part of this event, and are WP:RELEVANT, providing a balanced view of the event. Their omission is also a WP:NPOV violation. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CASL. NOTMEMORIAL is irrelevant here (see WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL for a detailed refutation of that), BLPNAME is irrelevant as they are widely named in reliable sources, victims are also WP:NOTEWORTHY and without them this event would not be notable in itself, see also WP:BALASP. Anyone invoking NOTMEMORIAL should be ignored since they've clearly not read what that says... —Locke Cole • t • c 16:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Might be appropriate to add that you wrote the essay you cite? Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I see additional names in the edit history. Might be appropriate to not engage in ad hominen and make an argument if you can? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Motive

Shouldn't we add in all of the FB posts about knocking out( killing) white people he posted? they were well verified. Snapshots of them exist of the daily mail UK and some other newspapers. There was a very identifiable motive wasn't there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipop55414 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a deprecated source. Got anything better? WWGB (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Theyre from his social media accounts. 166.181.80.202 (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any sources that prove that the attack was motivated by these views? Just because someone is a racist asshole, doesn't mean that everything they do is racist. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Most sources referencing his social media accounts are right-wing and grossly misrepresent the contents of his accounts, with the exepction of ADL. He said anti-semetic things and the general "Racism is bad" and "I hate being treated like an animals for being black". The latter 2 opinions most black people have.
Feel free to provide a better source. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:E108:76F7:94F5:D761 (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
How exactly does "LEARNED ND TAUGHT BEHAVIOR!! so when we start bakk knokkin white ppl TF out ion wanna hear it.. the old white ppl 2, KNOKK DEM TF OUT!! PERIOD." equate to "racism is bad" or "I hate being treated like an animal"? If that sort of thing were said about someone with a different quantity of melanin, it would have been a huge issue and the account would have been permabanned instantly! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Are you serious?
Multiple reliable sources say the contents of his account contained anti-semetic viewpoints, but that it was also grossly mispresented by white supremacists to claim this tragedy was an anti-white terror attack and tha jews were trying to "Cover it up".
Both of these can be true. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I never said it was an anti-white terror attack. I'm just pointing out that the guy's racist AF! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources don't agree. But they do agree he's anti-semetic.
Last I heard it was a blockable offense to accuse a living person of a crime they were never convicted for. Even in the talk page. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Where did I accuse anyone of a crime they didn't commit? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
you know wikipedia literally accepts guardian and the bbc as sources right? lmao. don't pretend like you ever cared about truth 2A00:23C7:3D9F:BC01:D14B:10DE:319A:6D98 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
You know neither of those two are deprecated? By no, we do not care about the truth, as often it is impossible to know what it is 9after all we can't read this murderer's mind). So we go for wp;v instead. After all if we can just use wp:or to judge his motive, what makes your OR better than mine? Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
So do we have any wp:rs saying racism WAS a motive? Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
There is currently no reliable evidence showing a nexus between Brooks' anti-white views and the November 21 massacre. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources that indicate brooks had anti-white views. Only biase, descrepit, or otherwise unreliable sources that are disproven by RS. Even so, they're disconnected from the crash. To insist he was anti-white and thus did the crash due to being anti-white would be synthesis. Which is against the rules. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:50D:6B3B:96FC:A8BA (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

'motive: unknown'

Thread should have ended with Slatersteven's comment and is now violating WP:NOTFORUM and/or WP:NOR. Ready for archive. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

hmm wonder why a militant BLM sympathiser would kill 5 white people, really boggles the mind. 2A00:23C7:3D9F:BC01:D14B:10DE:319A:6D98 (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, not what we think. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Apart from the mere existence of social media posts in that vein, there's no evidence that this attack was actually motivated by those sentiments. In all likelihood, the attack was motivated by the perpetrator's rage following a violent altercation with the estranged mother of one of his children. If that seems like nonsense to you, then watch some of the trial highlights. I think you'll find that doing and saying nonsensical things is not out of character for him. To that point, I've had the benefit of watching the entire trial from start to finish at least once. Unless you have as well, please refrain from making uninformed comments like that. Glad Tidings from New York (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2023 (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.

Motive unknown

So, the perpetrator have a history of calling for anti-white violence, sympathized with anti-white black supremacy sect, called for "knokking (sic) white ppl" and more
Wikipedia verdict? MOTIVE UNKNOWN.
Hilarious. --2A01:111F:4805:3F00:552E:52EC:390:B2C1 (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Trial split proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. Four no split and five split, though of course this is not a vote. If the section in question is further expanded this may need to be revisited. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Mfko, I agree with this sentiment. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree it should be split, with this article maintaining the synopsis of the trial. The other one can go futher in depth. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that the article should be split.

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

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

(1) This category certainly accounts for a majority of the trial. This was, of course, a result of the fact that the defendant was accused of dozens of crimes, so a thorough presentation of evidence was to be expected. However, excluding its breadth it was (if you'll pardon my saying so) relatively par for the course when it comes to vehicular homicides. There were witnesses who testified to seeing the car strike the crowd, witnesses who gave the names of individuals who were struck, witnesses who testified about DNA evidence, witnesses who testified about the law enforcement response in the immediate aftermath of the attack, and so on and so forth. Attempting to provide encyclopedic coverage of all the evidence presented at trial would result in an article much to large to comfortably handle, probably greatly eclipsing the size of this article. However, I would certainly agree that coverage of this category in the article is substantially lacking, instead focusing mostly on matters which fit into categories (2) and (3). We should absolutely consider rewriting the portion of the article discussing trial and sentencing.
(2) Procedural matters should not receive their own article. These matters include things like scheduling, evidentiary concerns, etc. While these may be of interest to anoraks and appellate lawyers, they will probably not be of interest to the general public.
(3) The defendant at trial conducted himself outrageously. It deserves to be mentioned in the article, because it adds to the sense of loss that the attack caused - folks were robbed of their loved ones, and were subsequently robbed of a dignified trial where justice could be served. However, this certainly does not merit its own article. Out of deference and respect for the facts at hand, the defendant's attempts to make a mockery of the judicial process need not detain readers for too long.

In the end, I would agree that a greater depth of coverage should be given to the evidence presented at trial, while some information regarding process and the defendant's antics should likely be discarded. If this article were a touch longer, I still think it would be perfectly readable. We should avoid, however, avoid attempts to provide a comprehensive account of all of the proceedings in this case. All that being said, this article (and the events that underpin it) should be treated with care, and so I'd like to hear what others have to say before we make a decision in this matter. Glad Tidings from New York (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I would support this split, however I believe a more appropriate title should be State v. Brooks. AKTC3 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's all fit in this article and is a reasonable length. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 23:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree it should be split. There’s enough public interest in the trial alone for it to be its own entry. I also believe the trial itself, outside of the attack, warrants an entry for a more in-depth look at what occurred during the trial. KSCBA (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's no reason the trial needs to be a separate article. Expand the main article instead if people think the section on the trial needs to be longer. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per what Macktheknifeau and Iamreallygoodatcheckers said. If this goes forward I advocate the title of State v. Brooks for consistency with other trials (ie: State v. Mitchell, State v. Palendrano, etc.)Chefs-kiss (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
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.

Why is anti white evidence not allowed?

There are multiple news articles and verified social media posts from different news outlets that clearly lay out that he called for violence against white people. I clicked the edit button and it says that there is no evidence of his anti white beliefs yet a simple google search can find it with his personal twitter spelling out him calling for violence against white people. If social media posts are not considered evidence enough to support he called for targeting whites than why is it that his social media posts regarding the black Israelities anti Semitic beliefs are allowed? Its a clear double standard. Again if social media evidence and news articles are not clearly enough for the people at Wikipedia to make an accusation for his hatred for white people than the "anti Semitic" accusation should not be allowed either being they are soley based off the same thing. The seciton of the "perpetrator" is to gain a reference of who Darrel Brooks is, not about the actual crime. Like i just stated there is social media evidence of him calling for assaulting white people. Why is this not allowed? I would love an answer for this. Panhead 1955 (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

We must have reliable sources say that his attack was motivated by anti-White hatred/bias. We do not allow "original research" by editors trying to connect what they think was his social media with the crime being described in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The anti white rhetoric im discussing is not a question of if it was connected to a crime. Im discussing why it is not allowed into the "perpetrator" section witch cleary lays out his association with the black israelites and their connection to anti semitism. This evidence was pulled from his social media accounts and news articles just like the anti white evidence on his social media accounts. Again why is that the referance of the anti semitism / black Israelites is allowed but not the anti white references?. The anti semitism was not linked to his crime either but yet it is still labeled into his "perpetrator" section witch is there to describe his backround. If this article is completely and 100% dedicated to the facts of the crime than the ADL's evidence for the black Israelites being anti Semitic should not be in this post either being there is no proof he was targeting Jewish people in the attack. Why are the editors so strict about the anti white ideologies not being in the post? Other Wikipedia pages pertaining to certain crimes have way more lead way and totally allow social media post evidence and news articles as references. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbias yet so many articles that could possibly paint Africans Americans in a bad light or even suggest them being racist towards white people is completely unallowed even with irrefutable evidence. Panhead 1955 (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm mostly ignoring the "double standard" complaint and will focus on first sentence you wrote. The perpetrator section typically is not a biography of the person unless reliable sources have highlighted the person's biography as important to understanding the crime. This is an article about the attack, not Brooks. Check out the archives as well as the following old discussions:
I think the paragraph about the ADL is WP:UNDUE and will remove it. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
When CNN picks up the story it works for Wikipedia but when Fox news does, it doesn't. 76.224.187.4 (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Because RS do not link it to the crime. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack/Archive_6&oldid=1207436627"