Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2025 New Orleans truck attack article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 2 days

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article 2025 New Orleans truck attack, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Not moved, 1 January 2025, to 2025 New Orleans attack, see discussion.
Not moved, 2 January 2025, to 2025 Bourbon Street massacre, see discussion.
Not moved, 2 January 2025, to 2025 New Orleans New Year's Day attack, see discussion.

A news item involving 2025 New Orleans truck attack was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 January 2025.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Louisiana / New Orleans Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana - New Orleans.

Update needed for FBI findings (part 2)

FBI's latest statements require updating paragraph about perpetrator identification. Multiple sources now confirm FBI's revised findings.

Proposed revision: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identified the driver as Shamsud-Din Jabbar, an American-born resident of Houston, Texas. An Islamic State (ISIS) flag was found on the back of the truck. The FBI is investigating the attack as an act of terrorism and has confirmed the attacker acted alone.[7] While a vehicle explosion occurred at Trump International Hotel Las Vegas on the same day, the FBI has found "no definitive link" between the incidents.[8][9]"

Sources: - AP News (January 2, 2025): "The FBI says that the New Orleans attacker acted alone. The agency also finds 'no definitive link' to the truck explosion in Las Vegas." - WDSU (Updated 11:31 AM CST Jan 2, 2025): "New Orleans terror attack suspect acted alone, FBI says" confirms FBI's findings that Jabbar acted alone and no connection exists to Las Vegas incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basaatw (talk • contribs)

This is an older post that was unsigned by a now blocked user. There is nothing substantial here that isn't already covered or addressed in the article. Nothing to do here. TiggerJay (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Suspect”

Jabbar was the guy who did it so shouldn’t it be changed from suspect to perpetrator? 66.65.59.229 (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that it has been legally confirmed by multiple sources, then yes. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 12:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a presumption of innocence that prevails in these articles, until proven. WP:TOOSOON TiggerJay (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with using "suspect" for a while because of WP:BLP, which applies to the recently deceased. Usually I would expect "suspect" to give way to "convicted perpetrator", but in this case there won't be a trial for the deceased, so I am curious: What are the criteria in the case of a deceased suspect, and how do they officially become a perpetrator? Fluoborate (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever law enforcement calls him that and reliable sources report it, I think. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible it would transition to "attacker" or "assailant" or something similar. But for the most part it will follow what reliable sources are saying whenever that occurs in the process. That is largely driven by the investigation taking place. Among many reasons, some times things become discovered that a person identity was mistaken, or there was a bigger plot and this person was just a cog, or there are other suspicious circumstances where this person was essentially coerced into doing this act. I'm not making any assumptions about this incident, but rather commenting on examples that could drastically impact how this person is referred to in the future. TiggerJay (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say give it a month to let the dust settle and the fog of war clear before we stop extending standard WP:BLP protections to him as recently deceased. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We might need to discuss that due to WP:BDP. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Goku V: What specific aspect of BDP are you asserting? TiggerJay (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably six months, one year, two years at the outside - I said "give it a month" which is shorter than the timeframes supported by WP:BDP. To clarify my stance, I said a month mainly to suggest we should not be acting sooner than a month from now. I am entirely happy to follow WP:BDP guidance and say we should treat the suspect as a BLP for at least six months. Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223 has pretty much already said what I would have. The only thing to emphasis is that this would be in line with the Such extensions would only apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends portion. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Birth

I deleted the date of birth because the cited sources don't seem to say anything about a date of birth. Even if they did, that info seems irrelevant to the greater context. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source released by The Houston Chronicle, saying that his date-of-birth is October 26, 1982, which is correct.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/projects/2025/jabbar-texas-timeline-new-orleans-attack/

2600:1702:5225:C010:946:D84D:AE29:487C (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources is not the only thing required for that fact to be included in this article about the attack. TiggerJay (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exact path of pickup is incorrect

The current description of the actual attack is not correct. The pickup drove down Canal St-in traffic- and then quickly sped up and made a right onto Bourbon via the sidewalk, purposefully going around a police car that was parked on the street to block off Bourbon St. He then drove nearly 3 blocks down Bourdon - running down many pedestrians, then crashing into a crane. Then the shootout began. 2601:645:C680:8A90:85FD:1ACD:D7E2:867B (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that you can provide for that statement? TiggerJay (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Trump International Hotel Las Vegas Tesla Cybertruck explosion

Under "Investigation," the article currently states an outdated belief from January 1, 2025 that the Cybertruck explosion killed the driver. However, local authorities stated on January 2, 2025 that the driver shot himself prior to the explosion. The county coroner confirmed that the driver's Cause of Death was suicide by gunshot. 2nucbom3ve (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one sentence from the article, but there is no need to extensively cover it here except for basically a passing reference that it was investigated for being similar and that no connection was found. If the connection was still unknown then there might be cause for more detail. As it currently stands, it is accurate, and not outdated. TiggerJay (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it does not need to be extensively covered because no connection was found.

However, it is not accurate to say "The same day, at approximately 8:39 a.m., a Tesla Cybertruck exploded and caught fire outside of the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas in Paradise, Nevada, killing the perpetrator and injuring seven other people," because the Tesla exploding did not kill the perpetrator --- he killed himself with a gunshot to the head prior to the explosion.

The article should be simply corrected to: "The same day, at approximately 8:39 a.m., a Tesla Cybertruck exploded and caught fire outside of the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas in Paradise, Nevada, injuring seven other people. The perpetrator died from a self-inflicted gunshot prior to the explosion." 2nucbom3ve (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why anything is said about this as there doesn't appear to be any connection. Doesn't even look like the LV thing was designed to kill anyone other than the driver; and there were over 16,000 actual murders in the US last year. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victim list

A table of the victims was added to the article today. Does Wikipedia:Victim lists apply here, that this extent of detail about the victims, who are not individually notable, such as hometowns and ordinary occupations, would be detail that is excessive to the summary format? Bsherr (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss. Personally I find the victim list essay needlessly prescriptive, and favour WP:CASL. At any rate the previous iteration of the section, where victims whose names are widely being reported were described without being named, was the worst of all worlds. I copied the format of 2009 Fort Hood shooting#Fatalities, which has a similarly manageable number of fatalities. I'm sure a workable prose version can be found if preferred. U-Mos (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some distinctions between Fort Hood, where perhaps because the shooting took place on a military base, that the occupations of the victims, for example, would relate to why they were present on the base. In this article, the total deaths would not make a list of names and ages unduly long. However, other biographical information would seem extraneous to me unless it has actual significance to the subject, such as why they were at the scene. --Bsherr (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your view on naming the victims (without occupations) in prose? U-Mos (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPNAME would also apply, "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event." SimplyLouis27 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to say these individuals are not living, so are out of scope of BLPNAME. Their names are also being "widely disseminated" in the media, the lack of which is a major indicator for non-inclusion in that section. U-Mos (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the bold addition of the list pending a consensus for its inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of anyone subsequently coming to the discussion, this version of the page shows the table under discussion. U-Mos (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way such a huge table would meet current consensus, which is to publish the name and age of the deceased, in prose form. Other facts like home town and occupation are omitted, unless they are reasons for notability. WWGB (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In line with this discussion, I've now named the victims in prose. U-Mos (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motive in infobox

I see that a motive has been added to the infobox again. I cannot see that motive stated, or reliably sourced, as a fact anywhere in the article. U-Mos, can you give your reasoning for adding this please. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to revert, but the Perpetrator section as is is extremely clear (and sourced) on the motive for the attack. U-Mos (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This post is so water downed and innacurate. It was an ISIS flag, which is showing allegiance to a Terrorist Group. It was not a "truck" attack, as headline suggests. It was a ramming with intent to blow up bombs. The raficilaized terror attack was strait from the playbook of Terrorist groups. The man was radicilaized, and it was a terrorist attack. He stated that "non believers" should die. 74.110.242.39 (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENC SimplyLouis27 (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American born in lead section.

I don't think its necessary to write this in the LEAD section since we don't do this for the majority of articles. Malerooster (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there's a subset of the commentariat in the USA who want to claim he was an "illegal" immigrant. That's why that was highlighted in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]