Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Short-circuiting of discussion results in watered down, inane title

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.

---

So, there was a healthy discussion about the use of "attack" here on this TP, proposed and before it could be completed, someone jumped the gun, and gave us "2021 Waukesha car crash".

Yeah. A crash. In a mid size town somewhere in the mid-West. Yep. The one and only "2021 Waukesha car crash".

I recommend this be reverted and we go back to the original, unique, WP:NATURAL, highly descriptive "2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Attack". XavierItzm (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

An attack requires intent. Reliable sources have not reported that anyone was intended to be killed here, so calling it an attack violates WP:BLP policy. For example, the NYT reports Mr. Kotlarek said the driver appeared to intentionally steer toward people. That account had not been confirmed by the police. (source). This makes it clear that sources are not authoritatively reporting that this was an attack. A better title can still be discussed, but it's important to avoid BLP violations. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment @EvergreenFir: had the right idea calling it an incident. I agree that car crash is borderline ridiculous. Lightburst (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support — strongly agree with "2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Attack" -- FMM-1992 (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

postscript: at the time of publishing/saving this comment, the above replies were not here, see Special:Diff/1056565716 ("was intended to comment here, sorry") by User:Elli after my comment. "2021 Waukesha car crash" was so bad and I just wanted that "Christmas parade" to be restored and "crash" to be removed; after reading the above replies I have no problem with not restoring "Attack", thanks for your reply User:Elli. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close, as this has already been discussed at Talk:2021_Waukesha_car_crash#BLP_and_use_of_"attack". To restate the points made above: 1) absent explicit evidence that this was an attack, calling the collision an attack is tantamount to accusing someone of a very specific and very serious crime before that person was charged, and 2) there is at least preliminary information that this may not have been an attack:

  Senior law enforcement officials say a person of interest who may have a significant criminal history was being questioned overnight. Investigators are probing the possibility whoever was behind the wheel had been involved in an earlier incident involving a knife and was fleeing when the vehicle reached the parade just after 4:30 p.m., they said.

  The title is imperfect, but as the discussion notes, there are other pages on similar incidents with similar titles. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 14:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delta1989 is obviously correct. --JBL (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose According to CNN the guy might have been fleeing another crime. If so, it would be wrong to call the incident an attack. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree fully that it shouldn't be called an attack for the moment, but "car crash" is dumb. It makes it sound like a minor traffic accident. Also, an SUV is arguably not a "car". "Incident" is better than "car crash". Bueller 007 (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose attack We can't use that for obvious BLP reasons at the moment. "Car crash" is better, but "incident" would have been best. Covers all bases neutrally. Black Kite (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Point of information - I suggest folks continue the conversation at the move request in order to keep things sorted. As I stated in the speedy close comment, 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 to show how these types of articles are typically named. Stylistically, we usually don't say SUV/pickup/crossover in the title, and instead go with the broad category of car, van, bus, or truck. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. The move request, 2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade attack → Waukesha car attack, has been closed without predjudice. A new request to rename may be opened at any time, which will hopefully determine the long-term, stable title for this article. Any new request must take into account that the word "attack" has been determined to be unusable in the title and content due to the community consensus at WP:BLP. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 16:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that the final name needs to be permanent. Too many moves etc. already. I would gladly have a stupid title for a couple extra days than change it three times as rumors of accident, terrorism, crime, etc flow around. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Voicing my support of renaming to 2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Incident. Infinitely more descriptive than "car crash", but generic enough not to imply any specific intent. I think this should be changed soon considering the amount of traffic this page is going to receive. --kewlgrapes (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Incident is too vague. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support — "Suspect faces 5 counts of intentional homicide with more charges possible, says police chief" (https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/wisconsin-waukesha-christmas-parade-car-plow-11-22-21/h_c40a39a819466043f0d30c5eb28bca71). Intentional. Attack. Not a crash.--Bukauskas (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment — Intentionality does not necessarily indicate that this was an attack per se. Consider two hypotheticals: one in which a person commits arson, setting their business on fire to collect insurance on the property and, in the process, inadvertently kills the co-owner who was inside; the other in which the same person commits arson specifically to kill the co-owner. Both are intentional and both are illegal, but someone would be far more likely to characterize the latter as an attack than the former. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:05, 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.

Why is the racial motivation being censored?

WP:DENY recognition to race baiting, and we generally avoid polemic sources.

What is needing to be discussed by this edit? Why is it not allowed? However, an investigation into Brooks' social media post that gives insight to his mindset and possible motivations for the attack revealed a variety of divisive and hateful posts. In a now-deleted Facebook post, Brooks called for violence against White people. He praised Adolf Hitler for killing Jews in the Holocaust. He also called for violence against elderly White people before allegedly killing five elderly white people at the Waukesha parade attack, writing in a Facebook post on June 9, 2021 that "the old white ppl 2, KNOKK DEM TF OUT!!". Police are investigating whether Brooks may have been fleeing from a nearby domestic disturbance when encountering the parade, or if there is another possible motive for the parade attack.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaver55 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Clearly, this person appears to be deeply disturbed and violent. People like this often say very irrational things, both face-to-face and though social media. Someone who praised white Aryan Hitler and then called for attacks on white people is not rational. How is someone driving at a high rate of speed able to target white people and spare minority people? That makes no sense and such speculation does not belong in this article. Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC) According to Wikipedia, Waukesha was 88.8% white in 2019. The proportion who publicly celebrate Christmas in 2021 is plausibly higher. Regardless of intent, the likelihood of any driver even coming across a non-white and having to choose on the spot is pretty low. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC) So 11+% of the population is non-white, InedibleHulk. Your statistics do not demonstrate thst this person chose to attack this specific parade for racial reasons. Maybe such evidence will emerge and maybe it won't. It does not belong in this article at this time because the sourcing is weak right now. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC) It wasn't supposed to demonstrate that, just answer how he was able to avoid killing and possibly not hit ("spare") minorities in such a location. Someone targeting whites would find them there and someone who just happened to speed through zig-zagging would have a similar racial makeup of victims. The fact that these victims were mostly "old white ppl" could more likely be a coincidence than it could be if all the dead were white in generic downtown New York or whatever more blended community. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC) InedibleHulk, 11% of 68 people injured or killed would be about seven people. And who is counting and racially categorizing the people who darted out of the way and avoided injury? The point is that no direct connection had yet been established, in reliable sources, between his extremist social media comments and this despicable incident. People in general are welcome to draw that inference but Wikipedia cannot unless reliable sources do so first. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC) I don't think anyone is saying we should add it to the article based on our own inferences. But if we're going to argue on the talk page that targeting a parade could not be racially motivated as it might involve members of the group you do not wish to target, then it is open on editors to rebut that and point out that a parade could have a disproportionately high percentage of a particular racial group relative to the demographics of the locality. Solipsism 101 (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Exactly. He asked a question and I (tried to) answer it. I don't want one thing or another in the article. Maybe Christmas parades appeal to all demographics equally, and maybe they don't. I haven't even seen a video of this yet, no idea what the crowd looked like, could have very well hit seven non-whites. Sorry for any confusion. Keep up the good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC) The reason it's not being mentioned right now is because it's not widely confirmed or has been proven relevant to this article, also the only RS you even provided is the Fox one, and it has this statement: "Facebook account appearing to belong to Darrell Brooks". This means we think it's his Facebook, it's not confirmed. Now when this is being more widely reported and believed to be part of the motive I will support inclusion of this information. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC) References The moderators here like CNN and NBC only. They will not let any update till these news organisations confirm that it was a racial attack. Abheygpt1 (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn't have "moderators," it has editors. It also has policies. You are more than welcome to add information about this once independent, reliable sources discuss them. There's a firm community consensus, established through many community discussions over many years, that Fox News, New York Post, and Townhall are unreliable sources. You can read why the community feels that way at WP:RSP. You also have an account! You're more than welcome to participate in future discussions and make your case as to why those sources should be considered reliable. For now, though, they're not. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 00:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC) I have said this so many times in this talk page. Fox News is reliable for reporting on this subject, this is not political. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC) I firmly disagree - if the issue isn't political, why does this article discuss conservative criticism of bail reform policies? That's inherently a political question and political argument. Can't have it both ways - either it's non-political, in which case we shouldn't mention anyone's political commentary on bail reform, or bail reform is relevant and therefore this issue is political. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Citing that one sentence as making this a political topic does not make sense. Does the one sentence in the Fred Rogers Wikipedia page stating he was a registered Republican make that article political too? Fox is not unreliable in reporting about this incident. If you believe it is can you please cite an example of Fox getting in wrong in relation to this incident. Furthermore, Fox is not labeled to be unreliable on political topics, and it merely says should be used with caution. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC) I would reject anything from Fox News which purports to discuss any claimed motivation, given the dubious and extremely charged rhetoric coming from the network's political commentators. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Well Fox hasn't purported any motive yet because no one knows the motive. They ran an article about the suspects social media activity, but did not claim what his motive was. Also no one has proposed we use Fox's "political commentators" as a source for anything. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC) I agree this aspect isn't political, just racial. Race, like violence and journalism, is one of many politicized subjects, but so are health, finance, entertainment, sports and weather. Attempting to stretch the political commentary rule further than politics itself does seem virtually indistinguishable from an attempted total ban of one of America's three most mainstream news channels. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC) "People like this often say very irrational things, both face-to-face and though social media." I rarely use Facebook, but often use YouTube. The comments' section of any given video tends to include bigoted comments about other peoples' known or presumed gender, sexuality, nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, and skin color. People seem to feel safe to say offensive things online. Acting on what they say seems much more rare. Dimadick (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC) The sources cited are: Fox News, Townhall, NY Post. These are partisan tabloids with repeatedly questionable journalism, pushing an agenda and coming up with their own characterizations of his social media posts. WP:WEIGHT is given to high quality neutral reliable sources. Compare the reporting from those sources to the Associated Press, NPR, New York Times, for example which are much more cautious and by and large have not commented on his social media posts. It is also unclear if these are related to the event at all which is exactly why these sources have not commented on it. Furthermore, investigators have not said that the motive is yet, and the investigation is ongoing. They will eventually release the findings of their investigations. Once that is done they will be reported on, and they will be included into this article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC) These sources are not banned from Wikipedia for factual reporting, per WP:RSP. Like @InedibleHulk: says above, this isn't political.XavierItzm (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Mary Lemanski incident

What she did was so disgusting it should be in here. Why was it removed? It’s worthy of being talked about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eg224 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Something being "disgusting" doesn't mean it's worthy of being in an article about a specific incident. A one-off comment from an unnotable person almost certainly doesn't need to be in here. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 23:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thadeus is correct. Also WP:NOTNEWS. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

A staff member saying something in another state is too tangential. It's a local political scandal that would be better on another page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ford Escape

The suspect's Ford Escape appeared in one of his music videos (shown here: https://heavy.com/news/darrell-brooks-jr) with the full license plate exposed. Looking that plate up comes up as a 2010 Ford Escape XLT. If I added that, would it be original research? Cutlass^Ciera 12:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes it would be, also heavy.com isn't a reliable source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I meant for the music video, the video was deleted and this was the only link I could find. Anyways, understandable. Cutlass^Ciera 19:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Motive has been established

Darrell Brooks was trying to strike “as many people as possible” when raced his car through a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, on Sunday, authorities said in a criminal complaint

Source https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/wisconsin-waukesha-victim-darrell-brooks-live-b1963284.html 98.233.226.209 (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not really a motive as much as it is an intention, and it's in a criminal complaint that has been publicly available since Tuesday. It's not clear what specific change you want made. Please formulate your request in a direct way, such as "Change X to Y." Also note that the article already states, 'On November 23, police reported that Brooks deliberately targeted the crowd, driving in a "zig-zag pattern" to hit as many people as possible.[15]' Moncrief (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Lengthy criminal record

He has a lengthy criminal record, including conviction of a sex offence against a minor in Nevada, he registered in the Nevada sex offenders list, moreover, an outstanding warrant has been issued in Nevada to arrest him, he freed on bail twice this year despite active warrant in Nevada (despite that, he was released from jail). NOTHING about all this things is mentioned in the article. Here is the source - [1]. It is an important info. 24.6.179.65 (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be mentioned. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

More info

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/ct-aud-nw-wisconsin-parade-20211122-jruhu2bu5vh7ho576zg354tvra-story.html

https://archive.md/xm65W

»Waukesha is a western suburb of Milwaukee, and about 55 miles north of Kenosha, where Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted Friday of charges stemming from the shooting of three men during unrest in that city in August 2020.«

https://polishnews.co.uk/waukesha-christmas-parade-witnesses-describe-chaos-blood-after-suv-strikes-nearly-2-dozen

https://archive.md/dZKKK

»Woynilko mentioned that as he rushed his pal to security and left the world, he overhead law enforcement officials describing the suspect as a Black male both within the crimson SUV or on foot.« tickle me 06:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Tangential and haersay. Nothing we can or should use. Any attempt to link this and Kenosha must be with a rock solid source like the police chief. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The suspect is in custody, it's only a matter of time with both issues. That they're tangential is POV, but I didn't expect anything else. tickle me 07:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Not POV, just saying you can't WP:SYNTH. As it stands, that factoid is tangential until RS connect them. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

They do. The Orlando Sentinel, Washington Post, Frankfurter Zeitung, Berliner Zeitung, and Deutsche Welle are RS and state the obvious. Whether other journalists, professors of sociology, or Wikipedia editors thinks this connection is pertinent is irrelevant. That only a police chief could connect the dots legitimately is POV, too.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/suv-speeds-into-christmas-parade-in-suburban-milwaukee/2021/11/21/2d9d443e-4b29-11ec-a7b8-9ed28bf23929_story.html

Police: 'Some' killed when SUV hits Christmas parade

Waukesha is a western suburb of Milwaukee, and about 55 miles (90 kilometers) north of Kenosha, where Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted Friday of charges stemming from the shooting of three men during unrest in that city in August 2020.

• https://www.dw.com/en/us-car-rams-into-wisconsin-christmas-parade/a-59896255

US: Car rams into Wisconsin Christmas parade

The attack occurred just 55 miles (88 kilometers) north of Kenosha where Kyle Rittenhouse was freed on Friday after killing two men.

• https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/ungluecke/waukesha-in-wisconsin-auto-rast-in-weihnachtsparade-17646016.html

Auto rast in Weihnachtsparade – Fünf Tote

(Car crashes into Christmas parade - Five dead)

Waukesha liegt westlich der Großstadt Milwaukee im Norden der USA – und rund eine Autostunde von der Stadt Kenosha entfernt, wo am Freitag der 18 Jahre alte Kyle Rittenhouse nach tödlichen Schüssen auf Anti-Rassismus-Demonstranten im August 2020 von allen Anklagepunkten freigesprochen worden war. Der damals 17-Jährige hatte bei den Protesten mit einem halbautomatischen Gewehr zwei Menschen erschossen und einen dritten verletzt. Er plädierte vor Gericht auf Selbstverteidigung, weil er von den Männern angegriffen worden sei. Rittenhouse hatte sich bewaffneten Männern angeschlossen, die nach eigenen Angaben Geschäfte vor Plünderern schützten wollten. In Kenosha war es zu Protesten und Ausschreitungen gekommen, nachdem ein weißer Polizist einen Afroamerikaner mit mehreren Schüssen in den Rücken schwer verletzt hatte.

(Waukesha is west of the major city of Milwaukee in the northern USA - and about an hour's drive from the city of Kenosha, where 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges on Friday after fatally shooting anti-racism demonstrators in August 2020. The then 17-year-old had shot two people and injured a third with a semi-automatic rifle during the protests. He pleaded self-defence in court because he had been attacked by the men. Rittenhouse had joined armed men who said they were protecting shops from looters. Protests and riots broke out in Kenosha after a white police officer seriously injured an African-American man with several shots in the back.)

• https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/news/usa-suv-rast-in-weihnachtsparade-und-toetet-mehrere-menschen-li.196272

USA: SUV rast in Weihnachtsparade und tötet mehrere Menschen

(USA: SUV crashes into Christmas parade, killing several people)

Waukesha liegt westlich der Großstadt Milwaukee im Norden der USA – und rund eine Autostunde von der Stadt Kenosha entfernt, wo Der damals 17-Jährige hatte bei den Protesten mit einem halbautomatischen Gewehr zwei Menschen erschossen und einen dritten verletzt. Er plädierte vor Gericht auf Selbstverteidigung, weil er von den Männern angegriffen worden sei. Rittenhouse hatte sich bewaffneten Männern angeschlossen, die nach eigenen Angaben Geschäfte vor Plünderern schützten wollten. In Kenosha war es zu Protesten und Ausschreitungen gekommen, nachdem ein weißer Polizist einen Afroamerikaner mit mehreren Schüssen in den Rücken schwer verletzt hatte.

(Waukesha is located west of the major city of Milwaukee in the north of the USA - and about an hour's drive from the city of Kenosha, where The then 17-year-old had shot two people and injured a third with a semi-automatic rifle during the protests. He pleaded self-defence in court because he had been attacked by the men. Rittenhouse had joined armed men who said they were protecting businesses from looters. Protests and riots broke out in Kenosha after a white police officer seriously injured an African-American man with several shots in the back.) tickle me 08:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Kenosha unrest should go in the See Also section, "black" should go before "person of interest" in Event, or something else should go somewhere? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That the suspect is black is plausible, as even the POTUS defamed Rittenhouse as white supremacist, not to mention MSM and civil society, but so far only tenuously sourced by the Orlando Sentinel. "Kenosha unrest" should go in the "See Also" section, yes. It's only a matter of a few days, anyway, the incident is too egregious to be controlled, for much that they try. tickle me 09:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a Background section now, where a link could be seen also. Not sure about the rest. Sounds rough! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid personal speculation and turning the talk page into a forum because they are not a forum for discussion. Our views are utterly irrelevant. We are here to summarize reliable sources to given encyclopedic information to our readers who wish to learn about this incident. If or when news sources include this information, then the article will reflect it.Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The Independent on [19 Nov 2021 19:41:50 UTC]: "Full story: Teenager who shot three black men with rifle found not guilty on all charges"

One of many examples that reliable sources (as the POTUS is, too) won't necessarily provide reliable information in this and many other cases, to put it very mildly. As WP relies on them, which seemed like a good enough idea for years, we should start thinking hard on what to do next. tickle me 10:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You deleted the section without legitimate reason: "Unclear if these events are related and including it might create a narrative."

We're bound to report (unfortunately, at this point in time) what RS report. Whether an editor feels that this is unclear or whether it might create a narrative is irrelevant. tickle me 10:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That Background section was far from personal speculation. It literally plagiarized the AP, I just replaced one word with three. But I don't care that you deleted it, just wasn't Aftermath to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Tickle was explaining how they thought the suspect being black is "plausible", which is all irrelevant speculation and personal opinion. Nothing has been released or confirmed by authorities about the person of interest (not suspect). Authorities have not commented on whether this incident has anything to do with the Rittenhouse decision. When they have, that information will be included. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This is vandalism. The deleted section didn't mention anything about the suspect's skin colour, and I didn't advocate for its inclusion w/o better sources. We report what authorities *or* other RS report – there's no wikipedic rule that excludes papers of record from now on, unless authorities corroborate. tickle me 10:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. But this idea of waiting for police to report is a bit ludicrous. Authorities didn't connect this to last year's COVID restrictions, as our new opening mentions. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Four papers of record make the connection and German public radio, there's nothing to argue. tickle me 11:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Iff the sources say that the events are connects (or explicitly say they are not), then we add it to the article. Just because sources juxtapose information for context to readers does not mean we do that here (see WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That sources juxtapose and don't connect information is POV. Even assuming that a juxtaposition is what the reporters had in mind the readers should make up their minds w/o the wise guidance of editors about what to think. tickle me 04:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I think Fir is right here. I don't read any of the sources you've provided as making a connection between these two events, rather, that they're contextualizing where Waukesha is for people who are not aware (as I imagine most people are). If the goal was a connection they'd give more time than a single boilerplate sentence that's virtually identical between all of them. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 13:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

change name to "Waukesha SUV attack."

What the suspect did aas the same as the suspect in Nice, France in 2016. The article for that event is called "Nice Truck Attack." There is no difference. Jaygo113 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be titled in a way that is consistent with the article on the Nice attack. Maybe "2021 Waukesha Christmas parade SUV attack"? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It should be titled the same as the Charlottesville car attack or kept as it is. Skyrant (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

"Police Chief Daniel Thompson said it was not a terrorist event.[12]"

"Terrorist" is a noun, not an adjective. I think "...said it was not an act of terrorism." is better. "Terrorist event" sounds like a professional convention/trade show for terrorists in Vegas, or a really badly named Halloween cosplay event, also likely held in Vegas...let's let these imaginary things that happen in this imaginary Vegas stay in the imaginary Vegas, and make this needed change. 174.193.195.141 (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Your point is a good one, but "terrorist event" is in the linked source for the relevant sentence in the article. The source says: "Thompson said the incident is not a terrorist event." Admittedly that's not a direct quote. If you can find the direct quote, we can see if it can be paraphrased as terrorism. I personally see no problem with your requested change, but I'll wait and see what other editors think. Finding the chief's direct quote would be useful. Moncrief (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

A grammar point. "Terrorist" is indeed a noun. In English, it is entirely normal for a noun to be used attributively, modifying another noun. Putting aside the (far more important) question of what Thompson said or didn't say, "not a terrorist event" is fully grammatical and entirely idiomatic. -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I know it can be argued that it's technically OK, but I just don't like it. Obviously, some nouns work better than others when used attributively, and an adjective is almost always going to be better. Here is the quote (edit--yes, that is what he said, verbatim): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/waukesha-police-chief-parade-terrorism-b1962405.html?amp Considering "terrorist cell", "terrorist attack", and "terrorist plot" are all mainstream phrases, I'm inclined this is one of the best use cases for a attributive noun, but "event" throws it way off, in my opinion...maybe it trivializes it, maybe it conjures up images of booths staffed by cell reps eager to demonstrate their latest vest, handing out branded pens and tote bags...I dunno. 174.193.195.141 (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done:

Since "terrorist event" is a direct quote, I put the phrase in quotes to make that clearer. With a topic this important to get just right about what was said and what wasn't, I don't think we should be in the business of paraphrasing unless absolutely necessary. I also added the link to The Independent article you provided, which contains the direct quote. Thank you. Moncrief (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the anonymous is not wrong.XavierItzm (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

^ I don't know what this means, or who the "anonymous" is, so I'm afraid I can't point it out. Moncrief (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk page protected for 1 day

I have semi-protected this page for 1 day due to the 19 disruptive edits by IP users in the past 14 hours. A few WP:REVDELs were needed too. These edits are most likely due to coverage by Fox News and the rehashes of that coverage at NotTheBee, Law Officer.com, Reddit, and more. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It's clear the off site coordination is out of date as well. "Why is it called a car crash?!" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that too! They didn't read the title. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's just they have previously hated Wikipedia and don't want to go on it for whatever reason, but whatever. In my opinion "car crash" was a dumb title because smashing through a parade at 60mph, zigzagging is quite obviously intentional, but I agree the news coverage is taking it way too far. I think that if you think something is wrong, you can take it to the talk page, in a civil manner, explain (of course in a civil way) why you think it's wrong, and mention why you think it's wrong, rather than accusing people of being biased, which is the complete wrong way to do it. I don't hate any of the people who take this for truth, but I really think doing what I had said earlier is the best choice. Cutlass^Ciera 19:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

They seem disappointed or maybe surprised that the title isn't actually "car crash" anymore, to the extent they notice it. At any rate, nice to have a (US) Thanksgiving semi-protection break for a day, as we all know that wine and Wikipedia don't mix well. Moncrief (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Google is still linking to the older article title of "car crash". Of course, after clicking the link, you can always read the actual title of the page, so... —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I saw some quite questionable comments earlier on my phone and wasn't able to navigate thru the process of requesting a revdel. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 20:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Their self-righteous anger is misdirected since Wikipedia is merely following the characterization of the attack by the mainstream media. When intentionality was not immediately obvious, it made sense to use crash. After intentionality was shown, and homicide characters were laid "attack" or something similar makes sense. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

As Fox says, the non-Fox mainstream generally names it the Waukesha parade crash. Wikipedia went rogue by inserting "car", and then changing "crash" to "rampage". Not despicably creative, of course, but never actually following most sources (and the full five-word title is still exclusively ours). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we should have gone with "2021 really bad thing that happened in Waukesha" until things shook out a bit. As I mentioned above, the title really doesn't matter that much. WP:NODEADLINE and WP:NOTNEWS apply. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks it should have been called "attack" from the very start should read this. Not everything is always as it seems. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much to you. Using a common and neutral one kind of matters to me (three words especially). Using a rare and prejudicial one matters like crazy to "those people". All relative, man. But yeah, I can wait. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the new editors progressed up to "why isn't this "2021 opening salvo in the coming race war,"" so I don't think there's really any way to make everyone happy. I just don't think the continued focus on moving the article to different titles before there's more solid information is productive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't aim to make anyone happy here, just acknowledging there's a wide spectrum of title-related emotion. As for solid information, we have Reporters and media outlets across the country have been...referring to the [2021 bad thing] as a "parade crash" rather than an attack or massacre. That's not a right-wing opinion, just a truncated matter of fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

And before any of "those people" get unmuzzled tomorrow and want to allege "parade crash" is a leftist codeword for any topical opinion, save your talking point for Twitter. I'm Canadian, and when Global News says "Waukesha parade crash" in big black letters, all it's safe for "my people" to assume is a vehicle collided with street festival performers and spectators somewhere in the Great Lakes region. Here, anybody can crash into anything for any reason, regardless of their inevitable association with an established cultural stereotype in a contrived episodic ratings war between two rival foreign cable networks. Sometimes we (meaning all sentient mobile beings) want to hit the people, places and things we do, and sometimes we don't. Simple as that. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

About the five-word title -- many media organizations seem to like to drop the "when" from titles. This makes since given that they're writing news, when things are kinda by definition in the present or very recent past. Given that we're an encyclopedia, the bar for dropping the "when" should be much higher. Congressional baseball shooting or GameStop short squeeze yes, but not for stuff like this which in the grand scheme of things is likely not going to end up being that significant. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Toronto van attack immediately gets to the part that matters. I like that. Your high standards are cool, too, but I think a mere lack of ambiguity is good enough. In this case, an RS is explicitly telling us the common name. I've been through dozens of these renaming shitshows (including baseball shooting), and the answer has never been so verifiable. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Any reason this isn't being called a massacre instead of "attack"?

Here are the two definitions:

at·tack -

         1. take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war.
         2. an aggressive and violent action against a person or place.

mas·sa·cre -

            n. an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people.
            v. deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people).

As far as I can tell, massacre would be a better descriptor since the deliberate intent was to kill multiple people and/or an ethnic group, not an individual or the place itself. Or is this article proposing that white people were seen as an enemy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TryCancellingThis (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion regarding the article title can be found above. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say, not assumptions. clpo13_(talk) 23:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, this is not necessarily the final title for this article. As more information is reported, it may be moved again, but there's no need to rush (see WP:DEADLINE). clpo13_(talk) 00:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair, it's a fine compromise for now. Cheers and happy holidays.

You should read the rest of this talk page before asking redundant questions. We're still working on a consensus title that follows the sources. "Attack" seems to be a good compromise for the moment. Also, this is WP:NOTAFORUM, so please avoid turning it into a political argument. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just hope it will be changed to massacre if he is found to have acted deliberately. The end bit was tongue in cheek based on the definition of the words used in the title, I'll refrain in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TryCancellingThis (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I support this change attack should be changed to massacre Zyxrq (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This article makes no mention of the motives behind him, of which there is numerous evidence showing that he directly supported BLM and racial extremist views, which should absolutely be mentioned and I have no idea why they aren't.Crun31 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

By definition this is a massacre. I agree it should be changed to say massacre. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Mugshot

What is the copyright status of mugshots? The file currently does not explain copyright status and it might end up being deleted. I think mugshots are public domain? Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Depends on state and local law. Work product of a federal employee in the United States is public domain, but that is not generally true for products of state and local employees. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Harizotoh9 They are usually public domain. See one here that I uploaded some time ago. Lightburst (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of a mugshot portrays the accused in a particular way and may be a breach of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:MUG. WWGB (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That mugshot was from Milwaukee County based on a previous incident. Brooks is currently held by Waukesha County. Various sources have been using this mugshot provided by the Waukesha County Sheriff's Office to the AP; however, I believe it's also a mugshot from a previous event. If it's public domain I think it's completely fair to use given that we're using it in an article about a crime he allegedly committed (so it is context appropriate in this article). [2] Bueller 007 (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I think User:Bueller 007 is correct and the mugshot ought to be restored. Its deletion was inappropriate. XavierItzm (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

So it is a mugshot relating to an alleged crime, other than the subject of this article. In other words, the circumstances of the mugshot have nothing to do with the Waukesha rampage? WWGB (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that that mugshot should be restored unless we know whether we have copyright permissions to use it. I was arguing in favour of using the mugshot that I linked to, again assuming that it can be used under copyright law. But I don't think that it's out of line to include a mugshot for an accused criminal. Nikolas Cruz's mugshot was posted on the article for the Stoneman Douglas shooting before he was tried, for example. If we have copyright permission to use it, it should be in the article. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Um why are you saying they are "usually public domain" but linking to a mugshot that is not public domain? Anyway I'm fairly sure NorthBySouthBaranof has it right. Mug shots produced by state or local government employees are often not in the public domain. The fact that other media use them tells us nothing, since they may be using them under fair use. As is often the case, legally I'm sure we could as well but it's irrelevant. We can only use them if the usage complies with NFCC and I'm unconvinced it would here. Still if someone feels it does, they're welcome to upload one and make the case. I wouldn't use the above example as a guide, I'm unconvinced it complies and also there are obvious differences between the two. (In the above example, the case was resolved a long time ago and the person is now in prison limiting opportunities for any free image.) As WWGB said copyright issues aside there are also policy questions about whether it's appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Work done by Government officials in the course of their duties is nearly always public domain. Which is why mug shots are reprinted everywhere. I showed a mug shot which was fair use because it identified the subject, however that does not apply to "other" living people whose photos were not produced by Government. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is one such reference to a court case in Wisconsin. This is not to say that I think this person's mug shot should be in our article. Accused as he is. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Please provide a citation for your claim which flies in the face of what everyone who actually knows about this actually says (e.g. Commons:Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain), and your own actions in the example you cited (albeit funnily enough that may be one of the exceptions coming from a government ine Florida). In case there's confusion, the Florida, California and US federal government cannot by any token be considered "nearly always" government officials. And this is the case even if we restrict ourselves to the US. As I already said, it's quite likely most news agencies could justify using mug shots as fair use for a variety of reasons, this tells us jack shit about whether any image is in the public domain. We also have no idea if permission was sought even if they aren't using the image under fair use. Note your reference appears to be about whether such works are public records and therefore subject to freedom of information acts or otherwise made available to the public on request. This is different from the copyright status of the image itself. An image may be made available on request but still copyrighted. Here in NZ most government work is copyrighted (Crown copyright. But a lot of it will also be made available under the Official Information Act 1982. This doesn't affect the fact it's copyrighted. See also Wikipedia:Public domain#Public records. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: That escalated quickly. I will dismiss myself now. Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that really got out of hand fast. Brick killed a guy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

California mugshots are public domain, as per Template:PD-CAGov (e.g. OJ Simpson’s mugshot). Ditto with Florida mugshots (e.g. Kent_Hovind#/media/File:Hovind_portrait.jpg). Other states may or may not claim copyright on mugshots. Samboy (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Trident? Lightburst (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Which suggest the example above may be in the public domain so it's actually fine to have it here despite the NFCC template being used by the uploader. But also still suggest that example isn't helpful for what we do here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

If a copyright free mugshot can be confirmed then it should be added. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Add his mugshot as soon as we find a public domain one to use. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Change attack to massacre

I do think we should change attack to Massacre. The definition of Massacre would fit this article better. The definition being : Deliberately and violently killing a large group of people. Thats what pretty much happened here. A man intently drove into a crowd of people with the intent to kill. can someone cerate another poll or a Requested move, so we can see if most of us supports this change, and to see if we should change it. thank you. --Zyxrq (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No. Your use of terms like "deliberately" and "intently" implies both guilt and motive, neither of which have been established. WWGB (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Most articles about similar events use the word “attack”. See the list in Vehicle-ramming attack. That includes much more deadly events like 2016 Nice truck attack, and recent events in United States: Charlottesville car attack, 2017 New York City truck attack. --Brinerat (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Also "massacre" is a non-neutral word that Wikipedia tends to avoid unless it is the common name; see WP:POVNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

WWGB BilledMammal I disagree, I do think the term is neutral and its obvious the Massacre was attentional, He drove in a zig zag trying to hit people, that should prove that he meant to do it. also there doesn't need to be a motive for it to be considered a Massacre if we are using the definition I posted above. I still support the name change Zyxrq (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Zyxrq, first of all, we don't conduct original research, which is exactly what your statement of "He drove in a zig zag trying to hit people, that should prove that he meant to do it" is. That's just guesswork. It's been explained to you why your proposed changes don't conform to policy, and I advise you to read those policies. Notable amongst them is WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:POVNAME. I mean no offense, but your editing shows that despite dozens of warnings on your user page, you've perhaps never read these policies, or at least seem confused as to how they apply. Feel free to ask questions, but also take on the advice of experienced editors. Wikipedia operates by a set of rules, and one needs to learn them in order to continue to edit here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I do agree I still have a lot to learn about Wikipedia. and I will read those policy's for a second time if I haft to. Me saying the zig zag thing was me giving an example from this article and what others have said in this talk page. I do understand how what I said came off as original research and I'm fully aware we don't do original research. Also the reason my talk page is like that is because most of my edits are for fun and because I like learning and writing about stuff. :) Zyxrq (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The large majority of attacks which have a single-digit death toll aren't referred to as massacres. Many with a death toll of dozens also aren't, including the Orlando nightclub shooting & 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspect's prior criminal history

The only crime from before this attack that is specifically mentioned in this article is the one from earlier this month. But these reliable sources cite many, many others, going back decades. The article should cite specific examples of these, so readers can know that this current incident was completely predictable and completely preventable. This guy kept committing one violent crime after another, but he kept getting probation instead of prison. Even when he violated his probation, he still managed to stay out of prison. This incident was completely predictable and completely preventable.

List of quotes and sources

Washington Post: "Brooks has a criminal record that includes other charges and convictions spanning more than two decades — a list that includes allegations of battery, domestic abuse, recklessly endangering others and drug violations. He was also convicted of a sex crime in Nevada after impregnating a minor, officials say." Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/24/wisconsin-parade-darrell-brooks-bail/#QENX3LX6UZBGNHVPALGCOGUYQE New York Times: "Mr. Brooks has a long history of domestic abuse allegations " Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20211125093613/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/22/us/wisconsin-waukesha-parade.html New York Times: "It is clear that Mr. Brooks — who had a criminal history of violence, domestic abuse, sexual crime, drug offenses and bail jumping dating to 1999 — should never have been eligible for such a low bail regardless of the state of the courts, lawyers who work in the system said." Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20211125103116/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/25/us/waukesha-wisconsin-brooks-bail.html ABC News Chicago affiliate WLS: "Brooks has been charged with crimes more than a dozen times since 1999 and had two outstanding cases against him at the time of the parade disaster. That included resisting or obstructing an officer, reckless endangering, disorderly conduct, bail jumping and battery for the Nov. 2 incident." "He is also a convicted sex offender in Nevada, from a 2006 case in which a 15 year old became pregnant. Brooks was required to register as a convicted sex offender and keep his records current. Authorities said he didn't comply and that a warrant for his arrest was issued when he became "non-compliant."" "As a result of that conviction, Brooks was arrested a decade later when he failed to obey sex offender laws. He bailed out on this charge but never returned to court, according to police in Sparks, NV." "There was a warrant out for the arrest of Brooks in Nevada issued August 15, 2016 for that failure to appear." Source: https://abc7chicago.com/waukesha-darrell-brooks-wisconsin-christmas-parade-news/11264926/ Washington Post: "Brooks’s path to the parade on Sunday was littered with run-ins with police and the justice system dating back more than two decades." "His criminal history stretches back to at least 1999, when he was charged with battery and later convicted, court records and filings show. In the years that followed came battery allegations, drug charges, counts of resisting law enforcement officials, some traffic violations and other charges. Authorities in Nevada also said a man with Brooks’s name and birthday was convicted there more than a decade ago of “statutory sexual seduction.”" "Brooks is still facing charges in another pending case. In July 2020, he was charged with two counts of second-degree recklessly endangering someone else’s safety and another count of possessing a gun despite being convicted of a felony." "According to court documents, Milwaukee police officers went to a home on July 24, 2020, where a woman told them that Brooks had gotten into “a physical fight” with his nephew not long before a gunshot rang out, according to the woman, who was identified in a criminal complaint as Brooks’s grandmother. (A different court filing suggests the woman may have been his mother.)" Source: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YXBq0TgmTP4J:https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/23/wisconsin-parade-suspect-darrell-brooks/+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us CNN "Questions about why Brooks was released on $1,000 bond came as news emerged about his criminal record in Nevada." "Brooks pleaded guilty to statutory sexual seduction in November 2006, according to court and inmate records. " "The Nevada sex offender registry shows Brooks is a registered sex offender in that state. Brooks also has an outstanding arrest warrant in Nevada in an unrelated case for which he was arrested and jumped bail, authorities said." "The warrant was issued on August 15, 2016, for jumping bail, said Sarah Johns, Washoe County Sheriff's Office spokesperson." "In the 2020 incident, Brooks is accused of firing a handgun during an argument, according to a charging complaint." "While arresting Brooks, authorities say they found a stolen handgun and three "multicolored pills," which later tested "presumptively positive" for methamphetamines." "Brooks was charged with two counts of second-degree reckless endangering safety while using a dangerous weapon and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon." "Bail had initially been set at $10,000 in that case but because Brooks had asked for a speedy jury trial, which could not be met, bail was reduced to $500. Brooks was released on bail in that case on February 21, according to the district attorney's office." Source: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/22/us/what-we-know-about-suspect-in-waukesha-parade-tragedy/index.html

Baxter329 (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Article should probably include a summary of the suspect prior convictions but this article is about the most recent event so anything more than that is out of scope. He is after all still only charged, not yet found guilty.--MONGO (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that these other things are "out of scope." They prove how violent he was. The fact that he was out on bail for only $1,000 is something that never should have happened. These 6 murders were completely predictable and completely preventable. Baxter329 (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Murder requires an intent to kill, which you are in no position to judge. This is why prosecutors bring charges to argue in court. We already say this is "a man with an extensive criminal record" with references where people can presumably go and look up the entirety of this record. We mention several outstanding charges, including a warrant in Nevada. So what exactly are you proposing? A laundry list of all his convictions? A section criticising the US legal system? What? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Any violent convictions would appear relevant, perhaps any pending charges very briefly if they match the same modus operandi of this alleged crime (both have been covered in RSs). A criticism of the bond situation has been mentioned in several RSs, so that could probably be included too and link to an article discussing the issue. A list of convictions, without any discerning for relevance, is probably inappropriate. Our job is not to hold him account by noting all his flaws, but to add notable matters for readers. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)