Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Waukesha Christmas parade 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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 blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Waukesha Christmas parade attack. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Waukesha Christmas parade attack at the Reference desk.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, 2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade attack → Waukesha car attack, Procedural close, 22 November 2021, discussion RM, 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car crash → 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade incident, Moved to 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade attack, 22 November 2021, discussion RfC, 2021 Waukesha car crash → 2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Attack, No action required, 22 November 2021, discussion RM (CTR), 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car rampage → 2021 Waukesha car crash, Procedural close, 24 November 2021, discussion RM, 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade attack → Waukesha Christmas parade attack, Moot, 26 November 2021, discussion RM, Waukesha parade attack → 2021 Waukesha parade attack, Withdrawn, 27 December 2021, discussion MR, Waukesha parade attack → Waukesha Christmas parade attack, Overturn and move, 31 December 2021, discussion

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death C‑class 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Enforcement C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Wisconsin C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

This article and talk page has been mentioned by a media organization: Andrew Mark Miller (November 24, 2021). "Wikipedia users try to change Waukesha 'parade car rampage' entry to 'parade incident'". Fox News. Wikipedia and several news outlets are being criticized for seemingly downplaying the severity of an alleged massacre on a Waukesha, Wisconsin Christmas parade where a man plowed through a crowd of people killing six.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

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)[reply]

The inclusion of victim names requires consensus of interested editors. No such consensus exists at present. WWGB (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose including a victims list per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Support inclusion per recent editorial trends to do so. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Aye Five Ws, WP:NPOV, NBC Chicago#News operation. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As that last link is somewhat skeevy, here's the reigning Pulitzer leader's coverage instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The letter and intent of that rule is clearly meant to prevent you from starting an article about your deceased grandma. Victims of mass-murders are germane to articles about mass-murder events. 02:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Notanipokay (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed with this, NOTMEMORIAL always does a lot of heavy lifting during these discussions that the community has never sanctioned it to do. NOTMEMORIAL is about creating entire articles on victims as well, which is not the topic being discussed in this section. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Slatersteven and -Ad Orientem. The IP's intentions are noble, but are against policy. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Citing what policy? 02:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Notanipokay (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, because the names and ages of the victims are known. 161.77.227.47 (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VICTIM. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Love of Corey (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

• Support, This is pretty standard for many shooting articles, as another editor demonstrated above. Eorekan (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• 1: Waukesha Christmas Parade: Dancing grannies and boy among victims, BBC
• 2: Waukesha Christmas parade: First pictures released of the victims named by police, The Independent
• 3: Three ‘Dancing Grannies’ were killed and at least 18 children were injured at Waukesha’s Christmas parade, The New York Times
• 4: What we know about the victims of the Waukesha Christmas Parade incident, NPR

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

@Throast and Tweedledumb2: See WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Daily Mail is a deprecated source. Got anything better? WWGB (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]