Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack

Birthplace

Born and raised in TX? Except, no citation, and we're not buying it. Someone fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4F00:BE0:3E4D:F311:C18:CBF7 (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The CHRON is reporting born and raised in Texas and that is what's cited there. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 11:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This anonymous edit isn't helpful. Jabbar is indeed the suspect, and there is currently no other suspect. Indeed he was born in Texas, and he did indeed serve in the Army. "Not buying it" implies a conspiracy, where none exists. Juneau Mike (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

CHRON is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia. 80.98.150.81 (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

we're not buying it.. Who's we and why are you not "buying" facts? [1][2][3] O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

"Terrorist attack" - hesitancy

The NOPD had a press conference this morning. The mayor of New Orleans claimed this was a "terrorist" attack. However the person from the FBI who is leading the investigation said that it is not a terrorist attack. So for now, I suggest we possibly refrain from using the term. ItzSwirlz (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The description is in my opinion quite clear that it was a terrorist attack. It was clearly done to maximize casualties, so the term should apply here. 2A02:8388:1643:D680:7C20:EEFA:982E:22B7 (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter one whit what your opinion is on whether it is terrorism or not. The only thing that matters is what WP:RS reliable sources say. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's been massively covered as a TERRORIST attack at this point. "In a later update, the FBI confirmed the driver was dead and that the incident was being investigated as an "act of terrorism"."<-- BBC News

"The FBI said in a news release that they are investigating it "as an act of terrorism." <-- CBS News ... it would appear Duncan got scorched for making such a misguided comment, and the White House has since directed a correction be made officially.2603:6080:2100:47CB:1DD7:82E7:CE76:D0A8 (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The Attorney General has described it as "terrorism". Fluoborate (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Even without reliable sources, it is evident this is a terrorist attack. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

With most reliable sources, the term used rather than terrorist attack is "terror attack" [4]. Guess what. --Askedonty (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Title

I suggest to change the title in to "2025 New Orleans attack". This attack was also carried out by shooting, not just with a truck. Gianluigi02 (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree heylenny (^talk/_edits) 14:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Start an RM. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

How are similar events titled? I specifically feel like "New Years" might warrant a place in the title, and I possibly agree with not including "truck". Fluoborate (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not edit crime. However, I support “2025 New Year New Orleans Truck Attack”. A similar RM in the world of weather ended up not adding a relatively insignificant portion to the title, and I feel like the same would apply here. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The move I am referring to is Talk:Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021/Archive 1#Requested move 13 December 2021. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

See Category:2020s vehicular rampage. Bonne année. 2.28.124.91 (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Consider replacing New Orleans in the title with French Quarter or Bourban Street. New Orleans is too general for many readers. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary.

2001:16B8:C71D:B500:A8A5:5776:F490:C8AD (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Unconfirmed count: 11-16

From the press conference right now, it's confirmed 11 (including the murderer) were killed, but some news sources are announcing 16 (including the murderer) were killed, with 4 more dying at the hospital LeSirDiego (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

'UPDATE: NBC has changed its new banner from "At Least 15 Killed" to "At Least 10 Killed" LeSirDiego (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

15 dead confirmed

https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/live-update-new-orleans-attack/article_dc15c750-c855-11ef-8f68-93e4d0b4450e.html 2600:8807:E45:EA00:1165:AF6B:2387:43F (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Multiple Suspects under ISIS

According to the New Orleans Police Department, multiple suspects may have acted also with Jabbar in the killings which may be related to ISIS, though it is still unconfirmed currently. LeSirDiego (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Might have a BLPCRIME issue but I would like input from more experienced editors. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a concrete ask here? We have an investigation section that already covers this. Einsof (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I would wait to see, though it might be already covered. LeSirDiego (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

An investigation will always look at whether there are multiple actors. But I haven't seen anything saying that there are "multiple suspects". O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The FBI is reporting other people involved in placing explosive devices around the area (per AP). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC) Re-added at 22:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Likely not, you would think they would also be shooting or setting up stuff at the scene. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The FBI is reporting other people involved in placing explosive devices around the area (per AP). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

UPDATE: AP is confirming that more people were involved as video shows some men and one woman putting what is supposedly a bomb down. LeSirDiego (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Link? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

As per the NO police, the person in the truck placed two IEDs before the truck attack. Other reported IEDs were false reports. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe he is referring to the person's who planted improvised explosive devices. That issue is rather nebulous, as much of the reporting has been vague. My guess is that the authorities are keeping that hush-hush at the moment as they investigate. But based on current reporting, Jabbar is not a suspect in the IED's being planted in the area - although oddly enough he had one in his vehicle. The IED's have all been described in reporting as being inert. Right now there isn't enough verified reporting to add this subject to the article. Juneau Mike (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2025

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

---

The result of the move request was: Snowball Oppose. This process has been open for 3 hours but there's clearly no love for the new move target. BusterD (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC) BusterD (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

---

2025 New Orleans truck attack → 2025 New Orleans attack – The attack combines shooting, pursuit and a ramming attack. 178.81.55.110 (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Though it may be easier to know, the thing is that maybe their may be more attacks in New Orleans, so keep where it was originally. LeSirDiego (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - per COMMONNAME. Other aspects not significant/impactful enough to be included IMO. Similar to the RM on Tornado outbreak of December 10-11, 2021 the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. This attack is distinguished by the fact that the majority of the casualties were from people being run over. Einsof (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per Einsof, as well as the fact that any criminal behavior can be seen as an "attack" and we're less than one day into the year. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. The truck did not attack, it makes no sense to copy the framing of mass media that likes to detract from persons, putting the blame on objects as if it was an inevitable lightning strike (pun intended here due to the vehicle, still wondering whether it was carefully chosen to be an EV, for silence and weight). For those who, in earnest?!, expect more attacks in 2025 New Orleans, move to "2025 New Year's Day New Orleans attack" after the second attack has occurred, maybe an "2025 New Orleans ammunition attack"? 2003:C6:372A:F3AA:C01D:A47A:7719:D03D (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Support - It is a very significant attack and the truck part does not do it justice enough. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - Too early. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - "2025 New Orleans Attack" is a little too ambiguous IMO. Could refer to other potential events. 🪐 Xarinu 🪐 (Talk 2 Me :] ) 21:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with LeSirDiego in that just naming it "attack" does not discriminate with any other attack that may happen later. The title should be specific enough that a reader can quickly find exactly which attack they are looking for. Using the word "truck" in the name quickly delineates exactly which attack the read is looking for. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 21:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. My immediate concern is that there may be other attacks in NO, such as LerSirDiego stated. If the name were to change, I'd suggest something along the lines of "2025 New Orleans New Years Day attack." Therguy10 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with your suggestion AddInfinty (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

support clearly both.Sportsnut24 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as changing it to just 2025 New Orleans attack is too broad. There are shootings frequently in the area. The title is currently specific enough as the investigation develops. If there should be a change, it should make it more specific not less specific. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for now per common name and too soon. My crystal ball says we might be making a more precise name change in the next few days/weeks anways as more details emerge.TiggerJay (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I note that articles like 2018 Toronto van attack are named similarly. Jno.skinner (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose until 2026 – It's the more common name currently, and there's an entire year's worth of opportunities for another notable attack in a city of 400,000 (let alone that Mardi Gras hasn't happened yet). That said, I do agree with the nom's rationale that this is a combined ramming and shooting attack, not just attacking with the truck (as opposed to something like Charlottesville car attack which was strictly done using a vehicle). There is precedent such as 2015 San Bernardino attack, which was a mass shooting (not a combined attack) but which we just call "attack". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:50, 1 January 2025 (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.

The truck attacked?

"I did not do it", says the truck. Will you ever learn not to follow the media deception and framing? 2003:C6:372A:F3AA:C01D:A47A:7719:D03D (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Restored because section was removed with false claim. Problem still stands: misleading article title that blames an object. 2003:C6:372A:F3AA:C01D:A47A:7719:D03D (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

You are making a good point in a needlessly combative way. I have gone through the article and reworded in places to make it clear that a driver or motorist did this, not a vehicle by itself. If there are still more changes along those lines that you think need to be made, you'll have to state them explicitly rather than vaguely castigating people and hoping they intuit what exactly you want. Einsof (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The article title is problematic. "Bourbon street attack" seems to be a common name at this point, though I'd still include the year per WP:NCE. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, and as demonstrated by multiple WP:SNOW closures of various page renames (requested moves) and their related oppose arguments, I would suggest the article should stay as is. (Sarcastically stating: you don't happen to be the IP address of the self-driving Ford truck AI model, taking personal offense WP:NPA regarding this discussion are you?) TiggerJay (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

15 dead?

Various news organizations are reporting that the death toll has risen to 15. This new number hasn't become consensus yet, and another editor has strangely and unhelpfully been reverting a category related to terrorism (even though it's well documented in the article, including the lead) so I don't want to edit at this point and get into it with someone obviously interested in edit warring. But if it is indeed 15 now, we should prepare to make an edit. Juneau Mike (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no rush to have up to the minute accurate numbers when it comes to fatalities. We're WP:NOTNEWS so there is no huge need to keep it rapidly up to date, and this has, in the past, led to accidentally inflated numbers because new outlets are also guilty of getting the numbers out first instead of accurately. I think where the infobox says 11+, and the inline "at least" works well enough. TiggerJay (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

There is also no need for the condescending tone. Nobody is "rush"ing anything. I just asked that people be mindful that the death toll numbers may soon change. Any perceived sense of urgency over it is in your imagination. Juneau Mike (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if you a reading it as condescending, that is not what was intended. I would also clearly that YOU are not individually rushing. However, with virtually an edit per minute, people are rushing. The concern in these sorts of article is always accuracy. For example, looking at infobox for number of people injured we see (simply reviewing edits on the hour marks) at 14:00 30+, at 15:00 36+, at 19:00 dropped to 36 exactly, at 20:00 dropped to 25+ -- which persists until sometime between 22:00 and 23:00 hours when it was bumped up yet again to 35+. This demonstrates the need to slow down... Again, not you specifically, but broadly applied towards breaking news. There is no benefit to these rapidly changing numbers. TiggerJay (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Coroner has confirmed 15 dead 79.97.116.51 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Please remember that WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased.

This would include both victims and the suspect. Please operate with appropriate caution accordingly regarding elements such as assumptions of guilt. Simonm223 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Redacted accusation of guilt by an IP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Frankly that is irrelevant to WP:BLP requirements which, I assure you, apply for every single named person in this article. There needs to be a major cut-back in unsourced and poorly sourcwd claims going into this article.

Slow down. Simonm223 (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Long Gun Name

At time of writing, the long gun is being called an assault rifle, implying it is selected fire with a fully automatic option, is that known for sure, or is that a mistake by the initial writers of this article?

And RIP to the Victims of this tragedy. AddInfinty (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. It's incredibly unlikely as machine guns being used in crimes is extremely rare, whereas people incorrectly use "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" interchangeably. At minimum linking to the Assault Rifle page should be removed to avoid adding to the confusion. Personally, I would also just change it to ".308 caliber rifle" as confirmed in media reports: https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-orleans-terror-attack-new-years-revelers-draws-somber-reminder-past-truck-rammings-targeting-crowds 2600:1700:24:F81F:FD95:3AB0:6611:D2AB (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

.308 machine guns are even more rare, btw. In theory it's possible they converted a semi-auto rifle to be automatic, but again that's extremely rare in the US. Occam's razor. 2600:1700:24:F81F:FD95:3AB0:6611:D2AB (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The current link is too ambiguous and could confuse people. Carbonylgroup314 (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Footage of the gun fight between him and the police has been released, and there is no automatic fire. WARNING, GRAPHIC: https://x.com/Liberacrat/status/1874523151071338794 2600:1700:24:F81F:FD95:3AB0:6611:D2AB (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources currently say "assault rifle," so the writers at news orgs put that. Heythereimaguy (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Rifles that are chambered in .308 are typically referred to as “Battle Rifles” by the gun industry. Just thought I would throw this out there 24.112.172.7 (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't care about the technical definitions of firearms that are held quite preciously by some hobbyists and by lobbyists who want to see their firearms remain available to civilian buyers. It cares about what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say he was using an assault rifle and what they actually mean is a semi-automatic carbine with military styling rather than a firearm with a full-auto toggle then we, at Wikipedia, will dutifully call the semi-auto an assault rifle until such time as reliable sources correct themselves. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It is rather quite relevant. This isn't some argument over semantics made by "lobbyists". There is a substantial difference between a select-fire rifle and semi-automatic rifle. Would it not be more apt to only include the link after such information is well known? Carbonylgroup314 (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

We must follow what the reliable sources are telling us. Now where I would possibly suggest the consensus might be found is that yes, the news media is often wrong when describe all sorts of things which have technical nuance to them. There is a huge lack of true investigative reporting and they often continue to push out false caricatures of things. When you are a WP:SME in an area, often the reported news of such drives you mad with frustration. So what I would say is that if a reliable source provides the actual type of gun used, and we have that type of gun listed on WP, then it might be appropriate to use our WP article (per guidelines at WP:CIRCULAR), to describe the nature of the gun. Otherwise it is just WP:OR & WP:SYNTH which, regardless of how correct you might be from a technical standpoint, is not how things are edited here. TiggerJay (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm a licensed firearm owner and fully understand the technical differences. What I'm telling you is that the technical differences don't matter to a Wikipedia article. We follow reliable sources, even when they are technically wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no requirement that an assault rifle be fully automatic. The M16/M4 variants were only recently reintroduced for military use with full auto. Full auto weapons for civilian use are basically collector's items. GMG^talk 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree. The only issue that others and I have pointed out is that the wiki page for "assault rifle" explicitly states that assault rifles are select-fire weapons Carbonylgroup314 (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

They could be burst fire, so, correct that they don't to be full-auto. But something that's semi-auto-only is not an assault rifle. 96.241.220.187 (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• There is an accepted definition of what an Assault Rifle is, which for general reference you can check the first line of our article on the subject. But looking at how it is used in this article, it is supported by 3 sources AP, ABC, and NOLA. AP says AR-style rifle, ABC says assault rifle, and NOLA does not say either. So since we are supporting it with sources that use both, why not just use the technically correct one that is supported by the AP sources? PackMecEng (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Because the first requirement for a rifle to be an assault rifle according to that page is that the rifle must be a select-fire rifle. Perhaps you are confusing the term "AR" (which stands for armalite, the developers of the ar-15 DI rifle) with assault rifle. I think the issue doesn't lie in the term "assault rifle", but rather in the fact that the wiki article for that term states an "assault rifle" must be select-fire. Perhaps someone could suggest an edit for a subsection in the "assault rifle" article, detailing non select-fire assault rifles. Carbonylgroup314 (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  An assault rifle is select fire with an automatic option. I am suggesting we use AR-stle rifle because its accurate and supported by the sources. I agree that assault rifle is inappropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not all rifles are AR-15 2601:3C5:8180:31D0:142A:377B:4FB3:7620 (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Correct. PackMecEng (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2025

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW closure per overwhelming opposition; there is clearly no current appetite for the proposed title. (closed by non-admin page mover) SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 13:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

---

2025 New Orleans truck attack → 2025 Bourbon Street massacre – Apologies if this has been pre-discussed.

"2025 Bourbon Street massacre" would delineate the setting (Bourbon Street, New Orleans) and nature of such event. I hence propose this article be retitled as the aforementioned. ManOfDirt (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I would be against this per COMMONNAME but would like to hear what others would say. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

You should probably wait a week for the current move request to run its course, and then propose it. Einsof (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

current RM is done, you can post your idea at RM now. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• SUPPORT New Orleans is too general. Bourbon Street is better. It doesn't have to be massacre but Bourbon Street is better than the current name. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current name is factual, simple, NPOV, and clear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Google Trends, "New Orleans Attack" is levelling out at 2-3x the search hits of "Bourbon"(New Orleans is about 8x and almost all traffic comes from the attack), although that one was already closed as SNOW oppose. "New Orleans truck attack" has about the same number of hits as "Bourbon". In addition, non-NOLA people would not know where Bourbon Street is. If this RM gets through, a redirect from "2025 New Orleans truck attack" to this article is basically mandatory. Also, "attack" has MASSIVELY more searches than "massacre".

Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree, redirect is based. ManOfDirt (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME as consistent with most major news coverage. As stated in the prior RM above, it is possible that in the near future this article might end up with a more precise name as the nature of the attack becomes more established, such as motive, connections to outside groups or whatnot. TiggerJay (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose for now Let's wait and see. I agree that the current title is arguably broad, but it's in line with the 2016 Nice truck attack and the 2017 New York City truck attack. Paris1127 (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well, those are some sucky titles, don't mimic the Grinch when you can be a saint. ManOfDirt (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Why are they bad? They're certainly better than "massacre". PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose massacre titles should never be used unless they are WP:COMMONNAME, which this is definitely not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Current title is ok and within article naming guidelines. "Massacre" isn't a suitable word unless it is definitely the WP:COMMONNAME, which it isn't at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. Nightmares26 (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Massacre isn't a suitable title along with not being the WP:COMMONNAME TNM101 (chat) 11:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose The term "Bourbon Street is just so foreign to those who doesn't live in New Orleans. It supposed to be sth that address to everyone. Asigooo (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as people outside the United States will be unlikely to be able to contextualize Bourbon Street. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2025 (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.

Different name change?

I'd suggest changing the name of the article to "2025 New Orleans New Years Day attack". This is specific enough to be contributed to this certain attack without worrying about any future attacks that may take place. It also removes the worry for "truck" or "rifle" to be used in the name. There is only 1 New Years Day attack in New Orleans, eliminating confusion. Thoughts? Therguy10 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC) :D

You should probably wait a week for the current move request to run its course, then wait for the other guy above you to propose his and have that run for a week, and then propose yours. Einsof (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Works for me! Thanks Therguy10 (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

not a ISIS flag it was Black jacket

in this article it say a ISIS flag was hanging from the truck but it was Jacket hears a image of the jacket

🍉 News on X: "better angle showing a black Jacket an not a ISIS flag https://t.co/SL4cqRN5At" / X Christsos (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

X is considered unreliable. E_F⁵ 22:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"@schrse" uploaded a captioned image to Twitter and that's all. They're not a reliable source. Departure– (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"The FBI said an Islamic State group flag was found in the vehicle and they are investigating the attack as an "act of terrorism" from BBC News. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

obviously possible an investigator put the jacket to cover the flag. Stick with what official sources are saying. Gjxj (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Names

Don't add the names of the suspect's ex-wives and the truck owner etc per Wikipedia:BLPNAME SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done I removed the last name that violated BLP. Thanks for removing the others. Heythereimaguy (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

“Allegedly intentionally”

It’s clear that the act of terrorism WAS intentional and should be described as such. “Allegedly” is not needed when there are not outside sourcing even using it to describe the terrorist’s intentions. CavDan24 (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Came here to say that it also says "a truck was allegedly driven into a crowd" --- if you do that you must change the title to "Alleged 2025 New Orleans truck attack". This is weird... 2600:8800:2C09:3200:197C:16E1:8EF:6FA5 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• What do the reliable sources say regarding "terrorism" -- does the majority of sources say, especially from the law enforcement side (not just political talking heads bloviating talking points). Are they investigating it as terrorism or potential terrorism, or are they actually calling it an "act" of terrorism?

Diagram

I have created a diagram of the attack according to this article by The New York Times. I am unsure if this diagram is necessary for the article; but considering the 2024 Magdeburg car attack article has a diagram, I think we should include a diagram on this article as well. Bambobee (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

At first glance, yes. Tejano512 (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

diagram needs some street names or something, there is basically nothing there to give orientation. Gjxj (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Excellent. But red line should be more visible (emphasized).10:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This would be a wonderful addition to the main article; however, it seems to contradict the timeline listed at the bottom with regards to where the pedestrians were struck. (my gut is that the timeline is wrong) Dawginroswell (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Infobox image

At a discussion at WP:ERROR, Abductive commented that the picture File:700 block of Canal Street New Orleans.jpg is not related to the actual location. The image is looking south on Canal St,, and zooming in can see its at the intersection with Royal (left side). However, the crime scene at Bourbon is a block north, which seems to be more like 800 Bourbon. —Bagumba (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I removed it.[5]—Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking up Bourbon Street toward the New Orleans Central Business District

Does this image from Bourbon Street make sense? Current image of a CCTV still of the truck during the attack is too poor.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Do we know if this specific location shown was part of the actual ramming? Or is it just a general image of what the area looks like? If used, the caption should be clear on this. —Bagumba (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I remember seeing something saying the truck crashed in front of Larry Flints.

one new outlet is using a photo of officers at this same location here Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

According to that source (and the map in the Wikipedia article), the truck crashed near Conti St, a block ahead of that picture. So the caption could at best say it was near the scene. —Bagumba (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The religion of the perpetrator in the lede

@Justthefacts, would you please clarify to me further how the religion of the perpetrator is related to his motive? If anything, it would be his potential affiliation with IS that is related to his motive, which is already covered in the lede.

Reminder that even the perpetrators of 9/11 don't have their religions mentioned in the lede of their articles. — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Removed this, and agree that the placement of this early on in the lead is not ideal. It may imply - albeit unintentionally - that he did this simply because he was a Muslim. Joe Biden has said that the attacker was influenced by Islamic State, which is an extremist organization and is not the same thing as Islam.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources from all around the world have all published news articles that all explicitly state that Jabbar was a convert to Islam (see [6], [7], [8], and [9]), which makes that fact clearly relevant to the incident, with the The New York Times prominently stating that fact in the very first paragraph of a news article about the incident (see [10]), which makes that fact clearly important to the incident, all according to the consensus of the reliable sources, which therefore makes that fact more than meet the standards for WP:DUE to include in the lead of the article. --Justthefacts (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Nah, none of these sources establish that the fact he's a convert is related to his motive as you said in your edit summary. And sources talking about his conversion to Islam makes it at best WP:DUE for the body of the article not the lead. — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 23:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

At the end of the day, WP:WEIGHT on Wikipedia is determined by WP:RS. If the The New York Times, which is an exceptionally reliable source, has determined that this fact is important enough to note it in the very first paragraph of an article about the incident, then it is absolutely WP:DUE for Wikipedia to note it in the second paragraph of an article about the incident.--Justthefacts (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You didn't answer any of my questions. How is his religion related to his motive as you said in your edit summary, NYT does not state that. And NYT being a reliable source doesn't allow whatever it states to be included in the lede. — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 01:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that while NYT might be able to print such information in an article about the suspect, we are talking about an article about the attack in which this person is simply a suspect. That is a very significant difference. That might be something appropriate for an article about the suspect, but has very little significance here until (1) it is establish that it was the actual motive; or (2) that he is proven to be the perpetrator. There are some very improtant polices regarding WP:BLP & WP:SUSPECT that are at play here. And discussions like this are likely part of the reason the article itself is now full protected. TiggerJay (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay Just for the purpose of learning, isn't the suspect supposed to be alive to have WP:BLP being applicable? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 02:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Recently deceased persons are included under BLP in some circumstances (contentious topics, unverified, known for one event). This would apply here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the "living" part of BLP is somewhat of a misnomer, see WP:BDP which applies here, as exception would be for people who have recently died. I believe the sentiment of living (or at least as I tend to apply it) has to do with separating out distant dead Abraham Lincoln vs say the more recently dead, Jimmy Carter. But beyond that BDP also says that BLP basically still applies particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. But beyond that, we need to be very careful about inferring guilt by association, which is commonly done in such articles, for example, wanting to throw them into groups by religion or race, etc. Which simply reinforces peoples individual biases without adding meaningful to the actual article, again, this article is more about the attack. TiggerJay (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@The Cheesedealer - also thank you for the humility to ask a question for the purpose of learning that is a rare trait indeed! TiggerJay (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Justthefacts Please address my concerns above instead of stonewalling and edit warring. Let me help you..

1. After the removal of the religion of the suspect from the lede you brought it back saying that it was Absolutely relevant to the potential motive for the attack and therefore WP:DUE. Are you implying that Muslims do have an inherent motive to commit terrorism?

2. After it got re-removed you brought the same content back again with the edit summary that This is supported by multiple reliable sources, including The New York Times, which states it in the very first paragraph of the article, which therefore makes it WP:DUE for the lead of the article. Is this policy based? AFAIK it's not, unless I missed it in that case please point it up for me.

3. I'm not oppositing the inclusion of the religion of the prepetrator in the body of the article, In fact it is indeed in the "Suspect" section which I believe is appropriate, I don't believe the same for its inclusion in the lede because it breaks WP:NPOV for the reasons stated by IanMacM above, it does imply that he did this simply because he was a Muslim something implied also by your first edit summary. — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 09:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

As stated previously and repeated herein, at the end of the day, WP:WEIGHT on Wikipedia is determined by WP:RS. If the The New York Times, which is an exceptionally reliable source, has determined that this fact is important enough to note it in the very first paragraph of the source, then it is absolutely WP:DUE for Wikipedia to note it in the second paragraph of the article. The opinions of any individual editor is irrelevant. It is WP:RS that determines WP:WEIGHT, so it is absolutely WP:DUE for the lead of the article. This was already made abundantly clear to you. --Justthefacts (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@JustthefactsThere is nothing to do with the lede in the policy you mentioned, yes, it is indeed WP:DUE to be included in the body of the article, and it is already included there. I say it is not due for the lede tho because him being a Muslim has nothing to do with his motive to his attack, it's rather his affiliation with extremist organisations that does. I'm afraid that its inclusion in the lede implies that him being a Muslim has the most important relevancy in his motive which is not true and it is actually a WP:POV, would you please address this concern of mine? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 19:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE clearly state that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources" and that "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". As for your concern, do you allege the same of The New York Times for including it in the very first paragraph of the source article? --Justthefacts (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Justthefacts Are you seriously saying that an encyclopedia article should follow the same layout as a newspaper article??

Again for the nth time, I do believe it is WP:DUE for the article, just not for the lede (btw, WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE lead to the same policy, no need to bring them both together :) )

WP:ONUS says that While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included, and most importantly it says also The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Kindly self revert until you get that consensus — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 02:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, yes, in that The New York Times is easily one of the most reliable sources in the world.

Yes, it applies to the lead too. MOS:LEADREL and MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE clearly state that "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead section and the body of the article."

Does that satisfy your concerns from the perspective of Wikipedia policies and guidelines finally? --Justthefacts (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Justthefacts No it doesn't, for the following reasons:

1. No, an encyclopedia article should not follow the style of a newspaper article. They are two different things with two different purposes.

2.You failed to provide what does his religion have to do with the event. Stop misusing sources it's really disruptive; No RS establishes a relationship between the religion of the suspect and the event. Maybe if this was an article about the suspect himself it would have been due to be included but that's not the case.

3.WP:ONUS, your addition is obviously being challenged by at least two people here, and it's upon you to seek the consensus for its inclusion. You can start an RfC here to get this consensus but until then, please self revert. — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 02:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Seconded, although I don't have a strong opinion on whether it should be included in the lead or not. That said, I'm not seeing a lot of policy argument(s) against these arguments, just a lot of "well, I don't think it should be included." MWFwiki (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:ONUS — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I have, thanks. MWFwiki (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@MWFwiki - I am fairly certain my replies above were not based on simply opinion of "I don't think it should be included" but rather based in specific policies which were either cited or quoted. I'd welcome you to explain why those cited policies do not apply here. TiggerJay (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The initial counter-argument was indeed "I don't think it should be included" without a single policy argument and a splash of other things exist. Policy only began to be argued after Justthefacts stated their case and provided their policy arguments; I'm not arguing the policies you argued don't apply. I'm arguing that I find Justthefacts' interpretation(s) more compelling. I am not engaging with this any further, as this entire discussion is getting into WP:BLUDGEONING territory. MWFwiki (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

That was a whole lot of not answering the question; I asked explain why those cited policies do not apply here and then you spent the bulk of the time talking about other editors actions and simply stating I'm not arguing the policies you argued don't apply. And then a very interesting accusation about WP:BLUDGEONING territory. I effectively made two (2) statements in this entire section about this topic, and then a follow-up to your statement. Just because two editors are (possibly) having a conflict doesn't mean other editors can have a civil conversation and work towards consensus. TiggerJay (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Precisely. The opinions of any individual editor is irrelevant. Only Wikipedia policies and guidelines matter regarding this determination. --Justthefacts (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Extremely Suspicious. 2601:1C0:5F83:DA70:2915:CD8:BDAC:6A05 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

"Born and raised"??

how did "born and raised" make it into the article?! Citations say he was a US citizen and "living" in TX, there is no proof or news data saying he was born or raised in TX. Why was that even added in the first place? For what reason?? 2601:1C2:4F00:BE0:3E4D:F311:C18:CBF7 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Chron is reporting that he was born in Texas, which is one of the citations in place. "and raised" could be dropped as that's not really adding anything. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 11:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

A video released by ABC News showed him talking in a Zoom meeting to employees, saying that he was born and raised in Beaumont, Texas. 2600:1702:5225:C010:1159:D405:B289:B0F (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

FBI Claims in Wiki voice

I think we should be more cautious on single-sourcing claims to the FBI. It is an involved primary source. I know this may seem like nit-picking but the slow, cautious and correct approach is far better than BLP violations. We should be attributing statements from the FBI which, of course, are due. They should just not be treated as gospel. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Start of events section

I'm not satisfied with how the events section starts from a narratological perspective. Is nothing in reliable sources about his actions before he circumvented the police vehicle? Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This video https://www.fox8live.com/2025/01/01/video-shows-truck-driving-around-police-barricade-before-deadly-new-orleans-terror-attack/ shows the truck in traffic and then skidding via acceleration around the police vehicle onto Bourban street. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 14:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Previous religion

may you add that he attended a local Christian church prior to conversion

https://www.theadvocate.com/news/crime_police/bourbon-street-assailant-was-us-military-member/article_38fd1d4a-a311-52f6-a912-f8a7ef74d6d8.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/new-orleans-truck-attack-suspect-jabbars-family-speaks-out-erratic-behavior-after-converting-to-islam/articleshow/116875876.cms 166.181.86.70 (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems undue. What's the relevance? Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Since his conversion is mentioned, its notable what his conversion was from as we dont state that yet. 164.119.5.96 (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that we should not be going into exhaustive explorations of speculation on the theology of a person who is subject to WP:BLP provisions. Stick to the minimal material that is published in reliable secondary sources - (and preferably not pages hosted by news media companies to aggregate employee tweets in lieu of actually investigating before publishing). Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

He posted a video talking about "war between the believers and the disbelievers", but we can't stoke the islamaphobia...... 2600:1700:B7B0:4D70:651A:A70F:7159:12D9 (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I added the tag because the article contradicts itself about:

1. Whether Jabbar is a suspect or the perpetrator - both terms are used confusingly when describing him.
2. Whether the incident status is confirmed to have been a terrorist attack, or whether the motive for the attack is, as yet, unknown - both statuses are confusingly used when referring to it.

We need clarity and verifiability, that is all. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up this issue. I changed the cleanup tag to a self-contradictory tag to specify the problem more precisely. Cleebadee (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I replaced "perpetrator" with "suspect" wherever I found it. As for the second concern, that cannot be resolved because the reliable sources and law enforcement are not yet consistent. The article reflects this. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Iggy pop goes the weasel, that's better for the first, thanks, I wonder how long it will stick. If the second issue cannot be resolved, then the tag needs to stay. If reliable sources contradict each other then that needs to be included in the article, rather than just the views of one or the other. Without RS consensus, we cannot assert in Wiki's voice that it was terrorism. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I added back a suitably modified tag. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

After reading the article again (admittedly quickly) I'm not seeing where the article says it was a terrorist attack, I only see a couple mentions of the FBI investigating it as a terrorist attack. I didn't see anything else in the article to contradict this, but maybe I missed it. Can you point to an instance of the conflicting language? It would be easier to fix if I could see the problem. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Victims' ethnicities?

Is there an encyclopedic reason to note that the youngest victim is a Palestinian-American man? (I have no horse in the Mideast conflict, it just seems weird.) It could make sense if the victim's identity were somehow relevant to the attack (e.g. hate crime), or if they were a recent immigrant or something, as Wikipedia often notes when people from other countries are victims of terror attacks (9/11 article has an entire section foreign casualties). But the cited source doesn't indicate for sure that either of these is the case.

Without meeting the above criteria it comes across as trivia/cruft at best and possibly not fair to the other victims - will we be noting the ethnicities of all the victims or just this particular one? Ereb0r (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that there is a mix and apparently indiscriminate attack; I don't see the point in inclusion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I would agree, that unless there is some specific connection, it is just a random, otherwise meaningless factoid about an otherwise nameless victim that was not individually targeted. Towards that end, the current fact that the youngest victim is 18, still a legal adult in the US, also makes it pretty wholly meaningless factoids. It might be notable if it was a particularly old (100+) or young (under 2). But as all the victims are adults, it might not even be worth having those sentences. Thoughts? TiggerJay (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting how for the past 7 years, who conveniently pop up on Wikipedia to edit ONLY, literally only when a major terrorist attack has occurred to try and start spreading confusion and propaganda. Danishdeutsch (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Attempting to AGF here, but a 50 edit account isn't the one to try to make this point. Arkon (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

What's actually interesting is that your only contribution to this thread is personal attacks and bad-faith assumptions, both of which are violations of Wikipedia policy. It's not even an accurate representation of my record - I've added comments on other topics that have nothing to do with this one, though it's possible those were under my IP and wasn't logged in to this account.

Anyway, if you disagree with my edit suggestion, please argue the point on its merits and raise a valid counterpoint, or keep it moving. Thanks in advance. Ereb0r (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ereb0r - you do realize that both Danish and Arkon's only contribution to the discussion is there comment here, hardly a pattern of bad faith. But beyond that, I do welcome you to respond to my comment above. TiggerJay (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I never mentioned or implied a "pattern" of bad-faith contributions from either editor; I'm not entirely sure where you're getting this from. My reply was only ever meant to be an evaluation of a single comment made by @Danishdeutsch. I actually never replied or referred to Arkon at all.

I agree with your reply to my original comment, though I guess it's all moot now in any case as the information I took issue with appears to have been edited out. Ereb0r (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

"american-born"?

where in that FBI statement does it say jabbar is american-born?

he may well be, but all it says there is "US citizen". not at all the same! 2601:18A:807C:1C40:400B:AF09:BF5B:50E6 (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There are cites in the body. There are innumerable sources for this. This is the third time you have brought this up. He is not an illegal immigrant and Trump is not a reliable source.O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

third time? this is my VERY FIRST POST on the matter!

the line IN THE LEDE cites the FBI statement. if it came from some other source cited later, that needs to be corrected. 2601:18A:807C:1C40:400B:AF09:BF5B:50E6 (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

According to CHRON is was stated during a press conference that he was born in Texas which is still in America. The lede isn't typically where details are cited so there's nothing that needs to be corrected. Some other IPs have asked the same question on this talk page, it seems to be a detail many people are concerned about, but this does appear to be the first time that you've asked it. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

fair enough about others addressing it already. what's not correct is saying "nothing [needed] to be corrected": if the lede is an overview of information presented later, and cited later, that's fine; but here there was an explicit citation (footnote) claiming the info came from the FBI statement...which it didn't.

it appears that has since been corrected, so thanks whoever did it. i hesitated, given that 2 users here were calling it unnecessary. 2601:18A:807C:1C40:400B:AF09:BF5B:50E6 (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

PS: someone below suggested that "American-born" be changed to "United States-born" for accuracy. while i find that clunky, i do believe that "US-born" would be appropriate. who says "born in America" anyway? it's usually "born in the US" or "born in the States". 2601:18A:807C:1C40:400B:AF09:BF5B:50E6 (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2025 (2nd)

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. No current appetite for moving the page to the proposed title. WP:SNOW applies. (closed by non-admin page mover) SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 14:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

---

2025 New Orleans truck attack → 2025 New Orleans New Year's Day attack – This is specific enough to be attributed to this certain attack without worrying about any future attacks that may take place - there is only one 2025 New Year's Day attack in New Orleans. It also removes the worry for "truck" or "firearm" to be used in the name. Plus, I believe that this name is easily searchable as it still retains "2025", "New Orleans", and "attack", which are all keywords when looking for this article. Therguy10 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose – Doesn't seem necessary at all. There's no serious inconsistency with calling it a "truck attack", as that's still predominantly what it was and what most people recognize it as. This also increases the length of the title by 30% and adds three words, and the current title is not ambiguous enough or inaccurate to warrant this lengthening. Per WP:CRITERIA, a title should be recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent. In terms of consistency, most articles referencing an attack like this don't have a specific day; rather, they say the year, the location, and either "attack" or a specific type of attack. "Truck attack" is clearly much more concise than "New Year's Day attack". Outside of some extremely rare case where there's a copycat, "truck attack" is just as precise as "New Year's Day attack". In terms of naturalness, at least for right now, more users are likely to search by the attack type than the holiday it took place on because that's how it's being discussed in media and everyday culture. And finally, I think "truck attack" is as good as if not extremely marginally better than "New Year's Day attack" for recognizability. This is the third time in two days someone has proposed a rename and remove despite general consensus that the current title is fine (not just that the alternative titles were less desirable), and so I really just see this as WP:BIKESHEDding. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Favor: This event will in the future be more known for the event leading up to and interrupted by the attack. This event is very similar to the Boston Marathon Bombing, and will likely become more well known as it has caused more loss of life. The event will likely be known as a New Years Day attack, and will be known for that in the future rather than the mode of attack. This article would benefit from being called the "2025 New Orleans New Year's Day attack" or even just "New Orleans New Year's Day attack." LarsBNM (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, likelihood is high he planned around a holiday (New Years). This event will be remembered in New Orleans every new years I’d imagine. Additionally, he planted IEDs beforehand and utilized firearms in the attack alongside the truck. Calling it merely a “truck attack” is an understatement. 216.195.30.66 (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: There's no need to change the title. People will know what day the truck attack in New Orleans took place. It was on the evening news in Australia and Asia, breaking mid-day news in Europe, and morning news here in the United States. There's little to no doubt in people's mind what this event would be referring to. The key words are there, the city name New Orleans, the year 2025, and the act of an attack with a truck. There's no ambiguity here. Butterscotch5 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose People already know that it occurred on New Years Day. Rager7 (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Too complicated. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Favor I think that the more detailed title helps in those searching for this article. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose the current title fits WP:PRECISION and doesn't need further clarification...for now... in the future months, as more details emerge (eg if it wasn't a lone wolf situation, or as other evidence is discovered for motive) then the article title might need to change. TiggerJay (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose the move seems unnecessary and the phrasing "New Orleans truck attack" is being used in newsmedia sources as well (e.g. ESPN: "Sugar Bowl postponed to Thursday after New Orleans truck attack"). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  It has clearly been communicated it was a terror attack, the suspect only accomplished using the vehicle, but intended to use explosives and firearms as well. I think at least renaming from “truck” to “terror” seems prudent enough. 216.195.30.66 (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per @TheTechnician27's reasons, especially WP:BIKESHED (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 12:31, 3 January 2025 (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.

'Suspects'

Why is the section titled that, seeing as there's only one suspect? Norbillian (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Update needed for FBI findings

Recent AP reporting (January 1-2, 2025) shows outdated information in citations 4-6 regarding FBI's investigation. Current AP coverage states:

"The FBI says that the New Orleans attacker acted alone. The agency also finds 'no definitive link' to the truck explosion in Las Vegas."

This contradicts earlier text stating FBI "did not believe the driver acted alone."

Proposed citation update: Tucker, Eric; Mustian, Jim; McGill, Kevin; Brook, Jack (January 1, 2025). "Islamic State-inspired driver expressed desire to kill before deadly New Orleans rampage, Biden says". Associated Press. Retrieved January 2, 2025.

Will update text accordingly if no objections within 24 hours. Randall N. Brock (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a contradiction. We clearly state that the FBI "initially" believed that Jabbar hadn't acted alone, and we shortly thereafter follow up noting that the investigators the day after no longer believed this to be the case. That's not a contradiction; that's a product of January 1 and January 2 being different days. Additionally, investigators' initial suspicion that this attack wasn't carried out alone is encyclopedically relevant. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Jabbar's Life Before, During, And After The Army

The Beaumont Enterprise has recently confirmed new details about Jabbar's early life. According to the Beaumont Enterprise, Jabbar attended Central Medical Magnet High School until his 2001 graduation. Some classmates who knew Jabbar liked to call him "Sham" for short. A friend of his described Shamsud-Din as someone who "always helped people and very smart". However, one student remembers him and Jabbar taking a couple of classes at Central together and described Jabbar as "quiet". Jabbar left Beaumont to join the army in 2006.

He deployed to Afghanistan in February 2009. Subsequently, he was posted at bases including Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, and at Fort Liberty which was then Fort Bragg. While at the time in the army, Jabbar briefly lived in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The Fayetteville Observer alongside the North Carolina voter registration reported that records show that Jabbar was registered as an unaffiliated voter in Cumberland County in 2012 just before the 2012 United States presidential election. Additionally, court records show that he was granted a divorce in Cumberland County District Court in October 2012.

Right after the army, Jabbar moved to Marietta, Georgia shortly after his second marriage, and later attended Georgia State University in 2015, in which he earned a BBA degree in Computer Information Systems in 2017. Neighbors from across the street from his Horseshoe Creek Drive home in Marietta told the The Atlanta Constitution that they remembered Jabbar after being shown a picture by an Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter. DeKalb County divorce court records also show Jabbar filed for divorce from a Cobb County woman on May 19, 2016 after almost three years of marriage. They had married on September 15, 2013 and had no children. He reportedly also married and divorced in Texas, meaning that Jabbar had been divorced three times instead of two.

Exactly one year before the attack, Imam Fahmee Al-Uqdah spoke to CBS station KFDM-TV saying that he remembers seeing Jabbar early last year when Shamsud-Din Jabbar came back to Beaumont to be with his father while dealing with health issues. He also described him as both "scholarly and quiet". Imam tells KFDM that Jabbar's family asked him to convey the message that "the tragic incident was driven by hatred and ignorance and Jabbar's actions do not reflect the religion of Islam. The Muslim community condemns the attack and is saddened by the loss of life."

"I saw Shamsud-Din," Imam Al-Uqdah told KFDM. "I spoke to him the early part of last year. He was in town to help care for his father while his father was going through physical therapy, because of the aftermath of what looks like a stroke. Lot of compassion. He seemed rather scholarly, extraordinary human. The love he was showing for his father and the care, that is what I remember. I'm shocked by this whole thing, that Jabbar is alleged to have committed the horrific act. It brings tears to my eyes for the innocent victims."

• https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/beaumont-native-linked-new-orleans-attack-dies-20010370.php
• https://kfdm.com/news/local/public-records-show-beaumont-link-to-man-with-same-name-age-as-new-orleans-attacker#
• https://www.fayobserver.com/story/news/2025/01/02/shamsud-din-jabbar-matthew-livelsberger-lived-in-cumberland-county-nc/77389335007/
• https://www.ajc.com/news/crime/attacker-in-new-orleans-terrorist-attack-had-georgia-military-ties/N4QL6AZPAFA6HMQLLJOAHZYELQ/

2600:1702:5225:C010:1159:D405:B289:B0F (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This is interesting but I don't know if a childhood nickname is WP:DUE to be included in this article. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know either, but this will be something to add if the administrators can give a green light. 2600:1702:5225:C010:1159:D405:B289:B0F (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I also found more information about his army life and after, stating that Jabbar had been divorced three times instead of two, and as well as him having ties to both Georgia and North Carolina during and after the army. 2600:1702:5225:C010:1159:D405:B289:B0F (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That all sounds interesting but it does not seem relevant and does not seem to find the right weight in this article. It might be saved for if an article about the suspect is ever created. TiggerJay (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I second this assessment. Taken to an extreme but still the same underlying principle, it would be like if we started digressing into Osama bin Laden's childhood nickname etc. in our coverage of the September 11 attacks. It would be wildly out of place. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, no name to list the attacker's childhood nicknames. It would take away from the article, which focuses on that attack he carried out. The nicknames of the victims are more important, carries greater weight, and fleshes the article out. We can get those details from obituaries or social media accounts, for example. We don't need to shine any more spotlight on the terrorist. Butterscotch5 (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack § Suspect section in reference to adding more information about the subject. TiggerJay (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Image of the Suspect

Has anyone confirmed that the image listed on the WP page is the actual suspect? It doesn't seem to reflect the person shown in journalistic accounts, and I seem to recall reading that there was some confusion about his appearance, as someone with an identical name was found online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4670:9490:C887:DDBB:17CD:B77D (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears that photo was from 11 years ago, and probably should be replaced with a better photo. It looks like CNN also used that photo along with others. It likely is because this photo is the only one that could be located that meets the copyright requirements. But if you can find a better one that meets policy, feel free to contribute! TiggerJay (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Truck attack?

"Truck attack" makes it sound like the truck itself was the perpetrator. If "terrorist" is too inflammatory, what about "2025 New Orleans New Year's attack"?2600:1702:6D0:5160:303C:5BCF:8EB6:2D9B (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Please see multiple move discussions on this talk page. Lots of consensus around NOT changing the article title, at least for now -- probably for a few weeks. TiggerJay (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

SNOW closing discussions rapidly is why you're gonna see more people opening discussions. Best to let it play out, because the current title is objectively incorrect to anyone familiar with English. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Changing (IS) to (ISIS)

There are numerous references to the Islamic State in quotations using the abbreviation (IS). I plan to replace (IS) with (ISIS) because it is more recognizable and because the FBI also used the term ISIS in its official statement. BeyondPerfection (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I support this change. It's extremely rare to refer to the group as IS. Butterscotch5 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@BeyondPerfection ISIS is a legacy term. Anyone who hovers over the IS hyperlink immediately sees that the IS is ISIS, which I think negates the only reason not to use the current name. If necessary, "also known as ISIS" could be added into the article. Kaotao (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing and was surprised when someone changed it from ISIS to IS. I understand that it might be the formal name, but it seems clearly that ISIS is still the COMMONNAME in the US, which is further reinforced by it's continued use in reliable sources in this article. TiggerJay (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I support saying ISIS in this context, because this attack was ISIS-inspired and featured an ISIS flag, and inspiration and flags can certainly come from organizations that have since changed names. More details: I've actually looked into this because of the recent rise in the abbreviations IS-K and ISK, especially in connection with the recent large attack in Moscow. It seems ISIS and ISIL were both initially popular names, then ISIS became a clear favorite, then "Islamic State" (fully spelled out), but the initialism IS has always coexisted with ISIS, possibly because most two-letter acronyms have many meanings. In relation to this New Orleans attack, I have seen and heard "ISIS" in The New York Times and NPR, which I consider good arbiters of proper use of politically-charged names. The specific phrases "ISIS-inspired" and "ISIS flag" don't even imply that ISIS exists currently, although I don't know if they changed the flag when they changed the name. Many political symbols have anachronistic names, so even a flag change wouldn't strike me as a problem. Fluoborate (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Daryl Johnson's 2009 DHS report

There should be an attempt to use the relevant secondary sources to link to or discuss the backstory of Daryl Johnson's 2009 DHS report, which was suppressed by conservatives and predicted the current threat of domestic terrorism.[11][12] Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

While those articles are an interesting read, can you provide a reliable source that suggests that Johnson was referring to incidents such as this? I didn't read that in these references. Additionally this article has yet to suggests a motive as being tied to what Johnson calls far-right extreme groups. Do you have sources to connect the two? TiggerJay (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

As a temporary measure, I've fully protected this page

I'm seeing BLP violations bandied about as if they didn't matter. I'm happy to unprotect if I see some discussion on these topics and editors showing a willingness to collaborate as opposed to scream past each other. Any other sysop is welcome to adjust my action as they see fit. BusterD (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

As a concerned editor, thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been paying too much attention to the discussion surrounding this article (except for proposed renames), but has BLP warring and screaming been taking place? I've only seen the "suspect"/"perpetrator" thing so far (which seemed civil?), and even then I think it's clear-cut in favor of "suspect" like we would treat any other unfolding news story. Overall, I'm just a bit confused. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe it's talk on whether to include the suspect's nickname or not. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. I mean I don't see it as a BLP violation at all to include the name as long as we make sure to make readers fully aware that this is just a suspect at this point (to that end, I think the article should be temporarily EP to make sure newer editors aren't throwing around words like "perpetrator" or otherwise implying this is something that specific person did). After all, every major news organization I can find reporting on this throws that name around. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

When I call others for a discussion, I've found it's unwise to take a position on any of the merits. It is possible in the moment I chose to use some hyperbole. By my micro protection regime, my intention is to call editors towards discussion and away from the adversarial back and forth of live pagespace in conflict. In such cases, it's useful to see who responds on talk (and who chooses not to do so). BusterD (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD, Potentially could add a contentious topic notice about BLPs on the talk page header. See what you think. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 00:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Glad this was done. I've contributed a bit here or there mostly on the talk and am pretty astonished by what transpires when I check in every so hours or so... Some more talk and consensus building should be taking place, and this well help direct it back towards that. TiggerJay (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Always liked the WP:RECENTISM essay. Seems to have fallen by the wayside. As some folks are ignoring the BLP notice; I wouldn't mind a CTOP notice. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Attacks against Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry

Thread retitled from "Attacks against Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry Are Politically Motivated". WP:TALKHEADPOV O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry was verbally attacked for posting photo even though he had already posted a condolences message. This is not the unbiased posting that we expect from Wiki. 2600:1700:7890:5A40:389E:2850:E45E:2A0 (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

He was attacked on social media, rightly or wrongly. He wasn't attacked here. Can you explain what you want changed? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Suspect's Alaska connection

The suspect served at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska. [13] someone with extensive experience dealing with biographies please add this to the suspect section of the article. Thanks! Juneau Mike (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Please see: Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack § Suspect sectionTiggerJay (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Suspect section

Just a general observation and to see if there is consensus, especially among experienced editors... I personally feel like the "Suspect" section carries the appropriate amount of overall weight in the article. That isn't to say it is perfect and cannot be improved upon, but rather simply commentary that we should not actively be seeking to extensively expand this section, even though reliable sources are going to continue to feed us information that "could" be added into this section, but I would strongly suggest that the overall size and weight of this section, relative the to the rest of the article is appropriate. Remember that this is principally an article about the attack, and there is limited weight that should be applied to an alleged perpetrator/suspect -- and even though dead, WP:BLP still applies per WP:BDP. TiggerJay (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I entirely agree with this. There have been suggestions that we add the suspect's childhood nickname, a mention that he was stationed at a base in Alaska for some unknown time... apparently the names of the suspect's ex-wives were on here at some point? I feel like people want to indiscriminately include every piece of information known about the suspect with little consideration for what this adds to the attack. Should this subject ever get a separate biography, then sure, but let's take a look at other examples in the form of September 11 attacks § Osama bin Laden and Killing of Brian Thompson § Suspect which I think do a good job being just comprehensive enough that they don't lose focus. I read a comment by Masem at another discussion (they were making an argument opposite to mine, but I nonetheless agree with the observation used in their argument) that "[there] is a problem with editors trying to write as if WP was a newspaper [rather] than an encyclopedia". Because Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia, we need to be able to cover these things, but compared to other topics, it feels like these create a sense of frantic urgency whose presence isn't felt in other subjects. This introduces WP:RECENTISM which is inherently present in news articles but which should be avoided when possible in an encyclopedia. Namely, "well, if it's been mentioned recently, then clearly it's worth including in our article." TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, we are meant to be writing for what is going to be the way news is seen 10+ yrs after an event, not as the event is ongoing (If you do want to write like that, the Wikinews sister project is for you). Its understandable that at the start of an event article that likely is notable (such as this) that extra details may be added in the initial rush but we should always being looking to trim and make a good, narrative summary approach to the event rather than trying to capture every tiny detail. We are not meant to be the final source for any topic, but a good first pass as to help readers find more info if they need it. --Masem (t) 13:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

“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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Raised Christian

Attackers brother says they were raised Christian. Should be added.

[14]https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/shamsud-din-jabbar-new-orleans-brother-radicalization-b2672859.html 164.119.5.96 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Please see: Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack § Suspect sectionTiggerJay (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

"Attack" section contradicts "Timeline"

The earlier section states that the attack was on Bourbon, while the Timeline states that it was on Canal. Cdg1072 (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Only "Reactions" section rightly describes missing barricades as "bollards"

The "Attack" section doesn't distinguish bollards and lumps together all such protective barriers as "barricades." Cdg1072 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

not a "truck"

a pickup truck may *technically* be a truck, but in american usage, at least, "truck" defaults to a semi. one will notice that news reports rarely leave out the word "pickup", yet most of this article does! it needs to be restored in most cases.

looking at the photos of the crime scene, my initial reaction was, "i see a pickup truck there, but where's the ACTUAL truck that did all this?" such is the disconnect between "truck" and "pickup truck".

i suspect UK, OZ, NZ, etc usage may differ, but as this is an american event, i think we should follow american usage here. 2601:18A:807C:1C40:FD4B:BE89:ADD8:96CD (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I am American and the first thing I think of when I hear truck is a pickup truck. I don't even call "semis" trucks and neither does the rest of the Southern US (where this took place) - we usually call them eighteen wheelers. So, no. Maybe for northerners. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree: Pickup is just a type of truck. I call the D150 I drive a truck and so does everyone I know. A semi would be a semi, or eighteen wheeler. In some cases it's called a truck too, but I don't think anyone would require this distinction as both semi and pickup are types of trucks. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

maybe "semi" was a poor choice on my part, what i really meant was an enclosed truck like a delivery vehicle. amazon, fedex, etc. THAT's a truck.

a pickup truck is a "truck" only after specifying "pickup" in the first instance. as evidenced by the fact that most news sources are including the word in their headlines, whereas other descriptors like "black" or "4x4" they don't.

it's like "fire truck" -- sure it's a "truck" once you're talking about them, but u wouldn't start out with "truck plows into crowd" if you actually meant a fire truck did it. 2601:18A:807C:1C40:FD4B:BE89:ADD8:96CD (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

if you showed a bunch of kids -- southern kids, even -- a pickup truck, a fedex van, an 18 wheeler, and a fire truck, and asked them which is the truck (pick one), would anyone really choose the pickup? methinks it'd be overwhelmingly B or C.

i mean, what do "truckers" drive down there? if anyone should know what a "truck" is! 2601:18A:807C:1C40:FD4B:BE89:ADD8:96CD (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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)