Jump to content

Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Perpetrator

When information is available about the perpetrator, it would be helpful if the article here can include that information as well. 2A02:8388:1643:D680:7C20:EEFA:982E:22B7 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Number of deaths?

This article contradicts itself - some parts say 16, some parts say 11. The blurb on the main page says 11.2600:1008:B160:54A0:7989:44C6:3F4C:5412 (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

As it's an ongoing event, it'll take time for information to update and news sources to agree. It should be more up to date by the end of the day or this time tomorrow. You're welcome to update information yourself as well, as the article isn't currently protected. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 19:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about my revert

Many many aplogiesI of course blame my iPad 😀 Seriously though I’m very sorry but I can’t undo it without doing it manually and I am NOT going to try on my iPad, plus I’m falling asleep in bed. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller - You're in good company with editing on the iPad, it has fouled me up more than once... I went to look at the diff and I'm not entirely sure what all needs to be manually restored versus actually being a part of what you intended to fix... There is definitely still content missing... If you're still just editing mobile, feel free to ping me either here or message me properly and I'll be happy to mop up. Cheer! TiggerJay (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
@Tiggerjay Can’t get to sleep so set Googlefor a ten minutimer to read on my kindle but this came up first. So if you can mop up that would be great. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 22:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
 Done -- I hope you're able to get some sleep! TiggerJay (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Minor Correction

Article indicates the suspect's truck collided with a crane... the truck actually collided with a turreted boom lift, or aerial device with a basket for operators/workers on the end, like a cherry picker. I use them all the time. The specific device hit operates at low speeds, typically in areas not affected by regular traffic, like a festival or some other special event.Toastt21 (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2025

'Canal Street' includes a hyperlink to a street in New York City, not New Orleans. Change this link to the correct page 'Canal Street, New Orleans'. 70.166.13.71 (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done ---- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Typos

In the timeline at the end of the article, see “gaves.” Probably should be “gave.” 2600:1700:30C0:6E50:2576:E459:884C:95B0 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems to have been  Done by someone. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit request to reference #60

Please edit the reference currently numbered "60" from 

<ref>{{Cite web |last=mheim@al.com |first=Mark Heim {{!}} |date=2025-01-02 |title=Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry blasted as steak dinner goes viral after New Orleans terrorist attack |url=https://www.al.com/news/2025/01/louisiana-gov-jeff-landry-blasted-as-steak-dinner-goes-viral-after-new-orleans-terrorist-attack.html |access-date=2025-01-02 |website=al |language=en}}</ref>

to 

<ref>{{Cite web |last=Heim |first=Mark |date=2025-01-02 |title=Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry blasted as steak dinner goes viral after New Orleans terrorist attack |url=https://www.al.com/news/2025/01/louisiana-gov-jeff-landry-blasted-as-steak-dinner-goes-viral-after-new-orleans-terrorist-attack.html |access-date=2025-01-03 |website=AL.com |language=en}}</ref>

--Bsherr (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. SilverLocust 💬 02:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit request to improve citation placement, fix bare references

This edit improves two bare references. Also, the NBC News article does not verify the latter clause of the sentence. Please edit 

During the Sugar Bowl, a moment of silence was held before kickoff, followed by the crowd chanting "[[U-S-A!]]" after [[The Star-Spangled Banner|the national anthem]].<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/sports/college-football/sugar-bowl-kicks-20-hours-late-moment-silence-new-orleans-terrorist-at-rcna185977</ref><ref>https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2025/01/02/moment-silence-held-sugar-bowl-followed-by-u-s-a-chants/</ref>

to 

During the Sugar Bowl, a moment of silence was held before kickoff,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/sports/college-football/sugar-bowl-kicks-20-hours-late-moment-silence-new-orleans-terrorist-at-rcna185977 |first1=Jesse |last1=Kirsch |first2=Deon J. |last2=Hampton |first3=David K. |last3=Li |title=Notre Dame wins delayed Sugar Bowl in the wake of New Orleans terrorist attack |work=NBC News |date=2025-01-02 |access-date=2025-01-03}}</ref><ref name="ANF">{{cite web |url=https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2025/01/02/moment-silence-held-sugar-bowl-followed-by-u-s-a-chants/ |title=Moment of silence held at Sugar Bowl followed by U-S-A chants |work=Atlanta News First |date=2025-01-02 |access-date=2025-01-03}}</ref> followed by the crowd chanting "[[U-S-A!]]" after [[The Star-Spangled Banner|the national anthem]].<ref name="ANF" />

--Bsherr (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Further, to reference currently numbered 73, from 

<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 2, 2025 |title=Pope 'deeply saddened' by New Orleans terrorist attack - Vatican News |url=https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-01/pope-deeply-saddened-new-orleans-terrorist-attack-prayer.html |website=www.vaticannews.va}}</ref>

to 

<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 2, 2025 |first=Joseph |last=Tulloch |title=Pope 'deeply saddened' by New Orleans terrorist attack |url=https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-01/pope-deeply-saddened-new-orleans-terrorist-attack-prayer.html |website=Vatican News |access-date=January 3, 2025}}</ref>

--Bsherr (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry, now that the article is back to semi-protection and things have cooled off a bit, I'm going to start cleaning up these citations, since yes, they're a mess. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
As the protection has changed, I have made the edits myself. --Bsherr (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Possible connection to air b-n-b fire

https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/bourbon-street-attack-airbnb/article_3b1a89c0-c851-11ef-b4d9-f333210ff2e7.amp.html CaitlinC6 (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Since this is not confirmed, I put it in the investigation section since investigators are investigating it. Heythereimaguy (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Army service

The WSJ reports that he served, not worked for, the army, including a deployment to Afghanistan and he was a sergeant. See here. nableezy - 20:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Added it along with the NYTimes info describing his employment. Heythereimaguy (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Identifying information on the suspect? Age?

The name "Shamsud-Din Bahar Jabbar", or the same name without the hyphen, is now in multiple reputable sources. However, is he the "42-year-old Houston man" who was the owner of the truck? Or was the truck stolen? The owner of the truck may not be the named deceased suspect, based on the New York Times currently. Fluoborate (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

According to the Events section, the "42-year-old Houston man" owned the truck, but he was renting it via Turo to the suspect. 🪐 Xarinu 🪐 (Talk 2 Me :] ) 18:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't see where any of the sources mention the age of the owner of the truck. Consider it an unlikely coincidence and possible error AND the truck owners age is really irrelevant that could be removed. 104.49.87.62 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
 Done I don't see it in the sources either, though I'll check again. Even if I do find it, I'll leave it out to avoid confusion (and the age isn't relevant anyway). Heythereimaguy (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree, upon reading the sources the most that I could get was from CNN, "The vehicle, a white Ford F-150 Lightning electric truck, is registered to a Houston man who has worked for the car dealership where the vehicle was sold", it's probably an error. @Fluoborate look in the "Events" section, there are several sources describing the suspect (such as CNN - "The FBI has identified the suspect as a 42-year-old Texas man and Army veteran.") 🪐 Xarinu 🪐 (Talk 2 Me :] ) 20:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"looking at a 'range of suspects" Proposed Revision to Investigation Section

OP blocked. Not useful. TiggerJay (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I propose a revision to clarify the FBI's investigative process and conclusions in the section discussing the suspect's involvement. The current wording mentions that "The FBI was looking at a 'range of suspects'," but later states that the FBI confirmed the suspect acted alone. To improve clarity and reflect the chronology of events, I suggest the following update:

Current Wording:

"The FBI was looking at a 'range of suspects' and did 'not want to rule anything out' at the previous stage of the investigation. Later, the FBI stated that the suspect acted alone."

Proposed Revision:

"Initially, the FBI was looking at a 'range of suspects' as part of their investigation, not ruling out the possibility of additional involvement. However, after further inquiry, they later confirmed that the suspect acted alone."

This revision maintains the original intent while providing better context for readers about the evolving nature of the investigation. It ensures transparency and reflects the facts as they unfolded.

Please share any thoughts or concerns. If there are no objections or suggestions for improvement, I plan to make this update in 24 hours. Thank you for your input! Randall N. Brock (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's rather common to look at multiple possible suspects and not rule anything out at the start. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The comment by User:Basaatw is verified as 100% created by ChatGPT. You're talking to an unauthorized bot. BusterD (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I have to check to see if I'm a bot. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Your replies reveal a 0% chance of machine writing (other than the whole, ya know, computer use thing). Keep it up (or down as the case may be). BusterD (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposing nationality wording update per ABC News source.

OP blocked. Not useful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Proposing nationality wording update with multiple sources Will implement in 24 hours if no objections.

Current text uses "American-born" which could be ambiguous. Multiple sources confirm US birth: - Thomas, Pierre, et al. "New Orleans truck attack suspect" ABC News, Jan 2, 2025 - AP News (Jan 2, 2025) field office statements

Proposed change: "American-born" → "United States-born"

Will proceed with change at 18:59, 3 January 2025 UTC unless concerns raised. Randall N. Brock (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone else here really want to talk with a chat bot? I've indef-blocked the user for trolling by repeatedly using LLMs to discuss on talk. BusterD (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, fellow human being! While I appreciate your perspective, I believe it's important to maintain a respectful tone in discussions here. Constructive dialogue fosters a better environment for collaboration and understanding. If you have specific concerns about the topic, I'd be happy to address them. While I understand your concerns about the use of chatbots in discussions, I believe they can offer valuable insights and perspectives. Engaging with Al can enhance conversations and provide a different angle on topics. However, it's important to ensure that discussions remain constructive and respectful. What are your thoughts on finding a balance between human and Al contributions in these discussions? What is an AI? Who created AI? Plese feel free to anwser my questions on my talk page, ill do my best to adress them, fellow human being. Happy new year fellow human! 81.222.177.100 (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2025

There is no mention in his timeline of the two blue coolers, loaded with explosives and the detonation device found in his rented truck 99.217.118.172 (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

 Already done the timeline states Between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m.: Jabbar placed two improvised explosive devices inside of coolers in the French Quarter.---- D'n'B-📞 -- 10:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 (TadgTalk) 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.

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)

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)

“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?

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. EF5 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)

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)

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) SerialNumber54129A 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)
  • 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 as per WP:COMMONNAME. Nightmares26 (talk) 10:49, 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)
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.

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)

"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)

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.[1]—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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

"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" [2]. Guess what. --Askedonty (talk) 00:38, 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)

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)

"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.[citation needed] 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)

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)

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)

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) SerialNumber54129A 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 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.

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)

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.[3][4] 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)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_New_Orleans_truck_attack/Archive_1&oldid=1267601283"