Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack

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 [1], [2], [3], and [4]), 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 [5]), 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)

@Justthefacts - most of the policies you cite circle still require WP:CONSENSUS, not simply throwing the word or link to a policy around like it is a mic drop. Most of your references to policy are absolutely correct for an article about the individual Shamsud-Din Jabbar. However, this is an article about the incident/attack itself, and not about the person, who more important is still simply a suspect. What requires consensus finding, and discussion is if that information is appropriate for the article about the event, versus an article about the person. That is really where the debate of WP:UNDUE comes in, and that policy does not explicitly state what weight such information belongs in the article. If you wanted to create an article Shamsud-Din Jabbar and include that information there, I'm not sure anybody would disagree with you. Rather the disagreement comes when talking about the intersection of policies for biographies and events. TiggerJay (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

More recent information from CNN--who spoke to his brother--says they were raised as Muslims and went to the mosque every Friday. Their father was a convert so perhaps that's where that is coming from. Ney1965 (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

This clearly contravenes WP:UNDUE because of the way it is juxtaposed in the sentence in which he is identified as the driver. UNDUE says, Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to... the juxtaposition of statements.... It does not belong in the lead because, according to WP:LEAD, that's only supposed to identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight, and the article doesn't give this any such weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:03, 4 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)

He wasn't a convert, he was raised a Muslim, according to CNN, who spoke to his brother. Their father was a convert. If his religion is going to be mentioned--and it'll be hard to avoid that--it should be correct. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/01/us/shamsud-din-jabbar-suspect-new-orleans-attack/index.html Ney1965 (talk) 01:44, 5 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.

“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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

Authenticity of flag image

We need a reliable source that verifies the caption we are using on that image. It would be strange if it is a genuine photo from the scene, but not featured or described in any mainstream media articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Would this source be enough? [1] SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say no. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not exactly mainstream is it, and it was rejected once before for not actually verifying the caption we use. I was thinking WP-, NYT-, The Times-, BBC News-type mainstream with a record of fact checking, verification, and a reputation for openly publishing corrections when necessary. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

What about this source? [1] It seems to be pretty reliable SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

That looks like a self-published blog full of personal POV and speculation, and there's no discussion there about how he verified the image content, so I guess he hasn't. And he doesn't even seem to credit the photographer.

But anyway, it seems like the image has a copyright problem on Wikipedia and has been removed, so the problem has gone away. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@SolxrgashiUnited Neither of those are remotely reliable. Please review WP:IRS EvergreenFir (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@SolxrgashiUnited: No. It's a Substack blog: see WP:RS and particularly WP:BDP, both of which apply in spades. And stop adding that bloody image, it's extremely exasperating. You can't just find any image you want and create a Fair-use rationale around it. To fulfill that criterion, the article has to be expressly about the image: your recent change, now claiming that There is a substantial amount of encyclopedic discussion of this particular photograph is grossly untrue, and suggesting that someone photographing a flag is somehow supports that there is an FBI investigation of the attack—better than the whole sourced section curently titled "Investigation" (!!!) is wholly unreasonable. The FUR is misleading because the article literally does not even mention the photograph at all. This is deliberate policy on Wikipedia's behalf, by making the opportunities for copyright infringement as narrow as possible. An example of its use is, for example, music albums, or books; the artwork for Pink Floyd The Wall can legitimately be used because it directly represents the topic of the article. Likewise, the front cover of The Da Vinci Code can legitimately be used in that article for the same reason. The FBI flag photo-op is, though, not covered in this article at all. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 19:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

ISIS flag was mentioned multiple times in this article, this is why i decided to include this image. Besides that, this image is quite popular on Twitter and Reddit... SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It might be one thing if you simply included a photo of an ISIS flag for illustration (with an appropriate label), but this image gives the appearance of a photo taken at the crime scene from an unreliable source. The fact that it is popular on Twitter and Reddit is irrelevant, as false information goes viral on social platforms all the time, and does not indication of reliability. Without reliable sources, that image doesn't belong here. TiggerJay (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Exact path of pickup is incorrect

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

Reference to Trump International Hotel Las Vegas Tesla Cybertruck explosion

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

Victim list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motive in infobox

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2025

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

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

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

American born in lead section.

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

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