Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:39, 3 January 2025 editObjective3000 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,035 edits →Attacks against Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry Are Politically Motivated: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:06, 8 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,841 editsm Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack/Archive 2) (bot
(192 intermediate revisions by 61 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{talk page header}}		{{talk page header}}
			{{gs/talk notice\|scwisil}}
			{{old moves\|date1=1 January 2025\|destination1=2025 New Orleans attack\|result1=not moved\|link1=Special:Permalink/1266724111#Requested move 1 January 2025\|date2=2 January 2025\|destination2=2025 Bourbon Street massacre\|result2=not moved\|link2=Special:Permalink/1266839374#Requested move 2 January 2025\|date3=2 January 2025\|destination3=2025 New Orleans New Year's Day attack\|result3=not moved\|link3=Special:Permalink/1267083242#Requested move 2 January 2025 (2nd)}}
	{{ITN talk\|1 January\|2025\|oldid=1266668898}}		{{ITN talk\|1 January\|2025\|oldid=1266668898}}
			{{Not censored}}
	{{old move\|date=1 January 2025\|destination=2025 New Orleans attack\|result=not moved\|link=Special:Permalink/1266724111#Requested move 1 January 2025}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|collapsed=yes\|blp=other\|1=
	{{old move\|date=2 January 2025\|destination=2025 Bourbon Street massacre\|result=not moved\|link=Special:Permalink/1266839374#Requested move 2 January 2025}}
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|collapsed=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|importance=Low\|terrorism=yes\|terrorism-imp=Low\|serialkiller=yes\|serialkiller-imp=Low}}		{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|importance=Low\|terrorism=yes\|terrorism-imp=Low\|serialkiller=yes\|serialkiller-imp=Low}}
	{{WikiProject Death\|importance=low}}		{{WikiProject Death\|importance=low}}
Line 11:		Line 12:
	\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}		\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 75K		\|maxarchivesize = 75K
	\|counter = 1		\|counter = 2
	\|minthreadsleft = 3		\|minthreadsleft = 3
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 17:		Line 18:
	\|archive = Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}

	==Birthplace==
	Born and raised in TX? Except, no citation, and we're not buying it. Someone fix. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:The and that is what's cited there. -- ]-'']'' -- 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. ] (]) 21:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::CHRON is not a reliable source according to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:32, 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] reliable sources say. ] (]) 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.] (]) 14:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

	:The Attorney General has described it as "terrorism". ] (]) 17:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Even without reliable sources, it is evident this is a terrorist attack. ] (]) 18:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::With most reliable sources, the term used rather than terrorist attack is "terror attack" . Guess what. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

	:{{agree}} <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">]</span> <small>(<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>)</small> 14:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Start an RM. ] (]) 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". ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::The move I am referring to is ]. ] (]) 17:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::See ]. ''Bonne année''. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

	:On the contrary.
	:] (]) 19:38, 2 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. ] (]) 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 ] to the suspect. 🪐 ] 🪐 ( ]]) 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. ] (]) 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). ] (]) 20:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I agree, upon reading the sources the most that I could get was from , "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. @] look in the "Events" section, there are several sources describing the suspect (such as - "The FBI has identified the suspect as a 42-year-old Texas man and Army veteran.") 🪐 ] 🪐 ( ]]) 20:51, 1 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 ] (]) 18:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

	:{{Done}} Since this is not confirmed, I put it in the investigation section since investigators are investigating it. ] (]) 21:19, 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 ] (]) 19:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

	:'''UPDATE:'' NBC has changed its new banner from "At Least 15 Killed" to "At Least 10 Killed" ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

	:Might have a BLPCRIME issue but I would like input from more experienced editors. ] (]) 19:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

	:: Is there a concrete ask here? We have an investigation section that already covers this. ] (]) 19:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I would wait to see, though it might be already covered. ] (]) 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". ] (]) 19:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:. <span style="background-color: black">] ] ]</span> 20:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC) <small>Re-added at 22:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
	:::::Likely not, you would think they would also be shooting or setting up stuff at the scene. ] (]) 20:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:. <span style="background-color: black">] ] ]</span> 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. ] (]) 20:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Link? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	== Requested move 1 January 2025 ==
	<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] '''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. ] (]) 23:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 23:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	----

	] → {{no redirect\|2025 New Orleans attack}} – The attack combines shooting, pursuit and a ramming attack. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' - per COMMONNAME. Other aspects not significant/impactful enough to be included IMO. Similar to the RM on ] ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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"? ] (]) 20:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Support - It is a very significant attack and the truck part does not do it justice enough. ] (]) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' - Too early. ] (]) 21:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' - "2025 New Orleans Attack" is a little too ambiguous IMO. Could refer to other ''potential'' events. 🪐 ] 🪐 ( ]]) 21:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' - I agree with {{u\|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. — ] ] 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." ] (]) 21:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Agree with your suggestion ] (]) 22:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''support''' clearly both.] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' for now per common name and too soon. My ] says we might be making a more precise name change in the next few days/weeks anways as more details emerge.] ] 21:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' for now. I note that articles like ] are named similarly. ] (]) 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 ] 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 ] which was strictly done using a vehicle). There is precedent such as ], which was a mass shooting (not a combined attack) but which we just call "attack". <b>]</b> ] 22:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
	</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

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

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

	== The truck attacked? ==

	"I did not do it", says the truck. Will you ever learn not to follow the media deception and framing? ] (]) 16:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Restored because section with false claim. Problem still stands: misleading article title that blames an object. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:32, 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 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) 30+, 36+, dropped to 36 exactly, 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. ] ] 23:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

	== Please remember that ] 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. ] (]) 21:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

	:] accusation of guilt by an IP. ] (]) 01:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	::Frankly that is irrelevant to ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I agree. The current link is too ambiguous and could confuse people. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 22:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The sources currently say "assault rifle," so the writers at news orgs put that. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::This is irrelevant. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, will dutifully call the semi-auto an assault rifle until such time as reliable sources correct themselves. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 ] 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 ]), to describe the nature of the gun. Otherwise it is just ] & ] which, regardless of how correct you might be from a technical standpoint, is not how things are edited here. ] ] 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 Misplaced Pages article. We follow reliable sources, even when they are ''technically'' wrong. ] (]) 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. ]] 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	*There is an accepted definition of what an ] 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 , , and . 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	*:::Not all rifles are AR-15 ] (]) 21:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	*::::Correct. ] (]) 21:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	== Requested move 2 January 2025 ==

	<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] '''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. <small>(])</small> ]'']''] 13:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	----

	] → {{no redirect\|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. ] (]) 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

	:I would be against this per COMMONNAME but would like to hear what others would say. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::current RM is done, you can post your idea at RM now. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. Current name is factual, simple, NPOV, and clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 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".
	:] (]) 02:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Agree, redirect is based. ] (]) 03:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' as per ] 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. ] ] 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 ] and the ]. ] (]) 03:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	*:Well, those are some sucky titles, don't mimic the Grinch when you can be a saint. ] (]) 03:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	*::Why are they bad? They're certainly better than "massacre". ] (]) 10:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' massacre titles should never be used unless they are ], which this is definitely not. ] (]) 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 ], which it isn't at the moment.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 10:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	:'''Oppose''' as per ]. ] (]) 10:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	*'''Oppose''' Massacre isn't a suitable title along with not being the ] ''']''' (]) 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. ] (]) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' as people outside the United States will be unlikely to be able to contextualize Bourbon Street. ] (]) 12:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
	</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

	== 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Works for me! Thanks ] (]) 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

	] (]) 22:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

	:X is considered unreliable. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 22:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:"@schrse" uploaded a captioned image to Twitter and that's all. They're not a reliable source. ] (]) 22:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	: from BBC News. ] (]) 23:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:obviously possible an investigator put the jacket to cover the flag. Stick with what official sources are saying. ] (]) 12:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	== Names ==

	Don't add the names of the suspect's ex-wives and the truck owner etc per ] ] (]) 23:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:{{Done}} I removed the last name that violated BLP. Thanks for removing the others. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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... ] (]) 01:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	== Diagram ==

	]
	I have created a diagram of the attack according to this . I am unsure if this diagram is necessary for the article; but considering the ] article has a diagram, I think we should include a diagram on this article as well. ] (]) 05:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	:At first glance, yes. ] (]) 06:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:diagram needs some street names or something, there is basically nothing there to give orientation. ] (]) 12:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Excellent. But red line should be more visible (emphasized).10:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	== Infobox image ==

	At , {{u\|Abductive}} commented that the picture ] 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 is a block north, which seems to be more like 800 Bourbon. —] (]) 06:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I removed it.—] (]) 06:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	]]]
	:Does this image from ] make sense? Current image of a ] is too poor.―― ] (]) 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. —] (]) 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 ] (]) 14:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::According to that source (and the map in the Misplaced Pages 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. —] (]) 14:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Agreed. ] (]) 14:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	== The religion of the perpetrator in the lede ==

	@], 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. — '''] '']''''' 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 ], which is an extremist organization and is not the same thing as Islam.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 08:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	:Multiple ] from all around the world have all published news articles that all explicitly state that Jabbar was a ] to ] (see , , , and ), which makes that fact clearly relevant to the incident, with the '']'' prominently stating that fact in the very first paragraph of a news article about the incident (see ), which makes that fact clearly important to the incident, all according to the consensus of the ], which therefore makes that fact more than meet the standards for ] to include in the lead of the article. --] (]) 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 . And sources talking about his conversion to Islam makes it at best ] for the body of the article not the lead. — '''] '']''''' 23:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::At the end of the day, ] on Misplaced Pages is determined by ]. If the '']'', which is an exceptionally ], 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 ] for Misplaced Pages to note it in the ''second'' paragraph of an article about the incident.--] (]) 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. — '''] '']''''' 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 ] & ] that are at play here. And discussions like this are likely part of the reason the article itself is now full protected. ] ] 01:24, 3 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?? ] (]) 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	: 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. -- ]-'']'' -- 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 ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ]<small>]</small> (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 ] (]) 13:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	:Seems undue. What's the relevance? ] (]) 14:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Since his conversion is mentioned, its notable what his conversion was from as we dont state that yet. ] (]) 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 ] 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). ] (]) ] (]) 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...... ] (]) 23:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	== Cleanup tag ==

	I added the tag because the article contradicts itself about:
	# Whether Jabbar is a suspect or the perpetrator - both terms are used confusingly when describing him.
	# 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. -- ] (]). 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::@], that's better for the first, thanks, I wonder how long it will stick. If the second issue cannot be resolved, than 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. -- ] (]). 23:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I added back a suitably modified tag. -- ] (]). 23:15, 2 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 Misplaced Pages 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? ] (]) 16:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	:Given that there is a mix and apparently indiscriminate attack; I don't see the point in inclusion. ] (]) 17:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Interesting how for the past 7 years, who conveniently pop up on Misplaced Pages to edit ONLY, literally only when a major terrorist attack has occurred to try and start spreading confusion and propaganda. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:46, 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! ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::According to is was stated during a press conference that he was born in Texas which is still in America.{{cn}} 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. -- ]-'']'' -- 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	== Requested move 2 January 2025 ==

	{{requested move/dated\|2025 New Orleans New Year's Day attack\|protected=2025 New Orleans truck attack}}

	] → {{no redirect\|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. ] (]) 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 ], 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 ]ding. <b>]</b> ] 21:36, 2 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. ] (]) 22:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	== 'Suspects' ==

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

	:Thanks, fixed. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. <b>]</b> ] 21:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	== Update needed for FBI findings (part 2) ==		== Update needed for FBI findings (part 2) ==
Line 379:		Line 28:
	Sources:		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."		- 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.		- 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
			:This is an older post that was unsigned by a now blocked user. There is nothing substantial here that isn't already covered or addressed in the article. Nothing to do here. ] ] 02:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

	] has recently confirmed new details about Jabbar's early life. According to the Beaumont Enterprise, Jabbar attended ] 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 ]. ] 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 ]. 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 ] shortly after his second marriage, and later attended ] 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 ] 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 ] 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/
	] (]) 17:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	:This is interesting but I don't know if a childhood nickname is ] to be included in this article. -- ]-'']'' -- 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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 ]'s childhood nickname etc. in our coverage of the ]. It would be wildly out of place. <b>]</b> ] 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. ] (]) 21:51, 2 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

	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! ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::<small>I have to check to see if I'm a bot.</small> ] (]) 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). ] (]) 20:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	== Proposing nationality wording update per ABC News source. ==
	{{hat\|1=OP blocked. Not useful. ] (]) 21:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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! ] (]) 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	== 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"?] (]) 19:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	:While I understand that you may be feeling frustrated or upset, I encourage respectful and constructive communication. Insulting comments can escalate conflicts and do not contribute to a positive discussion. If you're experiencing dissatisfaction with a Misplaced Pages article or another user's contribution, it might be more effective to express your concerns clearly and respectfully. If you're looking for help on how to articulate a criticism or provide constructive feedback, Morrissey4Prez2024 can assist you with that. He is a kind soul, a great friend of mine, and somebody who volunteers at the church canteen! He is one of the most experienced editors on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	== Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2025 ==

	{{edit semi-protected\|2025 New Orleans truck attack\|answered=yes}}
	'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'. ] (]) 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:{{done}} ---- ]-'']'' -- 19:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	== Typos ==

	In the timeline at the end of the article, see “gaves.” Probably should be “gave.” ] (]) 21:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	:Seems to have been {{done}} by someone. <span style="background-color: black">] ] ]</span> 21:32, 2 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. ] (]) 21:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			== “Suspect” ==
	:I support this change. It's extremely rare to refer to the group as IS. ] (]) 21:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			Jabbar was the guy who did it so shouldn’t it be changed from suspect to perpetrator? ] (]) 10:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Daryl Johnson's 2009 DHS report ==

			:Assuming that it has been legally confirmed by multiple sources, then yes. (]) \| (PS: Have a good day) 12:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	There should be an attempt to use the relevant secondary sources to link to or discuss the backstory of , which was suppressed by conservatives and predicted the current threat of domestic terrorism. ] (]) 23:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:There is a ''presumption of innocence'' that prevails in these articles, until proven. ] ] ] 15:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I agree with using "suspect" for a while because of ], 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? ] (]) 19:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Whenever law enforcement calls him that and reliable sources report it, I think. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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 ] protections to him as recently deceased. ] (]) 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::We might need to discuss that due to ]. --] (]) 10:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@]: What specific aspect of BDP are you asserting? ] ] 16:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Probably {{tq\|six months, one year, two years at the outside}} - I said "give it a month" which is shorter than the timeframes supported by ]. To clarify my stance, I said a month mainly to suggest we should not be acting ''sooner'' than a month from now. I am entirely happy to follow ] guidance and say we should treat the suspect as a BLP for at least six months. ] (]) 16:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Simonm223 has pretty much already said what I would have. The only thing to emphasis is that this would be in line with the {{tpq\|Such extensions would only apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends}} portion. --] (]) 05:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Exact path of pickup is incorrect ==
	== As a temporary measure, I've fully protected this page ==

			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. ] (]) 11:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	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. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

	:As a ~~concerned~~ ~~editor,~~ ~~thank~~ you. ] (]) 00:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)		:Do you have a reliable source that you can provide for that statement? ] ] 02:07, 7 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. <b>]</b> ] 00:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I believe it's talk on whether to include the suspect's nickname or not. ] (]) 00:19, 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). ] (]) 01:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:@], Potentially could add a contentious topic notice about BLPs on the talk page header. See what you think. <span style="font-family:Arial;background-color:#fff;border:2px dashed#69c73e">] - ]</span> 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. ] ] 00:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Reference to Trump International Hotel Las Vegas Tesla Cybertruck explosion ==
	== Attacks against Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry Are Politically Motivated ==

			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. ] (]) 16:54, 5 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. ] (]) 23:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			:I removed one sentence from the article, but there is no need to extensively cover it here except for basically a passing reference that it was investigated for being similar and that no connection was found. If the connection was still unknown then there might be cause for more detail. As it currently stands, it is accurate, and not outdated. ] ] 02:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:He was attacked on social media, rightly or wrongly. He wasn't attacked here. Can you explain what you want changed? ] (]) 01:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I agree that it does not need to be extensively covered because no connection was found.
			::However, it is '''not''' accurate to say "The same day, at approximately 8:39 a.m., a Tesla Cybertruck exploded and caught fire outside of the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas in Paradise, Nevada, killing the perpetrator and injuring seven other people," because the Tesla exploding did '''not''' kill the perpetrator --- he killed himself with a gunshot to the head prior to the explosion.
			::The article should be simply corrected to: "The same day, at approximately 8:39 a.m., a Tesla Cybertruck exploded and caught fire outside of the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas in Paradise, Nevada, injuring seven other people. The perpetrator died from a self-inflicted gunshot prior to the explosion." ] (]) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			I don't see why anything is said about this as there doesn't appear to be any connection. Doesn't even look like the LV thing was designed to kill anyone other than the driver; and there were over 16,000 actual murders in the US last year. ] (]) 17:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:06, 8 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2025 New Orleans truck attack article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 days

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article 2025 New Orleans truck attack, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Not moved, 1 January 2025, to 2025 New Orleans attack, see discussion.
Not moved, 2 January 2025, to 2025 Bourbon Street massacre, see discussion.
Not moved, 2 January 2025, to 2025 New Orleans New Year's Day attack, see discussion.

A news item involving 2025 New Orleans truck attack was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 January 2025.

Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Louisiana / New Orleans Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana - New Orleans.

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. 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."

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basaatw (talk • contribs)

This is an older post that was unsigned by a now blocked user. There is nothing substantial here that isn't already covered or addressed in the article. Nothing to do here. TiggerJay (talk) 02:09, 7 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)

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)

We might need to discuss that due to WP:BDP. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: What specific aspect of BDP are you asserting? TiggerJay (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably six months, one year, two years at the outside - I said "give it a month" which is shorter than the timeframes supported by WP:BDP. To clarify my stance, I said a month mainly to suggest we should not be acting sooner than a month from now. I am entirely happy to follow WP:BDP guidance and say we should treat the suspect as a BLP for at least six months. Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223 has pretty much already said what I would have. The only thing to emphasis is that this would be in line with the Such extensions would only apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends portion. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:57, 8 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)

Do you have a reliable source that you can provide for that statement? TiggerJay (talk) 02:07, 7 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)

I removed one sentence from the article, but there is no need to extensively cover it here except for basically a passing reference that it was investigated for being similar and that no connection was found. If the connection was still unknown then there might be cause for more detail. As it currently stands, it is accurate, and not outdated. TiggerJay (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it does not need to be extensively covered because no connection was found.

However, it is not accurate to say "The same day, at approximately 8:39 a.m., a Tesla Cybertruck exploded and caught fire outside of the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas in Paradise, Nevada, killing the perpetrator and injuring seven other people," because the Tesla exploding did not kill the perpetrator --- he killed himself with a gunshot to the head prior to the explosion.

The article should be simply corrected to: "The same day, at approximately 8:39 a.m., a Tesla Cybertruck exploded and caught fire outside of the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas in Paradise, Nevada, injuring seven other people. The perpetrator died from a self-inflicted gunshot prior to the explosion." 2nucbom3ve (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why anything is said about this as there doesn't appear to be any connection. Doesn't even look like the LV thing was designed to kill anyone other than the driver; and there were over 16,000 actual murders in the US last year. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: