Talk:2017 Times Square car attack

Requested move 18 May 2017

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

The result of the move request was: speedily moved. As there has been no official statement as of yet that the crash was deliberate, I am speedily moving this per the reasons expressed in the discussion below and in accordance with the verifiability policy. Mz7 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

---

2017 Times Square vehicular attack → 2017 Times Square car crash – "Attack" implies that the crash was deliberate. All reports indicate that terrorism was ruled out and there are no indications that the crash was deliberate. These reports have shown that the suspect his a history of driving while intoxicated, which creates speculation that the crash was a result of intoxication. Saying that this crash was an attack is also speculation. So, "2017 Times Square car crash" is the most appropriate title. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 19:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Although the article really should be redirected somewhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support - as of the time of this post there is no proof that this was an intentional or terror related attack. To be sure I am not even sure if the event passes the notability guidelines, but the title is most certainly misleading (as of the timing of this post). Inter&anthro (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support Move as soon as possible. AfD, or merging can be handled later. @JayCoop, Knowledgekid87, and Inter&anthro: You should see WP:Articles for deletion/2017 NY Times Square attack. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Per above points, this was not deliberate. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RE-OPEN

There is now indications that it was an attack. An attack is more notable.

2017 Times Square car crash → 2017 Times Square vehicular attack

• Support WKP1 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Innocent until proven guilty. It's different when the driver dies. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring

User:Rævhuld who has edit-warred in the past and given advice even by administrators for his various acts is edit-warring again.

The incident hasn't been confirmed to be deliberate. But he is rushing to change it to civilian attack and say the car is a weapon. At most there has been a report by the NY Post of the driver stating he wanted to commit a suicide by cop but it hasn't been confirmed nor the police have stated if it was deliberate or not.

So please stop edit-warring to add what you want to without confirmation of investigators or police reported by reliable sources. If they confirm then add what they say. Until then, please don't base this article on unconfirmed details. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If an admin is reading this, please delete my account. I am devastated over the harassment I met from this user. I am crying my eyes out. I used my spare time on this website. And yes, that I added the template "civillian attack" was a mistake. He corrected it, which was nice. I didn't changed his edit back or anything. I clearly see that I made a mistake here. Changing it back would have been enough. If he wanted to do more, he could just have added a "Hi, I see you have used the "attack" template. We don't know if it's an attack yet. I corrected your mistake. Kind regards <3". But what did he do? He started to insult me. He got full bully. Claiming I was edit warring. Both on my talk page and here. Because of one edit? Yes. I mean, he seems like an old user. And yesterday I met another old user, which was a bully as well. The other user just closed my talk discussion after 1 minute, which was clearly against Wiki policies. With no argument whatsoever. I understand, you old users have power and you use it to bully new people. I am devastated and crying. I don't want this toxic environment anymore. Please just delete my account.--Rævhuld (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

PS! I have not been edit warring here (one edit mistake which I accepted as a mistake is edit war?) and I didn't edit warred then. Else I would have been blocked for edit warring. But I wasn't. Why? Because I have NEVER edit warred!--Rævhuld (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

We can see what you are doing is not a mistake. I already told you that the the incident isn't confirmed deliberate yet. Again let me repeat the same thing I have to do again and again to show the reality of your baseless allegations. Your edits weren't mostly similiar, but all around the same theme of the attack being "deliberate". Here you represent it as civilian attack, here that the car was a weapon and here as terrorism. All of this is contrary to or not confirmed by sources. Oh and you restored the weapon box, revert. And combine that with a complete violation by removing my comment 4 times: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Not only don't you wait, you break many rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The dead woman

Why is her name being inserted? I know it's been covered a lot but this isn't an obituary and her name, age or even gender has little impact on the attack or crash. I think it's better to have a consensus on this thing if it's to be added. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Using that logic, then we would have a lot of Wikipedia articles entitled "Murder of (name deleted)". On January 1, 1970, a person which Wikipedia will not name was murdered. See it's silly. But it's good to consider so no offense to the original poster! WKP1 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

When people read (or write) a story, they normally want to learn (or teach) who, why, what, where and when. In a story about someone killing someone, both are natural key roles. Extra stuff like hobbies, education, career, relatives and funeral arrangements are best left to obituaries and tabloids, but name, age, gender and hometown are plain and simple identification.

It's how things work at 2017 Jerusalem truck attack, 2017 Westminster attack and 2017 Stockholm attack. Even disregarding the value of differentiating people from other people, it'd be merely odd to start omitting standard facts in May. If we're to do that at all, it would make more sense in January. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Except this isn't an attack... it's an impaired-driving incident. This is different epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

People on drugs are entirely capable of attacking. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It isn't confirmed whether it was deliberate but that isn't what others are stating it's about. The fact is that he's responsible for her death. But I still think it's unnecessary. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I think identifying the injured is a bit more unnecessary and potentially harms their privacy. Life (often) goes on after hospitalization. But that, too, is somewhat standard. Better in prose than in one of those tasteless national scoreboards, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Was the crash deliberate?

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egsCd1rQ9mU Metron (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

More evidence that it was deliberate: "Driver in Times Square rampage shouted 'I wanted to kill them,' prosecutors say" https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/19/times-square-accident-vehicle-rams-charges-filed/101868394/# Metron (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That's evidence that the driver may have thought that it was deliberate, or may have been shocked by his own actions, which is not the same thing. See what the evidence turns up. Britmax (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Since he was under the influence, the driver could have said anything. That's not evidence that it was deliberate. That's evidence he was driving while impaired. epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Rojas tested negative for alcohol"... "The drug test came back as positive while blood tests were conducted for whether he had taken synthetic marijuana or PCP." Synthetic marijuana or PCP can still be detected in the blood up to 30 days after the use. A positive doesn't mean that he drove under the influence. Metron (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The evidence can lead any of us to believe what we want, but until a verdict's been reached, Wikipedia can't declare it either way. Can only relay who says what about it. If this is about the title, a "car crash" can be intentional or not, so that works better than "accident" or "attack" for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Number of injured

Is it 20 or 22? The article says both figures, in different spots. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

22. "More than 20" is cited here, "22" is cited here. epicgenius (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Per the infobox source, "Authorities reported another 22 people were injured, but police revised the total to 20 on Friday." That's more definite than a source which merely gives another number. It jibes with the 20 attempted murder charges, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The article now lists "20" consistently, in various places. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Footnote for charge?

Five aggravated vehicular manslaughter charges might suggest five people were killed, if someone's unfamiliar with New York law. I was, then found that killing a person and seriously physically injuring another is what "manslaughter" means here. I think a footnote pointing to the law is helpful, but since it doesn't support the claim, it should be a lettered footnote, not a number. I can't seem to find how to make lettered ones, but remember seeing them around. A little help, or opinions on the matter? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It might suggest 5 deaths somewhere else, but Fox News does say that there was five counts of aggravated vehicular homicide. epicgenius (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

group=lower-alpha in the ref tag, or using {{efn}} would allow to create such lettered footnotes. {{Reflist}} also supports group=lower-alpha to create a second reflist for those. — PaleoNeonate — 03:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Pal.

Not sure what you're trying to say, Genius. That article (AP, not Fox) just notes the charge, doesn't clarify it. When most people hear vehicular manslaughter, (I assume) they assume it means someone was killed by a reckless driver, not just seriously hurt alongside a killed person. That's all I want to clear up. Unless it's not actually that confusing to most people. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: group=lower-alpha is the default for efn already. Welcome, — PaleoNeonate — 05:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm having some technical difficulties titling it. Not sure why. Therein lies the difficulty, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to use a ref tag. When I mentioned efn, I assumed that you wanted a text quote rather than a cite-web citation that is apart from the rest... — PaleoNeonate — 05:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Good stuff. Thanks again. Should be apart from the rest because it doesn't verify he was charged with it, just explains it. I don't know if there's a guideline about that, it just feels right to split them. Do you think it would work better as a text quote? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it probably also depends on what the needs are, although I usually see lower-alpha used for another type of footnotes rather than references, an example using efn for such is Gudovac massacre. — PaleoNeonate — 05:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I mainly remember them. But I wanted to avoid potentially misinterpreting the law. It seems like prosecutors mean clause 5, through process of elimination. Might be another one that fits, if twisted a certain way. It's definitely not 7. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Mayor Declares It Non Terrorist Deliberate Attack

Driver charged with murder in Times Square crash ...The suspect, Richard Rojas, of the Bronx, tested positive for PCP and told police that God made him do it, a law enforcement official said. Rojas, 26, who suffered from “psychological issues,” told police he expected officers to shoot him, according to the source. There is no indication that the incident in Times Square, which unfolded just before noon, was an act of terrorism, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and other officials said. It is being investigated as an accident, a police official said... “It appears to be intentional in the sense that he was troubled and lashing out,” de Blasio said of the incident. “At the root of this is an untreated mental health issue going back probably decades.”.. Driver charged with murder in Times Square crash | FOX31 Denver The mayor is obviously downplaying the possibility of a terrorist attack which cannot be ruled out at this time. The driver is giving multiple reasons, mental health, voices, god, suicide, PCP drugs, drunken driving history which could mean he could be trying to hide a clandestine terrorist motive. Terrorists and their families often deny a terrorist motive and instead explain it as depression over financial issues, breaking up with a girlfriend, or mental health. The driver was obviously in perfect control of the car until he was in Times Square and made a deliberate u-turn to drive the wrong way which has been identified as a target by both ISIS and Al Qaeda, and he was not under control of god or voices. Contrary to authorities there are indeed many indications pointing to terrorism, and many sources can be found which suspect it was a terrorist attack. Bachcell (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources suspecting this, they might be worth a mention. I've never seen one of these last so long without a Reactions section. But if these sources are just forum posts, Youtube videos and the like, they've no place here. We definitely can't define it as secret terrorism on a hunch, either. In my opinion, pretending you're not a terrorist would entirely defeat the purpose of sending a message. Curious as to where you've heard about these clandestine sort. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Well the "reaction" section is usually what gives the article notability, otherwise very few attacks would be notable.

Donald Trung (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources quote officials as saying the attack was "deliberate"(Telegraph, GlobeAndMail). Bystanders have also described the driver's actions as "intentional" or "deliberate".VR _talk 16:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

So which one was it?

"The drug test came back as positive while blood tests were conducted for whether he had taken synthetic marijuana or PCP", these are not the same thing. B137 (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

why must it be one or the other? with enough blood sample you can test for both, right? feel free to read the sources. --Jeremyb (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure they tested for more, but those were the positives I thought. B137 (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2017 Times Square car crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170610095709/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170518/times-square-theater-district/who-is-richard-rojas-driver-times-square-seventh-avenue to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170518/times-square-theater-district/who-is-richard-rojas-driver-times-square-seventh-avenue

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving from "car crash" to "attack"

It's quite obvious with months of knowledge after the incident, that it is appropriate to label this as an "attack" in line with our norms. I'm moving it to that name to be consistent with our naming systems. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this proposed change.Tigre200 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)