Talk:2024 Southport stabbing

Someone remove this please

The current version at this moment has this sentence tagged on to the lede: " Following reports of the attack, supporters of the far-right movement English Defence League broke out in violence, attacked police officers, and set fire to vehicles, causing civil unrest in Southport." The whole sentence should be removed. The timing-context is nonsensical. The idea that the rioting happened "following reports of the attack" is correct only insofar as everything that happens on planet Earth from July 29th 2024 onwards 'follows reports of the attacks'. The implication is that it was an immediate reaction - which it was not. This sentence then describes the different elements of the rioting (aka civil unrest) and asserts that this "caused" civil unrest. It's saying that civil unrest caused civil unrest. It's such a hodgepodge of rubbish that I can't bring myself to try to 'polish' it and I have little doubt that if I delete it, someone more learned will revert. (n.b. 'learned' pronounced 'lehr-ned' not 'lernd' Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no evidence of "far right" involvement. The only reference asserting that there was is from "Rolling Stone" magazine...scarcely a credible source of news, I suggest.

Also, it's hard to know how the "far right" could organise such a substantial demonstration in so short a time. Clearly, it was a spontaneous outpouring a public anger. 86.14.43.73 (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes it should either be removed or atleast changed to 'disputed', the EDL has not existed in any substational capacity since 2013. Even Hope Not Hate agrees with this. Tweedle (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Current event

I added the current event template to this article but it was removed. This event happened two days ago and is still unfolding, with new information coming out and many details which still have not been established. The article is also undergoing heavy editing and revision and so a warning to users that what they are reading may rapidly change is important. I am replacing the template - it will automatically disappear when the article has not been edited for 5 hours. If you believe it is not appropriate please discuss here, thanks. Orange sticker (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This sounds totally appropriate and it's a pity you had to add it for a second time. I'm guessing no rationale was added by whoever made the edit to remove the current-affairs template. I've been troubled by a couple of incidences of that myself today on this article. Surely it's a basic thing that an editor removing or "correcting" something should explain their reasons, and their explanation should extend to more than a single word. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Please try not to work on assumptions; always WP:AGF. If you look at the edit history, you'll find that there WAS a perfectly clear reason given for its removal in the edit summary, explaining why the template was removed AND suggesting that if circumstances change, then it can be re-added. No need to cast aspersions. MIDI (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It was the later removal that didn't have a satisfactory edit summary, just the words 'not valid'. Orange sticker (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough – I incorrectly made an assumption as I know it was re-added after my removal. It wasn't clear from the reply that that's the edit it referred to. Apologies for jumping to conclusions. MIDI (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I should have been clearer. Orange sticker (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Orange sticker, I see you've re-added it, and modified it as "recent crime". That is not supported by the article. There is currently no conviction, so as a crime requires criminal intent, we cannot say, in Wiki's voice, that a crime has been committed without a conviction proving it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Good grief, three children are dead. Orange sticker (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, yes. But see WP:BLPCRIME. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact that no person has been charged yet does not mean a crime has not been committed. I understand that here we are rational, evidence based and impartial but it's also possible to be so objective as to be inhumane. Three children are were murdered. This was a heinous crime. Orange sticker (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Orange sticker, No matter how likely it may seem, we cannot assert it in Wikipedia until we know for sure. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@DeFactoI just visited your link to the WP:BLPCRIME page. Oh boy how you have misunderstood and misconstrued what is written there. Firstly, this is not a BLP article. The article is not about a person - it is about an incident (a crime). The section you linked to is only two paragraphs long. Go and read it again. It says that it should not be stated or suggested that a person has committed a crime unless they have been convicted. But you read it as "we cannot say, in Wiki's voice, that a crime has been committed without a conviction proving it". I simply cannot interact with you any more than this. I'm find it depressing and outrageous. I have muted you. Consider googling the meaning of 'de facto'. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Flusapochterasumesch, is that the first time you've looked at WP:BLP?

The reason I ask is because the key takeaway from it is that applies to every single word written in Wikipedia, and not just to stuff written in an article "about a person". Indeed the first sentence is: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.

Bearing in mind that WP:BLP does apply to this article, the WP:BLPCRIME section includes: editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. The person is the one who was arrested, they are a unique person, and unambiguously identifiable as a specific individual. And, significantly, they have not been convicted. Asserting in this article that a crime has been committed is the same as suggesting that that person has committed it. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto Where does it say that an incident cannot be described as a crime unless a conviction has been secured? Do you have any policy-based arguments as to why Wikipedia would ignore what WP:Reliable sources state about an incident? The Zodiac Killer has not been arrested and convicted, why doesn't Wikipedia describe those killings as self-defence or otherwise lawful incidents? No conviction has been secured! For a more recent example, see Gilgo Beach serial killings. This is an urgent BLP violation, surely? No conviction has been secured, so if your interpretation of Wikipedia policy is correct you need to immediately rectify it and remove all information that a crime may have been committed. Or at least add information to the article explaining that all the killings may have been in self-defence or otherwise not a crime. Potentially a discussion could be started to rename the article to Gilgo Beach self-defence situations? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, as I said above, the policy at WP:BLPCRIME says editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If we say or imply somewhere in the article that a crime has been committed, it suggests the suspect has committed a crime. What happens in other articles is irrelevant in this one. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If that is the case then the suspect should not be named in this article. After all, there's always a slim chance they will not end up convicted. But what is not in dispute here is that a crime has occurred, and putting "recent crime" in the Current Event template as I did (which has now been unilaterally changed again by @MIDI btw but I'm not taking issue with that) is not controversial in any way. Children were murdered and others stabbed, the police made an arrest, there is now an active case. Orange sticker (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As explained by @DeFacto:, calling it a crime is a WP:BLP violation, hence the WP:BOLD/WP:BLPREMOVE change. That aside, however, we must absolutely not describe it as a murder unless there is a conviction of murder (until there's a guilty plea or a conviction, the suspect is only accused of murder). At the moment, we can at most describe it as a homicide, which isn't inherently (despite what we individually may conclude) criminal. I appreciate that this may appear at odds with what seems patently obvious, but WP:V is the most important thing here and we must adhere to it. MIDI (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

By that logic surely we shouldn't call it a stabbing either? Orange sticker (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Orange sticker, how come? We know that stabbings took place from the reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Stabbing is a crime. We know that a crime occurred from multiple reliable sources. Even if the suspect is found not guilty, or mental health was a factor, there are still three murder victims here. It is bordering on offensive as well as ridiculous to say "Actually we don't know if a crime occurred yet.". The ongoing legal proceeding are not trying to establish if a crime occurred, but whether the suspect is culpable. Orange sticker (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Orange sticker, you are not listening, or at least, you are not hearing. Stabbing may be a crime, and it may not be. Sure we know stabbings took place, but we don't yet know if any of them were crimes. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Orange sticker, per WP:BLPNAME I think it's also clear that the suspect should not be named in the article either. In that section of the policy it says When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Do have a selection of scholarly journals or the work of recognised experts that would help decide whether it should be included?

Actually we don't know if a crime occurred yet. A suspect may have carried out the stabbings but without any criminal culpability. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto By your interpretation, Gilgo Beach serial killings is a clear BLP violation, but you're doing nothing about it. If you're fine with supposed BLP violations there, then why care about supposed BLP violations here? And if your interpretation is correct, why are other editors not acting upon it in the countless Wikipedia articles about murders? Could it be that your interpretation of what BLPCRIME means is incorrect?

Please read WP:Original research and WP:WEIGHT. There are no WP:Reliable sources which describe the stabbings as an act of self-defence or some similar scenario whereby there is no possible "criminal culpability", we absolutely do not need to mention such lunatic possibilities in mainspace. All we need to do is state the suspect is a suspect, not the perpetrator, as that hasn't been established through the courts yet.

I'm not quite sure what your proposed version of the article would be. If you believe it's a BLP vio to mention that a suspect has been arrested, then we should simply leave the reader in suspense as to whether the person who committed the stabbings is still on the loose or has been arrested? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, a suspect has been arrested, yes, and is on trial, yes, and there's no problem adding those as they're both reliably sourced. But there has been no conviction yet.

It sounds to me as if it's you who needs to read WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT. You seem to have decided what's happened yourself, by reading between the lines of the sources, rather than from what the sources actually say. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

absolutely absurd, offensive and drivelous. Criminal charges and criminal convictions require a mens rea to be postulated/established - the absence of a conviction does not preclude the judicial assumption/conclusion that a crime was committed. There are myriad examples of crimes where nobody was convicted. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Flusapochterasumesch, see my above reply to you. Additionally you probably need to read WP:OR. Have you read that before? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

'Currently'

There are a few problems with the use of the word "currently" in these phrases:

• although police stated they are not currently treating the attack as terror-related
• they are not currently treating the incident as terror-related

The problems with it's use are (with my bold):

• MOS:RELTIME, which says: "Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date."
• MOS:DATED, which says: "... terms such as now, today, currently, present, to date, so far, soon, upcoming, ongoing, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 2010s, since 2010, and in August 2020."
• It sounds like we are casting doubt on it not being terrorism, and are implying that it could change any time soon.

It is surely redundant anyway as "currently" means "now" in this context and we could equally say:

• "although police stated they are not treating the attack as terror-related"
• "they are not treating the incident as terror-related"

I changed it here and here, but was quickly reverted here and here. What do we think? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It is subject to change, or not to change. No motive has been established - so only when the motive is established can terrorism be ruled out.

Merseyside Police's own words, which at this moment have not been updated or contradicted by them are:

"At this early stage, enquiries are ongoing to establish the motive for this tragic incident and we would urge people not to speculate while the investigation is ongoing.

We can also confirm that the incident is not currently being treated as terror-related and we are not looking for anyone else in connection with the incident.

Any updates will be provided to the public when available."

Do you know better than the investigating authority, or are you simply being pedantic? Either way, why don't you take your case up with Merseyside Police and let us know the outcome?

How complicated is it to understand that until the motive has been established, nothing possible/plausible/reasonable can be ruled out? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Flusapochterasumesch, have you read MOS:RELTIME and MOS:DATED? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"Currently" should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. Instead say "as of <date>" (using the {{As of}} template where appropriate). However it is perfectly fine to say "On 21 July 1997 the police said that they were not currently looking for anyone else" - although maybe better to say "On 21 July 1997 the police said that they were not then looking..." Or "not at that time looking..." - these are reported speech and hence not WP voice, though they are closer than direct quotes. In direct quotes, of course, the usage is fine, but again it may be wise to make sure the temporal context is clear. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC).

The context of the stabbing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the entire background of what's happening with these protests and riots is getting lost.

• the migration crisis
• the rise of the European far-right
• the socioeconomic situation of British Muslims, Arabs, Persians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, etc...
• the socioeconomic situation of Northern England
• the recent election of a centre-left party with only a third of the vote
• the negative stereotype of British Pakistanis and British Muslims in general
• the Palestine conflict
• existing tensions between the Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh community and Bangladeshis/Pakistanis

etc...

Because otherwise none of this far right vs Asians makes any sense, especially when it was a Black man who stabbed the girls, and you have got lots of Non-Muslim ethnic minorities supporting the far right. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear. You've posted this in completely the wrong place. This is the Talk page for the article about amass-stabbing in Southport on July 29th in which three children were killed and many others seriously injured. Also, you've given your contribution a completely incorrect title, i.e. "the context of the stabbing". Whatever it is you're talking about is unrelated to Monday's murders. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It needs to be written if you're going to discuss the fallout of the stabbing though. Even in the period after the stabbing, everyone in the area thought it was a migrant. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The fallout? I thought you were discussing the context? The "fallout" as you put it, happened more than 24 hours later. That is not context. Context is what happened before or during the event. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The fallout from the stabbing seems quite substantial. If you write about the fallout then the context also needs to be known. They are two different sections surely. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:No original research. We base article content on what published reliable sources directly discussing a topic have to say on the subject. We don't decide for ourselves what the 'context' is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think what's happening across the UK right now will get a lot of articles, but whether media will write about the history/context of what's going on is a different story. Readers are expected to know the context and read in-between the lines, whereas Wikipedia is about providing the full story including background information. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:BLPCRIME

Saying "this article documents a recent crime" does not indicate that any particular person is guilty of said crime, thus rendering WP:BLPCRIME irrelevant. The point is that there was an event that happened, not there was a person who did something. GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, while I indeed give you that the aftermath is ongoing, the focus is on something that recently happened, not something currently happening. So "recent crime" is therefore more accurate than "current event." GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@GOLDIEM J, saying that is effectively asserting that a crime has been committed, and that is not supported by the article. All we currently know is that there have been stabbings and deaths, and that a person is on trial. There has been no conviction yet.

The policy at WP:BLPCRIME says editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If we say or imply somewhere in the article that a crime has been committed, it suggests the suspect has committed a crime. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: But it's not about the person who did it, though. It's about the thing that was done. The identity of the perpetrator absolutely does not matter in this case scenario, it has been definitively confirmed that a stabbing took place and THREE CHILDREN DIED as a direct result of it, so how on earth are you going to argue that calling it a committed crime is nuanced somehow? GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a person in the frame, so we cannot suggest that "the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". Why not wait until we know for sure what happened? There is no rush. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

We're at an impasse. I think the best thing to do is remove the template entirely, which means we no longer have a (potential) BLPCRIME issue and we don't have the problem of it being labelled "current" when it's not (these seem to be the two main objections). Information is no longer rapidly coming out; the main incident is over, and legal proceedings are months away. Other than perhaps a few more details about the accused or the victims coming out now and then, we don't have rapidly changing information so we no longer need a content disclaimer in {{current}}. MIDI (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's timely to remove the template now but I don't think we're at an impasse here. @DeFacto is arguing that, aside from the {{current}} template, this shouldn't be referred to as a crime at all as no one has been convicted and that we shouldn't name the suspect who has now been charged. I think it's fair to say the consensus on this page disagrees with that. Orange sticker (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I know. I just don't understand why he keeps conflating "a crime has been committed" with "this is the person who did it." How on earth are you going to argue that saying that stabbing three children to death is a crime is nuanced somehow? Saying that an event happened absolutely does not put the blame on anyone who hasn't been convicted yet. GOLDIEM J (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Additional information

Thought it would be worth noting that Axel Rudakubana went to Range High School in Formby clearly shown in pictures of him as a teenager. He was suspended from school for turning up with a knife and was then expelled for bringing a baseball bat and threatening to assault teachers and students. 2A00:23EE:1618:1089:EC08:7FFF:FE0E:E7C6 (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Source? WWGB (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

See https://x.com/AshleaSimonBF/status/1818975832561369575 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by A3925a (talk • contribs) 10:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

A tweet from the co-leader of Britain First, showing a screen shot from a social media account with its username obscured, is about as far from a reliable source as I can imagine. MIDI (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The username has been obscured to avoid reprisals. In a murder case, this avoidance is understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A3925a (talk • contribs) 10:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of why the name was obscured, it doesn't even remotely qualify as a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Non-primary source needed

Why are the tweets by North West Ambulance Service and Midlands Air Ambulance Charity flagged as "non-primary source needed"? According to WP:TWITTER, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ... without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field". The ambulance service tweets are only about the delivery of their services, and appear to satisfy WP:TWITTER. The addition of the template appears unnecessary. WWGB (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Removed – seems relatively non-controversial so wouldn't have objected to you just going ahead. MIDI (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree the tags aren't needed. However, looking at the text, if this isn't something that reliable sources have reported on, it does suggest that there is a level of detail that isn't needed and could be cut. Do we need the stuff about HART and MERIT teams, and the precise air ambulances involved? Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Tend to agree on the level of detail, come to think of it – we could probably say something more along the lines of "Thirteen units from the North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) attended, including their incident response teams, as well as helicopters from multiple air ambulance services" without the reader being deprived of a comprehension of the topic. MIDI (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Bondegezou (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2024

Change the wrong spelling of "recieve" to "receive". 151.251.226.117 (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

EDL

The comment regarding suspected edl members should not be mentioned since that group hasn’t existed since 2013. Having watched footage of the riots in Southport the riots were started due to police being heavy handed, and the protesters were a large mix of old young and men and women also. not just football hooligans as mentioned. 81.110.91.87 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This is based on reliable sources, not original research. CNC (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Suspect's family background

Like many others I suspect, I had ignorantly assumed from the riotous reactions that the suspect's family background may be Islamic. A simple search revealed that the dominant religion in Rwanda, the country of his parents, is 80% Christian and moreover that his family have quite a strong Christian background . I think this should be mentioned and have, rather clumsily, inserted it in the lead section. I think my words may need reworking as obviously not all terrorists are islamist and my wording and placement may be read against that. Nonetheless I think the fact itself should be in the lead. 80.47.195.176 (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Your WP:OR does not relate specifically to Rudakubana, the Mirror is not a reliable source. WWGB (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

and how is that WP:OR exactly? 80.47.195.176 (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Heidi Barlow

The article states that Heidi Barlow (co-organiser of the workshop) "received minor injuries", but I see no source for this (certainly nothing in the LBC source cited at the end of the sentence). The headline claim is that two adults were injured, Leanne Lucas and Jonathan Hayes. Do we have anything more on Barlow? GrindtXX (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I have a few results for a Google search of Heidi Barlow minor injuries; many of these, while appearing to be different articles, seem to stem from one article and it has filtered into different news outlets all under the Reach PLC umbrella – I'm therefore not counting these as multiple sources (per second-to-last bullet point at WP:NEWSORG). Articles on LBC and Todo Alicante (not sure why we'd go to a non-UK source for a UK event) say that Barlow was one of two people "fighting for their lives in hospital" or that she had/has "multiple open wounds but is out of danger"; these articles are dated 30 July so I think we can discount them as being out-of-date and/or early unreliable reporting. In short, do we have (multiple) WP:RSs to verify that she was injured? No. MIDI (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The name of the perpetrator should be added

Why is it that the UK seems unable or unwilling to name a suspect? Donald Trump was shot, the name of the assassin: Thomas Matthew Crooks IS on Wikipedia. On this Wikipedia page, the name of the assailant is nowhere to be found. Why is that? His name is: Axel Rudakubana. Why is that name nowhere to be found? 2601:245:C600:1300:EDEE:3E49:54D6:81BE (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:DeFacto's rationale for removal is below at #Suspect's name. Note that for a while the suspect's name was in the article. Please do add to the discussion below, citing Wikipedia policies/guidelines for the inclusion of the name, where appropriate. MIDI (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't know who the perpetrator was - we need a conviction to confirm that. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, yes, this is Wikipedia and we have to take everything with a pinch of salt. But please be serious for a moment, we all know who it was.

I agree we shouldn't outright call him the murderer in the article before a conviction, but naming him as the suspect is factually correct and staying within official legal definitions. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Suspect's name

Per WP:SUSPECT "For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured".

This applies in this case, so I've reverted its bold addition for now, pending a consensus on its inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Organisers' names

Per WP:BLPNAME "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories".

I don't see any significant loss of context without these names, so I've reverted the bold addition of them for now, pending a consensus on their inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If we don't name the organisers (or, at least, the lead organiser who was one of those critically injured) then we should not name the other injured adult and certainly not the member of the public who spoke to the police before their arrival and entered the building with them. I've removed these names purely for consistency in the article as it stands. Not yet weighing in on whether or not we should name these people – but as you imply, one main consideration should be whether readers need the names for a comprehensive understanding of the topic. MIDI (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you got there before me, I agree that they should all be treated the same. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Victims' names

Per WP:BLPNAME "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories". I don't see any significant loss of context without these names, but I won't revert them again myself, but I think we need a consensus for their inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Include names -- I would argue the contrary; the quality of the article feels worse without names. Making a point out of excluding them and referring to people as "a local yoga teacher", "one of the men", "one of the organisers", "this man, that man" makes for poorer reading and — imo — shouldn't be done unless there's a legitimate guideline or reason to.

Since the stabbings happened 6 days ago, there won't be any advanced reports or scholarly articles on it just yet.

I do agree with consistency in naming or not, as discussed above, but all names should be included if they are available and well-sourced. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we name the accused?

One editor has removed all mentions of the name of the accused from the article. WP:BLPCRIME does not require this, it merely says that "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". Yes, we must "consider" non-inclusion, but the publication of Rudakubana's name in reliable sources around the world makes Wikipedia look out of touch and nannyish by excluding it. WWGB (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong yes. Agree with you on pretty much all of the above; the absence of Rudakubana's name is screamingly obvious and makes for bizarre reading. The whole article reads poorly without names included but that's another issue which I'll comment on above. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong agree: The accused Axel Muganwa Rudakubana should have his name included. As stated by WWGB it makes Wikipedia look nannyish by excluding it and it also makes the article read poorly. 106.71.58.30 (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)