Talk:2024 Southport stabbing/Archive 1

Archive 1

White space

Can someone who knows how please remove the white space in the infobox? Thanks. WWGB (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Done - someone inserted a "blank image" (as removing the image entirely also removes the map for some reason) but forgot to make it smaller. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The map was removed because it is (mis-)using the |caption= field, which is designed only to show if there is an image to be captioned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

'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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

I do not object to adding the suspect's name, however we need to be really hot on the "suggestion" part of WP:SUSPECT – at one point, our article said something along the lines of "police have not identified [suspect name]'s motive". This is unacceptable. As long as we a) ensure that the name is only ever stated to be someone accused of the incident, and b) don't state there is a crime committed until we can specify what that crime was (i.e. it can't be murder/manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility/etc. until there's a conviction), I'm happy to include the name. MIDI (talk) 07:34, 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)

Strong yes while some of the media reporting on this event has been a special case with regards to UK law, and there is also a lot of tabloid speculation about which to me feels like contempt of court, the name has been released by order of a judge and any attempts to redact it are simply censorship. TI think the two editors making the bold edits and reverts should be WP:CAREFUL when they have already failed to get consensus for their edits. Orange sticker (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: this discussion subject is a duplicate of the one above at #Suspect's name. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:07, 4 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)

Thinking about this, I'm on the fence with whether or not we name the lead organiser; I don't think the reader would be deprived of anything if we omitted it but they don't need the name to understand everything. There's far less need to name the co-organiser. MIDI (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It reads incredibly poorly now. The workshop was organised by a local yoga teacher and her co-organiser is a useless statement. I'm going to reinsert the name of of the yoga teacher who was injured as it has received WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS. Orange sticker (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Have also added name of the second adult victim for similar WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS reasons. He was not one of the organisers, none of the sources mention any other organisers being injured so corrected that. Orange sticker (talk) 10:31, 4 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)

There was a lot of ambiguity in the article as to who the injured adults are, I've now named them in the Victims section according to sources. Orange sticker (talk) 10:34, 4 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)

Help! He's currently named as perpetrator in the infobox but I've done 2 reverts today already, can someone please fix? Orange sticker (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, done it, now to sit on my hands for the rest of the day. Orange sticker (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Small ambiguity requiring fix

In the section 'accused' the following sentences are written:

Rudakubana has an older brother, two years his senior. Neighbours have described him as "quiet"

The immediate transition from noting Axel's brother to describing "him" as quiet creates an ambiguity as to who "him" refers to. I know it's Axel and reading the reference clears up the ambiguity. However for the purpose of absolute clarity I would like to see this changed.

Note that changing "him" to "Rudakubanu" does not clear up the ambiguity, as that could refer to the brother also.

Personally I'd like to see the mention of the brother removed. Mentioning the accused's parents is appropriate - that does not 'disclose' any sensitive information that people would otherwise not know (i.e. it's no secret that everybody has parents). While it's not a matter for WP to concern itself with, it must be clear to anyone following this wider story that any sibling of the accused will feel like they are in danger (and no doubt are).

Anyway, the fact the accused has a sibling is in the public domain - so whether it's left in or not doesn't really matter. But for the sake of clarity the sentence order needs rejigged.

One other matter: the lead describes the accused as a "17 year old boy". That's a fact. However, once again anyone following the wider story may be aware that there is anger (whether justified or not) in certain areas of the media & public about the terminology used to describe the alleged murderer (i.e. boy/man/child/adult). Don't take my word for it (you won't anyway) but some of those inciting unrest are making a very big play out of the accused being called a boy/child by officials, media and politicians. What's their rationale? It's not worthy of discussion in my opinion.

However, I would advocate for changing "17 year old boy" to "17 year old male". I personally don't care whether he's a boy, a man, a child or an adult - what he is accused of is abhorrent and he is above the age of criminal responsibility. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the part about the brother. It was not ideal as written for the reasons you point out. There may be a narrow opportunity to mention a sibling when we briefly mention the 'family' situation, but we don't even need a full sentence about him. I've also replaced 'boy' with 'male' in the lead. Having seen a few articles in my time I'd expect the lead to change a lot going forward, but that change may just stick over the longer term. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2024

Missing comma: needs a comma after digit six: "Two girls – Bebe King, 6 and Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7" 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3019:EBD0:6F91:EA46 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yg Kinda done – agree that the previous punctuation wasn't right, but I don't think we need to say "two girls" before listing two names – it seems like words for the sake of words. MIDI (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"racially fuelled riots"

What does "racially fuelled" mean? Race isn't a fuel, doesn't fuel. The reference article's lead says "fueled by far-right misinformation", that's a lot clearer. The EDL's involvement in the riots is well established, so "fuelled by racism" seems appropriate and clear enough, no? If that's too blunt, the words from the New York Times work too. JaikeV (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup. you are absolutely correct - I've revised the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 6 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)

@DeFacto state the suspect is a suspect, not the perpetrator, as that hasn't been established. I didn't say there was a conviction, I said the opposite. It's a fact that there was a stabbing, it's a fact that a suspect was arrested and charged with murder in relation to that stabbing. These are facts supported by reliable sources. Here at Wikipedia we cover what reliable sources report. We don't write our own theories unsupported by reliable sources to imply a mass stabbing at a children's event was in self-defence. If people have nothing better to do than that they could do so on a forum or social media app, but WP:NOTFORUM states that is not Wikipedia's purpose. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, so we agree then that a suspect has been arrested and is on trial. That's all we currently know though. We do not know if a crime has actually been committed, because we do not have a conviction saying one has.

We cannot jump to conclusions that a crime has been committed just because no sources have speculated on alternative outcomes. That is original research. We need to wait until we get a conviction to know whether a crime has been committed.

Let's not keep going around in circles on this now. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto We don't know that the suspect is the perpetrator, no. That hasn't been established. No one has argued for stating the suspect is the perpetrator at this stage either. You haven't explained why this article should be different than other articles about crimes prior to conviction though. Please read WP:SSEFAR. If your interpretation of the policy is correct then the current event template shouldn't have a recent crime parameter to begin with, as crimes cannot be a current event because crimes apparently don't happen at the time that they happen. They can only happen months/years after they happen.

If that's your interpretation, you'd be better off arguing about it at a general level, instead of arguing in circles to imply that this particular mass stabbing of children was in self-defence or otherwise not a crime.

There are also terms such as "mass shooting", "serial killing" and "terrorist attack" which heavily suggest a crime was committed and thus are BLP vios, according to your interpretation of the policy. You should argue that in general those terms must not be used in an article until the case has fully worked its way through the courts to determine whether something like the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting was actually a crime or a perfectly lawful self-defence situation. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 21:55, 7 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)

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)

@DeFacto consider not. Please re-read WP:BLPCRIME. It does not say "cannot", it says "consider not". You have given no reason as to why this article should go against the precedent/consensus from other articles on Wikipedia regarding stabbings, shootings, bombings, etc. which deal with suspects prior to a conviction. You have simply made circular arguments referring to your interpretation of a policy which you have also now quoted incorrectly.

Let's say if Wikipedia existed in 1963, you contend that it would be a BLP violation for the Wikipedia article to suggest that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was a criminal act at the time that it happened? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@GOLDIEM J, why would we choose to suggest the person has committed a crime before we have a conviction? What useful service would that be providing to readers? And, no, having done that in another article isn't a good reason - two wrongs don't make a right, and see WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources report. If reliable sources state that a suspect was arrested on suspicion of committing murder, attempted murder, etc, then that is what we state in the article. Please read the essay you linked and the other essays it links. In particular WP:SSEFAR. If Wikipedia handles similar incidents in a way that runs counter to your interpretation of the policy, isn't it possible that your interpretation is wrong? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 21:59, 7 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)

Were the killings attributed to Jack the Ripper a crime or not? Nobody has ever been convicted of those killings. Likewise with the recent assassination attempt on Donald Trump as it is unlikely that anybody will be convicted. 2A00:23C8:1DAE:2401:78DC:F24F:D7A6:CCC9 (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lede

@WWGB: I see now you’ve removed ethnicity from the lede a couple of times. However, the guideline you cite relates to biographies, and in this case their ethnic background and immigration status appears to be a significant aspect, based on reporting about and responses to the stabbing. BilledMammal (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"While this guideline focuses on biographies, its advice pertains, where applicable, to all articles that mention people" per WP:MOSBIO lead. WWGB (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The section describing the lede appears to solely relate to biographies. Regardless, I think it is appropriate to include here per WP:BALASP. BilledMammal (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If we're quoting guidelines, MOSBIO also says, "Ethnicity .. should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability" (my italics). I agree with BilledMammal here that some description of ethnicity or immigration is an important part of the subsequent story. However I don't agree with BilledMammal in describing the parents as Rwandan, since we don't have that cited. Most sources just say they were originally from Rwanda. One solution to this is just to revert to saying he is a 17-year old male, and leave the details to the perp section. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

True - I’ve adjusted it to "parents from Rwanda" BilledMammal (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@WWGB:, @BilledMammal: Ethnicity? What you did there is “racism without races”. Just change the word. Didn't change the attitude. Stayed racist. You know, in the past thirty years, various authors have emphasized the change in contemporary racism. In view of the broad social ostracism of racism based on biological arguments, there are hardly any advocates of these views any more. Racists speak no more directly about "race", instead they speak about "ethnicity" or "culture". The philosopher Étienne Balibar notes that's a contemporary racism "has developed around the complex of immigration" and which he describes as a "racism without races". --87.170.199.208 (talk) 06:43, 9 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)

I don't think a reader is deprived if we omit names, particularly of those injured (but not fatally). However, if there's a general feeling that we should include them I'm okay with that. What we needn't do, much like at #Organisers' names, is name the people not notable in the context of the incident. The main two people that come to mind are the second organiser and the member of public (not Hayes) who assisted. MIDI (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

More explanation could be made on what misinformation

What misinformation was there? Currently the intro states "The stabbings, coupled with online misinformation which spread wildly following the attack, sparked a week of racially-fuelled riots in various towns and cities involving protesters and police forces." This is awfully vague on what misinformation there was. NamelessLameless (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a section called Public reaction, misinformation, and unrest which includes In the immediate aftermath of the attack, misinformation about the identity of the attacker began to spread widely on social media, including a false name. False claims regarding the suspect's nationality, religion and migration status were shared by some far-right accounts. Orange sticker (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

And what was that misinformation about the identity, and what was the false name? What were the claims about the nationality, religion, and migration status? 2600:1700:7F:8580:46C1:2468:90E3:8788 (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

Alice da Silva Aguiar is the Portuguese name spelling. In my perspective, "Dasilva" is an English contraction. Adcjulio (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done We follow reliable sources, which use Dasilva. WWGB (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, it's a mixed bag. Perhaps it wasn't, but now both "Alice da Silva Aguiar" and "Alice Dasilva Aguiar" are in use by reliable sources. FWIW, BBC uses both. I've searched PT sources too, in case that gave an insight, but again the sources use the variations interchangeably. I'd say that much, like MOS:VAR, we keep it as-is until there's a better indication of which is 'correct'. MIDI (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

BBC initally reported it as one word straight after the attack but has now changed to two in an article from yesterday. I would say "da Silva" is probably more likely, given that the official inquest has it down as that. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems sensible. I'd also suggest that given the authority of that article, we omit what is evidently a middle name ("Dot") from the other victim – I don't think we need a WP:FULLNAME. I hadn't removed it previously as it wasn't clear if it was a middle name or that the individual had multiple first names (or even if it was a double-barrelled surname), but the inquest makes it evident that's not the case. MIDI (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I find it disheartening that discussion around this article has come down to whether or not to include (what you are assuming to be) a child victim's middle name. I say assuming, because in fact there is no such thing as a 'middle name' when a person's birth is registered. Some people are known by more than a single forename, sometimes those names are hyphenated and sometimes they are not.

The victims' names were provided initially by the police, and would have come directly from liaison with the parents. So 'Elsie Dot Stancombe' is what her parents would have provided to the police and authorised them to use.

If you google ' "Elsie Stancombe"-Dot ' you get fewer than 10,000 results. If you google "Elsie Dot Stancombe" you get nearly half a million results.

Why do you have to apply your own conditions and reasoning to the presentation of Elsie Dot's name. Give her her full name like virtually everybody else is doing and stop being so ridiculously pedantic.

As a final word on this subject - Merseyside Police's initial press release wherein they named the Southport victims, uses Elsie Dot's full name of "Elsie Dot Stancombe".

One of you bloody robots please amend the article to reflect this. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, please. You give some sound reasoning for re-adding the name, but I won't do it given that attitude. MIDI (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't expect to hear from you before nightfall. How hilariously ludicrous that you being upset should affect the content of an encyclopaedia!

Tell me, how long can you go between making petty, ill-informed and offensive changes to an article before you regress back into human form?

@MIDI wrote "I'd also suggest that given the authority of that article, we omit what is evidently a middle name ("Dot") from the other victim"

Evidently how? Evidently -> evidence. Where's your evidence? That's right - there's none. It's just that you know better than the child victim's mother. Shame on you. Utterly pathetic. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Please be civil, Flusapochterasumesch. This is the second time I've asked. I have no strong objections to the article being changed. However, the way you're speaking to me is unacceptable. MIDI (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Denying a dead child her name on a whim is unacceptable. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Delighted to see the link removed from the word 'taxi'

Thank you @MIDI for WP:DELINKING the word 'taxi' to the WP:ARTICLE for 'taxi'. That had been troubling me for some time - it seemed like over-linking - surely everyone knows what a taxi is? The removal of the troublesome over-linked-link has made this article much easier to read and elevated Wikipedia's standing as an accurate, precise and unbiased scientific resource. Bravo Sir. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:24, 11 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)

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)

I feel rather sad that you thought this was a positive contribution towards perhaps quelling the rioting in some English cities and towns. For anyone interested in the demographics and religion of Rwanda it's certainly interesting that Christianity is the dominant religion. I respect you for admitting how ignorant it was to assume that the rioting could allow anyone to draw any rational conclusions about the religious background of the suspect and/or his family, or that was even important. Correct me if I am reading you wrong, but you seem to think it might placate the rioters by letting them know that there's a roughly 80 percent probability that the suspect's religious background is Christian. If you did not seem so earnest in your proposal I'd think you were trolling. It's terribly tragic that the rioters and also you are so interested in the accused's religious background, instead of focussing attention on the tragedy of those who lost their lives and those who were injured. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You come off to me as the kind of person that would rush to insert a part about the suspect's religion if they were Muslim, but are now brushing it off because he probably isn't. Inkscape Salafi (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Inkscape Salafi I'm replying rather reluctantly to your comment. First I should check that you are replying to me? Second, may I ask if the initial post in this topic (the one beginning "Like many others I suspect..." belongs to you - perhaps you wrote it under an IP because you didn't have an account at that time?

Anyway - assuming you are replying to my post, you've baffled me and annoyed me. My post in this topic is clearly about my strong view that the accused's religion is irrelevant to the tragedy that occurred. And I express my disgust that so many people across England and Northern Ireland hijacked these murders to further their far-right agenda. Maybe what I wrote was too nuanced for you to understand. In which case rewind a few sentences to the start of this paragraph (beginning "Anyway - " and read it again.

My post is also ridiculing the original post - rightly so I think, and I stand by it. For me, it is embarrassingly facile. It's too ludicrous for me to comment on any further except to reiterate that from a logical/statistical/numerical reasoning perspective it is simply stupid. And the phrase "not all terrorists are [a specific religion]" should offend people of that religion, people of other religions, people of no religion and (in other words) it should offend all right thinking people. Writing those words gives credence to the opposing notion - and although I don't doubt there are people of low intelligence who like to think the opposing notion is true, right-thinking people should know that it's borderline offensive to give oxygen to it by writing or saying that it is untrue. The words "not all terrorists are..." implies or at least suggests that "most terrorists are...".

Let me try to illustrate what I mean - something tells me it might be necessary.

Defining a population in terms of a negative or criminal trait is always going to be pejorative, vacuous and offensive.

If I write, "Not all tall people have blond hair" - that's true. It implies, I think, that most tall people have blonde hair. That may or may not be true - but it's a harmless (albeit useless) statement.

If I write, "Not all tall people are thieves" - this is also true. But it defines an entire population in terms of a tiny element of the population - at best it's pejorative, at worst it's deeply offensive.

Writing "The vast majority of tall people are not thieves" is better, but it still has undertones that theft is a particular problem among tall people.

So I would opt for a phrase like, "Only one percent of people, including tall people, have ever been convicted of theft".

I feel like I am probably wasting my time - but I've tried. And I've saved the best until last - I am Muslim. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I was grinning ear to ear because the wall of text you wrote is funny. The forced vocabulary made it impossible to read without an upper-class British accent. I don't know if you are trolling when you say you're Muslim, but I was simply making a speculation about how you would treat this if the perpetrator was actually Muslim as the beer-belly Brits were thinking; that you would then find mentioning their religion important. And, no, I'm not the person that originally posted in this topic section. Inkscape Salafi (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Christian or not Christian?

@MIDI If you're going to remove one assertion that Axel Rubakubana is a Christian from the article, should you not remove the other one for the sake of competence? As a general note & point of learning/education to all WP Editors - when making an edit in an article, always check if there are multiple occurrences of the same thing in said article. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It was a cromulent edit. As described in their edit summary, Midi removed an assertion that the police stated that Axel Rubakubana is a Christian. The police released their intial somewhat limited statement in attempt to counter misinformation. Other sources, i.e. not the police, have (since) added that information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You had me at cromulent. I accept you are correct and I was wrong. I am also delighted to discover that cromulent is now acknowledged as an actual word. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the origin of cromulent? NamelessLameless (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

[1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not about that though. Is he Christian or not? And based on Wikipedia rules you will need to have a reliable source for that. NamelessLameless (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

At the time our content only talked about a Christian household. The Independent (fact checking dept) says, "In truth, Axel Rudakubana was described by neighbours as a “quiet choir boy” who comes from a family that regularly attends a Christian church.". At this time we don't say he is a Christian, nor probably should we, at least unless we hear something more direct, substantial, or official. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Christian - The suspect is not a Muslim. Please, end these discussion: "Born to Rwandan parents, the Liverpool Echo reported neighbours as saying that the family are “heavily involved with the local church”, and that they would often hear singing from their house." (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/axel-rudakubana-southport-suspect-who-b2589527.html) --93.211.210.21 (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no suggestion here that he is Muslim. Stating that he came from a Christian household (a family "heavily involved with the local church") does not necessarily make him Christian, though, and it would be too much of a stretch for us to call him such. MIDI (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, a “quiet choir boy” from a "Christian household" is what? An illegal, undocumented, Muslim, immigrant, or what? *nuts* He is a native born Christian boy. --93.211.210.21 (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

False dichotomy – not saying "he's Christian" is not the same as saying "he's Muslim": again, no-one in this discussion is saying he's Muslim. The source that uses the phrase "quiet choir boy" appears to attribute it to "neighbours" – should we accept that as a reliable source? If you want to state that he (rather than his family as a whole) is a Christian, you need find a source that explicitly states that, avoiding WP:SYNTH. As other users have pointed out, the previous wording was something along the lines of "he was brought up in a Christian household", but that also seemed to rely on neighbours as its source. I have seen no source that would verify saying anything more than the beliefs of the family as a whole, if at all. Of course, if you know of any sources that can potentially be used, please offer them up here. MIDI (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

No you are trying to be wp-legalistic! A 'clingy choir boy' from Christian family is what? A Muslim? → https://www.ghanacelebrities.com/2024/08/01/axel-muganwa-rudakubana-religion-nationality-wiki-who-is-axel-rudakubana/ from Ghana! → "The religion of the potential Southport stabbing suspect was a big deal as right-wingers on social media alleged the attacker was a Muslim. False reports claimed a Muslim had been arrested for the murders and riots even broke out in parts of the UK with mosques et al being attacked and clashes flaring up between rioters and law enforcement. However, the religion of Axel Rudakubana puts that claim to bed as his family is Christian." --91.54.4.195 (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The purported religion of the purported perpetrator's purported family puts nothing to bed. The issue is not anyone's religion, it's the three murdered children, the eight injured children, and the many other people who witnessed the heinous carnage or will have live forever with its consequences. Religion is a nebulous concept at the best of times: and moreso if you stop to consider that a person (any person) can (according to certain religions) become a member or exponent of a religion simply by thinking it or uttering certain words. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

New photo added

Hello, I have included a new photo of the flowers and gifts left near Hart Street. The photo was taken by me (as I was part of the group who placed the flowers in water and rearrange them so onlooks could see), so show the outpouring of local feelings after the event. If the caption does not meet Wikipedia standard can you let me know, or edit it respectfully? Thank you ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition of the image, it's the only relevant free-use image we seem to have of the local area, so thank you for contributing it. I've cleared up the caption to better comply with WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:TONE, and MOS:CAPSUCCINCT. MIDI (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello MIDI, Thank you for your understanding and kind words. I wasn't sure how to word the caption of this image, as this event has deeply affected all of us, especially those with family and friends impacted by this tragedy, including my own. I was initially concerned about your feedback on the edit, but I needn't have been, and I'm grateful you taking the time to leave a positive message. Thank you! ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Lovely. Just lovely to see a photograph of the amazing tributes to Elsie Dot, Alice and Bebe. I read on BBC that local people take the teddies and cards left for Elsie Dot, Alice and Bebe inside their houses if rain is forecast and then painstakingly put them back out when the weather has dried up. I cried when I read that. It is overwhelming to see the kindness of people over the deaths of Elsie Dot, Alice and Bebe. The little girls murdered in Southport. It was horrible to see so many people from various backgrounds attempt to co-opt their murders to satisfy their own personal failings as human beings. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to archive this discussion @MIDI? It's been live for a few hours - probably run its course and better to wipe it away from public view like you did with the rest of this WP:TALK page? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Flusapochterasumesch: I'm looking forward to you showing me where I previously wiped the rest of this talk page from public view... MIDI (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ew, Byzantium. Inkscape Salafi (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Far right?

What is far right and why we label protesters as far right? 176.30.181.205 (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

All that happens on Wikipedia is that articles reflect what is said in the sources provided. If you read the various articles referenced in the riot section, you'll see repeated mentions in those references to right-wing and far-right people/websites/media inciting and participating in the violence. Wikipedia should maintain a strict neutral point of view WP:NPOV If you think this is not happening then please call out where in the article that is not happening. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

You only see them referred to as far right from left leaning sources.

Every source that is centrist calls them anti illegal immigration riots.

You are not saying what sources call them you are being selective.

This is meant to be a source of information not of propaganda from one side or the other.

Do better 92.232.58.50 (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

So fix it. Do better! 10mmsocket (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I've seen no credible sources stating that the rioting was 'anti illegal immigration'. Anti immigration, possibly, if you define that loosely enough, but considering that the targets attacked by these thugs included hostels housing asylum seekers (who aren't there illegally - you can't claim asylum without informing the authorities of who you are) along with mosques, shops and private property, none of which had any real relationship to illegal immigration, and only some of which even had any connection with people descended from legal migrants, the suggestion is absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

British or not British?

Being born in England/Wales does not automatically grant you citizenship if your parents are not British. The article states that Axel Rudakubana is a 'British citizen' born to Rwandan parents. I have not seen any news articles that corroborate that he is a British citizen, just that he was born in Wales to Rwandan parents. This information does not appear to be in any of the cited news articles in the References section. I think a citation demonstrating this alleged fact should be added or a `[citation needed]` should be added to the article's claim that he is a British citizen for clarity as this is an important discussion point. --Simoncrowder (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The Independent referenced with title starting "Fact checked:..." states that he "was born in Cardiff and is a British citizen." However no other reference, nor any articles I found online, confirm that he is British, only that he was born in Cardiff to Rwandan parents - which as you say does not automatically mean you are a British citizen. Given that clear imbalance in the sources I think it's better to change to what is stated by the majority of sources. I'll do it now. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how hard you were looking, 10mmsocket, but there are multiple RS calling him a British citizen: The Independent (as mentioned), [2] Washington Post, El Pais, Wigan Today. Some sources don't comment on his citizenship, but I can't see any saying he is not a British citizen or saying he has any other citizenship. Bondegezou (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but every major British source avoids saying he is a British citizen. Show me one other than the single Independent article that does. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:V says nothing about sources having to be in the same country as the event being reported on. I have given you multiple sources that meet WP:RS, including a second UK one. Please don't WP:EDITWAR and please don't invent rules for sources. I suggest you revert yourself. Bondegezou (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Two articles from the same US publication state he is British - are there more. It is more telling that the one single article in the Independent is the only UK-published reliable source that states he is a British citizen, while all other news outlets describe him as British-born, which is not the same as being a British citizen. I would say therefore that there is a massive weight in favour of describing him as British-born - until more article are published and it becomes clear from multiple reliable sources, not just two, that he is a citizen. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you read what I've said? Why are you saying just two? I've also given you an El Pais article, and a Wigan Today article. You can also add "Where is Tommy Robinson? Far right activist chills in resort in Cyprus amid UK riots" in The Times of India (August 5, 2024).

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Some sources say "British-born" and don't comment on his citizenship, but that's not evidence that they believe he is not a UK citizen. Lots of articles describe him as "British-born", so we can do that too, but that doesn't preclude us also describing him as a British citizen. You have not offered anything that says he is not a British citizen.

It would be helpful if you respected WP:BRD. Bondegezou (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"Council leader urges community to work together amid UK riots", The Oldham Times, August 6: "He is a British citizen who was born in Cardiff and was living in Banks, Lancashire." Bondegezou (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The Independent and Washington Post are green on WP:RSP. The Times of India is only amber on WP:RSP, so scrub that one. Wigan Today is not listed on WP:RSP, but its Wikipedia article suggests it is reliable. The Oldham Times is also not listed on WP:RSP: it's part of The Bolton News group and looks reliable; it's used as a source on other articles. El País isn't listed on WP:RSP but is a highly-regarded paper and widely used in Wikipedia articles. Bondegezou (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I am slightly worried by the fact that some normally reliable sources are using the term "British born". Are they deliberately avoiding the word "citizen"? And those sources quoted above that use the word citizen - do they actually know if Rudakubana acquired citizenship or are they just assuming - like I did - that a child born in the UK automatically has citizenship? Is there even any mechanism for someone under the age of 18 to register for citizenship if they were born here (they can after the age of 18)? Does it make any practical difference if he is a citizen or British-born? I think it would be safer to describe him as British-born until we have more information. Southdevonian (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

According to this gov website [3] he would automatically have citizenship at birth if one of his parents - even if not a British, EU or EEA citizen - had: indefinite leave to remain; right to re-admission; right of abode. So the chances are he acquired British citizenship at birth. Southdevonian (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it is safer to stick with "British born" until a majority of sources say "British Citizen". As to your latter point, chances are he has yes, but that's not confirmed. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Why would anyone assume he is not a citizen? Being British-born is one of the requisites, and unless the sources that use that term explicitly state "British-born but citizenship status unclear" I fear we're heading into WP:NPOV territory here. Orange sticker (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

or more accurately WP:OR. Speculating on the status of his parents when we have ample RS that agree on something seems inappropriate. Orange sticker (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It is WP:OR for editors to try and work out whether Rudakubana is a citizen from first principles, and it is also WP:OR to try to interpret the choice of "British born" by some sources as being to intentionally avoid commenting on his citizenship.

We have multiple sources that meet WP:RS/WP:RSP that say he is a British citizen. We have nothing that says he isn't. Bondegezou (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Being born in Britain is not one of the requisites - you can be born anywhere and be a British citizen and not everyone born in Britain is a citizen. It is complicated [4]. I don't think anyone is suggesting that he is not a citizen - just that it might not be 100 per cent certain. I think it is enough to say, like the BBC and the Guardian, that he is British born. But if other editors prefer to go with the Independent and El Pais I am not going to argue about it (although I suspect that some media have probably not thought too much about it). Why is citizenship important anyway? Do other articles about crimes stress the citizenship of the accused? I imagine it is because there was an initial false rumour that the attacker had recently arrived in Britain. Southdevonian (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Citizenship is an important point in this particular incident because the event has been a major talking point in the UK and a catalyst for mass protests and criticism of immigration. Many voices have condemned a trend of extreme acts of violence by migrants, therefore establishing that this person was a naturalised British citizen would do much to quell that as it was a major talking point.

It is very strange that so many papers haven't outright said it. According to one interview, the family moved in 2002, meaning he would have been born a few years after. If they naturalised then it would have been trivial to register him as a British citizen.

The problem is the other half of this contentious argument is that people are moving to the UK but not adapting to life here, preferring not to assimilate the culture and living almost in a separate world. Moving and living here for over 20 years without naturalisation would also lend credence to this side of the argument as well. As a result it's still a major talking point and there is seemingly no definitive answer. Simoncrowder (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

My comment is on topic and relevant. You may be unfamiliar with this discussion point if you are not au fait with current affairs in the country of the article's origin. The point is that the subject's citizenship is quite an important piece of information and has been a central focal point in countless articles. The article should therefore, either state it definitively with cited references, or state that it is unknown. The person above asked why it was important and I clarified that. Now you have pulled the conversation off-topic in attempting to explain the importance of clarity. Simoncrowder (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any of the misinformation or speculation was regarding the suspect's citizenship, rather whether or not he was an immigrant. He is not an immigrant and nothing has been published about his parents' citizenship status other than they emigrated at some point before he was born. For information, I am very familiar with the coverage of this story and politics in the UK as well as the policy regarding WP:OR. Orange sticker (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Given the discussion above, WP:RS and WP:BRD, I have re-reverted 10mmsocket's bold edit and added two of the sources discussed above to the page. The page now has 3 RS in support of the claim Rudakubana is a British citizen. The text still also reports that he was British born (or, rather, specifies he was born in Cardiff). Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that's premature and a bit tendentious t.b.h. given the opinions of others in this discussion, but I'm not gong to edit war. If it makes you feel better to act this way then go ahead. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You made a WP:BOLD edit, claiming the Independent was the only source saying this. I gave you 4 articles from 3 sources supporting his British citizenship and reverted you. You then immediately returned your edit, in violation of WP:BRD and dismissed sources given on non-policy-based grounds. Since then, Orange sticker has also supported the article saying he is a British citizen, while Southdevonian has also contributed to discussion, but has chosen to be agnostic on the edit. If you are looking for WP:TE, I suggest a mirror. Bondegezou (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What I actually said was "I think it is enough to say, like the BBC and the Guardian, that he is British born." I have removed two unformatted refs as they don't add anything - I doubt they have done anything original - probably just copying from each other or even Wikipedia. Southdevonian (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, Southdevonian if I misrepresented you above. I was going off your comment that if other editors prefer to go with the Independent and El Pais I am not going to argue about it. Bondegezou (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)