Talk:Murder of David Amess/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Perpetrator

The name of an individual accused of Amess's killing has now been named by the media. There is often a divide in editor opinions regarding whether or not we should include the name in the article. I have removed this individual's name once, knowing that this can be contentious and we should gain a consensus to include first. I have seen cases where we've decided to name once an individual has been charged. WP:BLPNAME is the main policy here, and similar discussions about naming suspects pre-conviction or charge can be found at Talk:2020_Reading_stabbings/Archive_1#Suspect_name and Talk:Murder_of_Sarah_Everard/Archive_1#Officer_suspect. I don't see these circumstances to be much different to what we have here (in terms of a single suspect being named but not charged, etc.) but we do need to establish consensus one way or t'other. Thoughts? MIDI (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Once he has appeared in court and been formally charged, the name will be so widely available in the public domain that there would be little point in hiding it. It is arrests without charge that are problematic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Ian MacM. He has yet to be formally charged. The name has been given by PA Media and has been reported by e.g. The Guardian. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's learn from the Talk:Abu_Izzadeen#2017_Westminster_Attack The press named someone and had to retract it, this article will be swamped with people adding the name tomorrow though... The Guardian says Reportedly Named [[1]] (They're hedging their bets) Sky use [[2]] 'Understands' which I think is code for 'We read it on the Guardian') the BBC are calling it as a certainty but attribute it to an un-named 'Whitehall Official' [[3]] I think we technically have enough sources to call it on the article, or at least report it as being reported, but I don't think there's any need to rush JeffUK (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, it seems to be "open season" over at List of assassinated serving British MPs both in terns of a name and the view that it's "an assassination". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@JeffUK: "Understands" could mean a second hand report but it can also mean they've been told it off the record, it's their interpretation of one or more things they've been told (on or off the record), they are awaiting confirmation of something from official sources or (least likely in this case) the source is currently embargoed (if you see something like "the report is expected to say" they've usually seen the report but it hasn't been made public yet). Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed again, as per WP:BLPGOSSIP " Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. " the only sources we have seem to be either quoting each other, or quoting 'Anonymous Whitehall Officials' (i.e. someone who works for the government) JeffUK (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

So what is the consensus now?

1. The name can appear anywhere, multiple tomes, in the article.
2. The name can appear only in the lead section.
3. The name can appear only in the "Investigation" section.

And what is the rationale for including the name:

1. It's widely reported in the media.
2. The suspect is being held under terrorism legislation.
3. It looks like he's probably guilty?

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

My Proposal: As the current state of the article, mention that someone has been named in media reports, provide sources, but do not spread gossip in the article until an official announcement is made; the police don't have long left to charge him. Referring again to the Abu Izzadeen article, there were multiple 'reliable sources' Sky, Channel 4, The Guardian et. al. naming him as the suspect, based on 'anonymous sources'... Not saying the sources are wrong in this case, but this is why we don't rely on gossip in articles; we don't have to be first to press to get the clicks like they do! JeffUK (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Support JeffUK's proposal. MIDI (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

He was arrested under the Terrorism Act so the police have up to 14 days before they need to charge or release,[4] and "detectives were granted a warrant to keep Mr Ali in custody until Friday 22 October."[5]

What the reliable sources are saying:

• BBC: states he has been named by "Whitehall officials" and that the police "are not looking for anyone else".[6]
• The Independent:
  • "Police are yet to confirm identity of the suspect... but his name has been reported to be Ali Harbi Ali."[7]
  • "Police have yet to officially name the person detained on Friday ... But Harbi Ali Kullane said his 25-year-old son, Ali Harbi Ali, was being held in custody by police." [8].
• ITV.com: "The name of the suspect being questioned ... is Ali Harbi Ali."[9]
• Bloomberg/AP: "British authorities have not released the name of the suspect... but British media reported the suspect was Ali Harbi Ali..."[10]
• The Guardian: "Sources have confirmed to the Guardian that the suspect’s name is Ali Harbi Ali, 25." [11]
• The Sunday Tomes: "The father of the suspected killer ... confirmed that his ... son, Ali Harbi Ali, 25, was in custody." [12] (full article paywalled, but the quote is from the free section)

Accordingly at this time I think we should be saying something like "Multiple sources have reported the suspect's name as Ali Harbi Ali." Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I think he was originally arrested on suspicion of murder. But that was then changed to a terrorist offence. I don't know if this makes any difference here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of those sources are reporting on each other, Being changed to a terrorism office could mean that Ali was arrested for assisting the murderer as part of a terrorist plot, or that he was the murderer but was re-arrested under the terrorism act to give them more time, 'not looking for anyone else' could mean they think they've got him, or that the perpetrator died on the scene etc. etc. There really is no rush to get this in the encyclopedia until it's confirmed. JeffUK (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for him being labelled as perpetrator or anything like that, simply reporting that he has been named as the arrested person in numerous media outlets. Even if the name is wrong (which it seems is extremely unlikely given there has only been one arrest, the reason for the arrest is impeccably sourced, there are no other reported deaths, the named person's father has confirmed his son was arrested for the same reasons as the sole arrested person was and there are exactly zero other reports) and/or the arrested person is released without charge it is and will remain factual that there was widespread reporting of the person's name and that people will be searching on that name and expect to find it here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with this; "A suspect, Ali Harbi Ali, a 25-year-old British citizen of Somalian descent, has been named in media reports based on anonymous sources, but he has not yet been officially charged." would appear to be the correct way to report it; his name has been widely reported in international media, and at this point there is no reason we should not include it, with sufficient context. If this context changes (the media got it wrong, he is released without charge, he is charged etc etc etc) then we update the context, but at this stage I can see no circumstance where his name is not relevant to the article. BilledMammal (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

A question on this: The infobox contains different fields for "suspect" and "accused" which, to me, connote the difference between someone suspected by the police (he was arrested in this case) and someone formally charged (i.e. accused). Given the fact the he has been arrested would it not be fair to say that would at least be included in a general list of suspects, as of this moment in time? Thanks --Lenny Marks (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a good question. There seems to be no explicit guidance at Template:Infobox event. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@WikiFlame50: – Following your re-addition of the suspect's name, you might be interested in the discussion above and it would be good to have your contributions. Thanks. MIDI (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

They said his name on live tv. It should be added!!!! WikiFlame50 (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm absolutely open to the argument that a preponderance of reliable sources calling him 'the suspect' may mean we can add the name within the scope of Wikipedia's policies; this is clearly a developing situation. "They said his name on live tv. It should be added!!!! " is not a good policy-based argument. JeffUK (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

But I’m right though. BBC news confirmed it. And it’s a perfectly reliable source. And please do not mock me. WikiFlame50 (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

So, by "they" you meant BBC News? Yes, I can confirm that's a fact. I heard it too. But I'm not sure that the BBC television News and Wikipedia necessarily follow the same editorial policies? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s everywhere. Tons of reliable news sites have said his name. I’ve even given a source WikiFlame50 (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Loads of people use news sites like Metro, The independent etc for many sources. It doesn’t break any rules whatsoever WikiFlame50 (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure we could all find many sources. Loads of people use the Daily Mail, for example. But here it's banned. Which "rules" do you mean? 11:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we could include the name of the accused now; the accusations have survived the weekend's news cycle confusion and the rush to be first to press, Some stories quote the man's father, which is not an anonymous source, and the sources are tending toward using the name as a certainty 'Has been arrested' etc. I propose using this AP article to support 'Ali Harbi Ali has been named by the British media'.. [13] which is a fact that is now supported by a secondary source. JeffUK (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Finally somebody who gets it. WikiFlame50 (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

So is this an agreement or something? To add the name with that source you provided? WikiFlame50 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the article should say (a) one person has been arrested and (b) that person has not been officially named but has been named as Ali Harbi Ali by the British media, citing anonymous "Whitehall sources" and Ali's father. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I've changed it based on most people on here having suggested something similar in this discussion. Not your exact wording feel free to update it though. I'm not sure 'Suspect' needs to be in the infobox at this stage, so I'll leave that for someone else to add if they feel it's important. JeffUK (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the name per the above consensus after it was removed by RandomCanadian. I've added a hidden note telling editors to discuss the matter here before removing based on the assumption that not all may be aware of this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I support inclusion with this wording.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it again per WP:BLPCRIME, as applied to non-public figures, which overrides whatever ill-advised WP:LOCALCONSENSUS exists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

BLPCRIME says "seriously consider not", rather than "must not." This is one of those occasions where the name has been so widely disseminated that it is pointless to exclude.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law."; and Wikipedia is not a newspaper trying to get the latest breaking news. There is absolutely no encyclopedic reason to include the name, given there is WP:NODEADLINE, and that whether the suspect's name is John Doe or whatever is not a crucial detail that would justify including it (as opposed to merely giving the description without naming). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Would you agree that, in general terms, the identity of the perpetrator is the most significant aspect of any killing? And that the most notable aspect of identity is someone's name? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

No, and no. The most significant aspect of a crime is not necessarily who committed it. As in this case, it might actually have more to do with the target or the motives. And the identity of someone is something than does not need a random name to be described appropriately, especially if BLP considerations for a suspect that has not been formally charged still apply. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I am very surprised by your answer, I must say. I must admit I had assumed the identity of the victim as a given. Sorry for not making that clear. But without a perpetrator there can be no motive and no method. Surely no-one's name is "random" (apart from yours here, of course)? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You can be as surprised as you want. You can't honestly say that the significance of this does not come mostly from the target (would this have even a mention in international newspapers if the victim had not been a sitting member of Parliament?). You don't need a name to have a perpetrator, and you don't need a name to describe a perpetrator if you have sufficient other details. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll remain surprised. Certainly, I wholly agree that, in this case, the significance comes mostly from the identity of the victim, Hence the article. I think most jurisdictions would put quite a lot of emphasis on the name of the perpetrator. I think you "need" a name in legal terms. I'd agree you don't always need one at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

So is it agreed that, for now, the name should not appear in the lead section or in the infobox? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

For the time being yes, as he was named by off the record sources and has not been charged. If and when he is charged, there would be little point in hiding the name. We had this same type of debate with Nikolas Cruz at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Does it make any difference that he has been named by his own father, via multiple RS sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being overcautious here. Naming a person who has not been charged is considered problematic by WP:BLPCRIME and also runs the risk of Cliff Richard type lawsuits if the case collapses. BBC News here today says "A 25-year-old British man, Ali Harbi Ali, is being held under the Terrorism Act" so we aren't really in much doubt about who the police arrested, only if and when he gets charged with the murder.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes you are being overcautious - including a name can be problematic, but that doesn't mean it is always problematic. We are not stating he is responsible, we aren't even saying in wikivoice he was the person arrested, just that he has been very widely named as the person arrested. There are even secondary sources that he has been named as the person arrested, and RS confirmation that his own father has confirmed that he is the person arrested.
WP:BLPCRIME sates "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." (my emphasis). Nothing in this article suggests the Ali has committed a crime, or is suspected of having committed a crime, only that it has been widely reported in multiple reliable sources that he has been arrested in connection with the crime. Nothing about this changes if he is released without charge, as long as we report that that happened (which we undoubtedly will as soon as we have RS confirmation that that has happened), and nothing in BLPCRIME mandates exclusion in these or any other circumstances. Not including the name has been seriously considered, but we have chosen to include based on the totality of the circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"Nothing in this article suggests the Ali has committed a crime, or is suspected of having committed a crime" I'm not sure about that. If the reader knows one person stabbed and killed someone else, and then did not leave the scene, and was then arrested by police and held in custody, I think that strongly suggests that the person is guilty of a crime. If one name is then used, it suggests the named person is guilty of a crime. Not guilty is strict legal terms, of course. But just in common parlance/ understanding. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Some people would draw those inferences if they had been named by the police or PM (when there would be no question the name should be included) rather than by his father and at least half a dozen major reliable sources. Those same people would draw those inferences if he had been charged. In other words it's irrelevant. Indeed we explicitly say that they have not been charged, making it clear that the only thing he is suspected of is being someone the police think it worthwhile them spending time talking to - something that is unquestionably factual. It almost feels like straws are being grasped. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes and some people would draw those inferences if they saw it all happen live on television. I'm certainly not grasping for straws. And I'm pretty sure that neither are the police. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems that multiple RSs report that he has been "arrested on suspicion of murder" and is being "held for questioning under the Terrorism Act." It seems strange not to at least mention that he his being held for questioning without saying he has been "charged" or "accused". This is, in my view, entirely consistent with WP:BLPNAME and WP:SUSPECT as he has actually been arrested and we would be careful not to say that he is accused of the crime, but merely to include the information that he is being held and questioned as has been widely publicized in numerous RSs (including his father). Thoughts? --Lenny Marks (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and lots of people get arrested and released. WP:BLPCRIME is the more specific advice here, and given the suspect was not a public figure, there is no reason to name him beyond the fact it is in the news: and Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there is no rush nor deadline for us to publish this information (unlike with a newspaper). We can merely say that the suspect has been named in sources; that he has x and y background, ... And when there is something less abstract, then it can be included. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently not strongly in favour of either position (maybe 51/49 for, but sitting on the fence!), however it might be worth noting that David Amess article also includes the attackers name, I've removed it from there as I think the two articles should be at least consistent, and adding it back here wouldn't be appropriate. No doubt it will be re-added to one or both repeatedly in the coming weeks. JeffUK (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I cannot think of any good reason to ever include the name of the perpetrator, especially if it's judged to be a terrorist incident. Why would Wikipedia want to play into their hands by giving them precisely the publicity they sought? We should frustrate their desire by keeping them anonymous. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that including a name here does imply the person committed a crime, mostly along the lines of Martinevans123's reasoning above. I also don't think UK police is going to bungle a terrorism investigation, so if he's charged it's probably reasonable to include his name in the article, not least because the article won't be stable until conviction if left out. Suggest waiting until charges, though, before inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I share ProcrastinatingReader's view. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That would only be a problem if it's clear there may be other suspects outstanding and/or the main suspect in the case is clearly innocent, in my view. In high-profile cases such as these, the person(s) they take in is almost always the one responsible. Love of Corey (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Description of the nationality of the suspect should be more relevant.

Casual racism. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

For the moment, the article reads that the suspect is, "A 25-year-old male British citizen of Somali heritage". Would it not be more to the point to call him "a 25-year-old male ethnic Somali holding UK citizenship", given that the violence of which he is accused is more in keeping with his ethnicity, and the fact that he holds British citizenship is only tangential in the context?2A02:2454:9860:5300:F8B8:CBAD:BF7C:713D (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Wrong, and partly right: you're confusing ethnicity and religion; and while whether the suspect was British or not is not particularly relevant, this is how sources report it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC) For the moment, you sickening post here is visible. Would it not be more to the point to call you a racist troll? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspect's father

... Harbi Ali Kullane, a former adviser to Somalia’s prime minister ...

• Hui, Sylvia (17 October 2021). "Father of suspect in UK lawmaker's slaying is 'traumatized'". AP News.

(Originally mentioned in The Sunday Times, but that source is paywalled). —AFreshStart (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. There's nothing there to suggest it had anything to do with the killing. Love of Corey (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It's relevant because the police are looking into if Amess's ties with Qatar, which supports the Somali president, contributed to his death – as mentioned in the article and reliable sources cited. All the more reason to include names, as the cited sources and others have. —AFreshStart (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

England

Many readers won’t know where in Britain Essex is. I suggest we add “, England” after Essex Where it appears. --2603:7000:2143:8500:F124:F57B:6F0C:D2D1 (talk) 10:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think once in the info box is enough. It's one click away for those who don't know. And in any case, the subject matter is relevant to the Parliament of the UK as a whole, not just to England. Martinevans123 (talk)

Last rites

The source used is The Daily Telegraph which seems suitably robust. But The Daily Politik at Facebook yesterday at 20:28 claimed this: The Daily Mail claim a catholic priest spoke to them and told them that the police prevented him from giving David Amess his last rites as he lay dying from a knife attack. The priest has seen the article and tweeted that it is fake news - a complete fabrication. Never happened. Nor has he ever spoken to the Daily Mail. The news media in this country is so utterly broken. Making up a story like this, trying to capitalize off the death of an MP and using it to cultivate anger among the public - this should be illegal." So which is the fake news here? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it really relevant anyway? "Man not allowed to enter active crime scene" is neither surprising nor interesting. JeffUK (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It is also reported in the Guardian: [14]; without the attribution to the Daily Mail. It is possible that he indeed "never spoke to The Daily Mail", but to some other news agency, and the Daily Fail is of course making shit up as usual and not crediting other sources... Though I concur with Jeff that it is not particularly encyclopedic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Beebs too; and a couple others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The Twitter account of Father Jeffrey Woolnough has now disappeared. I guess he's had enough of Twitter for a while. But here's the cached version. Seems it was "active eavesdropping" by the massed hacks at large? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Clarity, finally, via yet another source reporting: CNA has it that the priest did not talk to the media, but his conversation with the police officers attending, which must have been heard by someone [or multiple someones] nearby, appears to have been what was reported on. And further elements could be from the mentioned (now-deleted) Twitter video. Whether this is a big nothingburger or not is of course the question, though there appears there can be said something further then just "A priest wasn't allowed access to the crime scene": Writing in the Telegraph newspaper on Oct. 18, the journalist Tim Stanley noted that according to the College of Policing, a professional body for the police in England and Wales, there is no national guidance on priests administering the last rites. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Quote from the BBC News article: "A Catholic when they're dying would want a priest there, and for reasons that only the police know, I was not allowed in," he told the PA (PA Media) news agency." This is reliable sourcing, but he denied that he spoke to the Daily Mail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A priest in 2021 would not speak of "Last Rites", but rather of "Extreme Unction". That shibboleth alone tells us that the claim is suspect2A02:2454:9860:5300:F8B8:CBAD:BF7C:713D (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The BBC uses that phrase, but Woolnough himself is not once quoted as saying that. The indirect speech given is: "He said he asked a police officer if he could deliver the sacrament but was unable to enter as it was crime scene." The direct speech quoted is this:

"A Catholic when they're dying would want a priest there, and for reasons that only the police know, I was not allowed in," he told the PA news agency.

"I got my clerics on, and got the holy oils, sort of expecting that I might be allowed on the crime scene to administer the oil of the sick," he said.

"I didn't know at that time what kind of condition he was in," Fr Woolnough said. "It was a just-in-case matter."

I see no reason to doubt Woolnough's claim or his complete sincerity. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Given your shenanigans in the below discussion, I'd say you're the one being suspect. Love of Corey (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Some of us are being far too sensitive. Can we just stick to facts? For instance, I can accept the explanation that it was the BBC and not the priest who used the term "last rites". Now it makes sense. Thank you. As for the shenanigans below, I still think that the suspect is Somali is more relevant than his UK citizenship in this context. There is nothing wrong with his race. It is his monstrous behaviour that is in question. A man has just been killed. Save your ire for the party who truly deserves it.2A02:2454:9860:5300:F8B8:CBAD:BF7C:713D (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Still confusing ethnicity (which remains utterly irrelevant) and religion (which is only relevant in the sense the suspect was probably some form of an extremist). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The suspect's citizenship is absolutely irrelevant to the scope of this article. We only go by how the sources describe him. Stop being disruptive. Love of Corey (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"The suspect's citizenship is absolutely irrelevant to the scope of this article"...um, yes, that is what I said. That he is a UK citizen is not so important in the context. Anyway, I know where I am not wanted, so I will leave you be. Wikipedia is clearly a closed club, and an absolute viper's nest of cyber-bullies.2A02:2454:9860:5300:2091:5942:5997:E0AD (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Assassination" and "terrorist incident"

This is being investigated by police as a likely terrorist incident, but there's no official determination yet or consensus between WP:RS, so I've removed the category. If it's a terrorist incident, then as a terrorist killing of a politician, it's also an assassination, but we can't say that yet, either, so I've done the same for that category. -- The Anome (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

No brainer. No need to even bring it up here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you The Anome. But it's very plainly included at List of assassinated serving British MPs. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed him from that list too. As the article intro there still says, the attack is suspected to be Islamic terrorism, but that's still provisional. We will have to wait for a trial or other inquiry to confirm that one way or the other. -- The Anome (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, before this edit, it just said "Islamic terrorism". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I've provided a news article as source for the paragraph right before I found this discussion. GTNO6 (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The police have said they're treating the killing as a terrorist incident, not merely a suspected one. They're holding their only suspect under the Terrorism Act. Jim Michael (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

We need to wait for any court verdict and not jump to our own conclusions based on what the police or press or anyone else are saying before that. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. WP:BLPCRIME is serious business. Love of Corey (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

A court verdict does not officially pronounce a general motive, though. It rather says there the actus reus and mens rea were met. I believe evidence submitted in a trial, as well as a judge's summing up (rather than the verdict itself), provide the press the means to conclude this was definitely a terrorist incident. Solipsism 101 (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

How is assassination and crime related? Not all assassinations are crimes. Assassination is simply a type of killing. North Korea, Russia, Israel, the United States, and other governments around the world practise "righteous assassination" all the time, while treating it not as a crime, but as justified use of force, even a law enforcement measure. Describing it as an assassination should not have any implications on calling the suspect assassin a criminal. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Murder is a type of killing, and assassination is a type of murder. It's a three circles model, except that all three circles are concentric... — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

So is Assassination of Qasem Soleimani a criminal murder or justified homicide? Assassination is homicide, but not necessarily murder. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Precisely. Assassination is not necessarily murder, though it usually is at least from the perspective of the nation where it happened. The sort of thoughtless adherence to BLPCRIME's demand for conviction before calling a killing anything other than a killing, for matters plainly falling outside its remit would have stunning repercussions. 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre should not be called a massacre, since nobody in government was held responsible for the killings. Or Kandahar massacre shouldn't have been called "massacre" prior to August 2013. Or Assassination of John F. Kennedy or Assassination of Jovenel Moïse shouldn't be called "assassination" because nobody was convicted. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

In terms of article title, WP:COMMONNAME comes into play with at least the Tiananmen Square, Kandahar and JFK articles (I'm unfamiliar with the other). While there are sources calling David Amess' killing an assassination, almost none are reliable sources, almost none are British and they're very much in the minority, so WP:COMMONNAME cannot be used to justify titling this article "Assassination". Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is adherence to WP:BLPCRIME in any way "thoughtless"? Such policies have been developed for good reason and I'm sure individual editors are perfectly capable of thinking carefully about how they apply in individual situations? That's why we have Talk page discussions like this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"Assassination" is not a recognised legal term within Homicide in English law. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Is spree killing murders a recognised legal term in English law? Or is it a fact on the ground not codified in law? Would every description of a homicide require we use only terms codified in English law for cases in England? And if the term is Anglo-Saxon, predating the unification of England? -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not commonly called an "assassination", and we need to follow sources, in addition to following the WP:BLP policy. So "killing" it remains until someone is convicted in court, at which point it may become (most likely) "murder" or whichever other appropriate term. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Spree killing" is not a legal term but an academic one (like "serial killer" and "mass murder"), they are no more relevant to the justice system than is "assassination", they are labels used by academic and the popular sources to crimes meeting some definitions. The precise definitions are not universally agreed upon, but certainly in popular usage "assassination" is a complete subset of "murder". Spree killings are always unlawful killings, but the perpetrator may be tried and/or convicted of manslaughter rather than murder in some cases. This is all irrelevant though as no reliable sources are calling this event an assassination (and everybody agrees that "spree killing" requires more than a single victim). Thryduulf (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

International reaction

The killing of Sir David Amess gained the attention of international media. In fact many international leaders also expressed their condolences. Therefore I suggest an international reactions section should also be included in this article, to avoid the impression that this was an isolated killing only covered in the country of origin. I'm providing messages/statements that I saw personally that I think should be considered:

Scott Morrison (Australian Prime Minister) Justin Trudeau (Canadian Prime Minister) Micheál Martin (Irish Prime Minister) Antony Blinken (US Secretary of State) Yair Lapid (Israeli minister of foreign affairs) Benjamin Netanyahu (Former Israeli Prime Minister) Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani (Emir of Qatar) Jens Stoltenberg (NATO Secretary General)

Noah-x3 (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

References

We definitely do not need 100 variations on "the President of Foobar sent condolences" together with flags. Perhaps one sentence like "condolences were sent by the leaders of Country (ref), Country (ref)" etc. WWGB (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Twitter rules the world, it seems. What about the Queen and other members of the British Royal family? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

See also #Removal of Keir Starmer tribute. If you can write 2-3 sentences of reliably sourced prose, excluding quotes, about somebody's reaction, then go ahead and include it. If you can't then at absolute most we need a short, sourced prose summary of the reactions. If you think the individual quotes need to be recorded somewhere then that's what Wikiquote is for, and that page can have a sister project link in the external link section. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

No-one has suggested quotes here, just a prose list of names? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL; and if the only sources which can be found are twitter posts by the politicians themselves, then there's no reason to include it. Of course they offered their condolences and their sympathies: there's not much that an encyclopedia needs to say about that. A one sentence summary ("Condolences/... were also shared by foreign leaders.") would be more than enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we say something like "Condolences were received from prominent international figures, including..." and name the main people like those from the US, Australia, Canada, etc. It goes without saying that almost every country will pay tribute when something like this happens. This is Paul (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That would seem like obvious WP:BIAS. Given the prominence of the incident, there's no reason to single out the usual suspects (i.e. the Anglo-sphere...) out of all the others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Then we could add some non-English speaking countries as well, but a list going into the hundreds is something we shouldn't have. This is Paul (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the encyclopaedic justification for a list of any length? i.e. what understanding does it bring to the article that cannot be gained from a one sentence summary along the lines of the one RandomCanadian suggests? Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Foreign leaders seems a bit too vague, but a one-sentence summary is sufficient. I'm just suggesting we include a few countries in that sentence. I guess the problem with that could be people wanting to include specific countries, then adding those countries because they don't see them in the sentence. This is Paul (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind my suggestion, this is already included: "Various parliamentary groups, and current and former politicians from across the political spectrum, expressed shock and offered condolences, as did members of the royal family, international politicians, and relatives of Jo Cox." Nothing further needs to be said. As to "include a few countries", it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't approach: only including a few ("significant") countries is obviously incomplete and open to all sorts of issues of selection bias, including more to address the two issues only makes it worse ("List of countries who expressed condolences for David Amess" is not an encyclopedic list). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to note, not international, but the Church of England also issued special tributes from senior clergy here on the day of the killing. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the relevance of that? Amess was a Catholic who was killed in a Methodist church. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No, he was killed in a Methodist church hall. It's 100% relevant, as it's about his death. It may not be individually notable, but I thought it was unusual for a devout Catholic to attract such a substantial set of tributes from the head of the Church of England and other senior Anglican clergy. Martinevans123 (talk)

I don't think it unusual that a sitting MP, particularly one representing the most establishment party, who was killed in such a manor as Amess would attract substantial tributes from senior figures in the establishment. Yes, the tributes are related to his death so they are relevant in that way, but why are they any more or less relevant than any of the other tributes related to his death? If there are reliable sources discussing these particular tributes in some manner then we can think about including something in the article about them, but without that the most we should be doing is adding "religious figures" to the sentence "Various parliamentary groups, and current and former politicians from across the political spectrum, expressed shock and offered condolences, as did members of the royal family, international politicians, and relatives of Jo Cox.", maybe before "international politicians" would be the best spot. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I doubt they are "any more or less relevant", they're just as relevant as any others. Yes, happy to add "religious figures" there Here's a secondary source, but it's kind of "in house" isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Censorship of any mention of Ali Harbi Ali is not helpful, and increasingly disruptive

A handful of users are repeatedly removing any reference to Ali Harbi Ali on what is increasingly looking like a WP:OWN problema. Ali is named daily, since several days already, in numerous reliable sources so the censorship going on here seems hard to justify. If we compare with tragically similar case of Jo Cox, the article on her murder had a detailed section on the murder (Mair) already the day after, presenting both his name, his background and his political sympathies. Is there any support in WP policies to deal with Ali in a different way? No such argument has been presented here. The early arguments was that Ali's name was hearsay, which a relevant argument at the time. By now, when his name is confirmed for several days already, there's just no policy to justify this censorship. I've seen users refer to WP:BLPCRIMINAL; if the same users would actually read it, they might see it does not support their campaign here. The aim of Wikipedia is to provide information based pn reliable sources. When users take to actively trying to conceal information that reliable sources report on, then we have a problem. Jeppiz (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

And apparently the information has been removed again. This is starting to look like a rather serious censorship issue. I ask again, what is the policy that justifies the very different treatment of the suspected murderer of David Amess compared to the murderer of Jo Cox? Jeppiz (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read any of the discussion since "the early arguments", notably since you seem to be indeed entirely unaware of the policy justification for not including the name. And your post here, claiming censorship, is a textbook example of bad faith; in addition to the blatant BLP violation (since there is no "murderer" because nobody has been convicted or even charged with murder up to now). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have indeed read them, the problem is that the policies you put forward don't support your argument. WP:BLPCRIMINAL does call for caution but never says suspects cannot be named. It's a wise policy to avoid naming suspects who may be innocent; quite a different matter when the suspect was arrested on spot and has been named by virtually every reputed British media including BBC, Independent, The Times, ITV, Guardian and numerous others. I repeat my question once again since you keep avoiding it: what is the difference to the murder of Amess's fellow MP Jo Cox, for which we immediately named the suspect? Jeppiz (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that people were too quick that time: that Wikipedia is not a newspaper; and that there is WP:NORUSH. Whether people erred in the past is not reason for us to repeat the same. An arrest, even if media outlets are describing it as a certain case, is not a conviction, and the accused remains innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, as per WP:BLPCRIME; and that the name should not be included if it (as it would) clearly suggest the named person is guilty of a crime. Given they haven't even charged him yet (despite with the media are describing), there's no reason to rush. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Not just that time; we have routinely named suspects when there is no reasonable doubt about their guilt and their names have been widely reported. It's the suppression of his name that goes against standard procedure at this stage, not naming him. I cannot think of a single high profile murder of a well-known person in which WP:BLPCRIME has been applied the way you suggest, while I can easily think of numerous examples in which the suspect was named when respect media outlets started reporting the name. Jeppiz (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The suspect may be guilty in the court of public opinion and in the media, but Wikipedia is neither of these. Like in scientific topics, where we follow, not lead, the most authoritative stuff, in legal matters like these, we should most definitively follow the more authoritative sources (which in this case is the court itself and not newspapers writing on a sensational recent event). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess the closest recent case would be Murder of Jo Cox? Perhaps we could look at the sequence of events at that article? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You did try to participate in all the previous discussions about this on the talk page, right? If you, you should've known that this was the official consensus until more info comes out. Love of Corey (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not censorship, the name was added, it was then removed and the user who removed it posted a good argument based on WP:Policy for doing so. My view is that there is nothing in the policy that say we must include the name, there's something in the policy that says we should seriously consider not adding the name of someone who's been accused, so on balance leaving it out is just fine. The right place to start is by joining in the discussion here by assuming good faith (not talking about WP:OWN, 'campaigns' , and 'censorship') trying to build consensus. In terms of WP:OWN if someone believes content violates WP:BLP they are encouraged to remove it boldly. JeffUK (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

We've been going round in circles on this for several days and there are voices saying that it may be overcautious to omit the name. I've already said that if Ali Harbi Ali is charged with murder (which he hasn't been yet) there would be little point in hiding the name. This is a high profile case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The police have until Friday to charge him or release him? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

He is detained under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act and the police have until Friday for questioning.[15]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and then they must either charge his or release him? Looks pretty obvious what will happen. The search of properties seems to have shown he was acting alone. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

When to name the suspect?

So, I am thinking/hoping/guessing that a majority of editors will agree to include the suspect's name if/when he is charged by police? Sure, there will be some who want to withhold the name until there is a finding of guilt, but I think the media coverage that will follow the charging will address any concerns under WP:BLPCRIME. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, yes. Had we followed normal WP procedure he would already have been named, so if/when he's charged I see not to name him. I do agree we can wait until then if it makes users happy, it's true that WP is not a news outlet and we can wait for the charge. Jeppiz (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That seems sensible. I wish there was a clearer policy on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Love of Corey (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I totally disagree. I think we should wait at least until a conviction or acquittal is made, anything we do before that could prejudice the hearing. WP:BLPCRIME says: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. So, "until convicted by a court of law", not merely until charged.

Having said that though, I still cannot think of any good reason why we would ever want to include the name of the perpetrator, especially if it's judged to be a terrorist incident. Why would we (Wikipedia) want to play into the perpetrators hands by giving them precisely the publicity they sought? We should perhaps frustrate their clear desire for publicity by keeping them anonymous. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

See Damnatio memoriae. This has been suggested numerous times but WP:NOTCENSORED.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it'd mean removing the names of the 4 suicide bombers from 7 July 2005 bombings. Jim Michael (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jim Michael, why do you think it is right to bestow posthumous glorification on them on Wikipedia? Why do you think anyone would be interested in their names? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't, but why do you regard neutrally naming them to be glorification? Jim Michael (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Because one of the main reasons for doing it may well have been to be named in articles such as this. The name adds nothing other than encouragement for others. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ianmacm, this is nothing to do with censorship, it's to do with the totally unnecessary (what possible value does it add?) glorification of killers/terrorists. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the first things the jury will be told is the suspect's name. I really fail to see how mentioning it here could prejudice the hearing. Everything else which may be debatable at the trial, sure, but the name? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

But what value does the name add to the article and why would anyone be interested in it? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

So you don't see the value, and I get that, but you don't see the harm either? And why after conviction would it be more relevant? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz, the harm is if they're innocent. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I take the view that charging time is the appropriate time. The name of the suspect becomes official, and a very public trial follows. In general I think it can sometimes be mentioned before or without a charge, but TBH here I'm a bit uncomfortable with the mysterious 'Whitehall sources' which keep getting mentioned as the source of the name. When charged, you'll hear it from the horse's mouth. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz, but if they're innocent we would have unjustly added to their stigmatisation. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

They would have stood up at the Old Bailey, with the world's media outside (and got very publicly declared one way or the other). I really don't think we'd be adding to their problems. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz, but what value do you think it would actually add to the article before the verdict (or after it for that matter)? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it adds the same value as the time of the attack, or the location, or the type of weapon... or.... It's an encyclopaedia article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

But why this fact related to them above, say, their GCSE grades or shoe size or favourite colour? It's just as meaningless and arbitrary, unless you know them. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

In the jurisdiction of England and Wales, someone's name bears slightly more weight than their GCSE grades and shoe size? It's perhaps the most defining characteristic of anyone accused of any crime? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

But who needs to know it and what does knowing it add? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sub judice notwithstanding, anyone who reads the article needs to know it. Expected judicial outcome permitting, it "adds knowledge" of who was guilty of the crime. Ali Harbi Ali stabbed David Amess. David Amess died. No one is disputing these facts. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes if. But I have to admit, personally, having read and heard all that's happened since last Friday, that I'm 99.9% sure that Ali Harbi Ali is not innocent. As for "glorification of killers/terrorists" and possible "stigmatisation", here's another name to consider... Ismail Abedi, who's just fled the country rather than give evidence to the enquiry. We can't mention him by name? Because he might not be guilty? He's been charged with nothing. But I suspect that, for most people, his name is a symbol of utter shame and cowardice? There's no question of glorifying him by use of his name, is there? Sorry for the WP:FORUM. At least we are lucky we don't have to try and select an unbiased jury. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't mention the names of any of them, especially without a guilty verdict, and I wouldn't mention the names of any convicted of terrorism offences as it feeds their egos and may entice others to do the same for similar publicity. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME just says 'They are presumed innocent', stating they are accused does not contradict with the presumption of innocence. and 'Seriously consider' means we are allowed to consider context, it's not a strict rule: there's a spectrum of notability (both in the accused and the crime) if a so-called-celebrity's sibling is drink driving vs When we're talking about the perpetrator of a major crime, who has made themselves a 'high profile individual' by clearly seeking media attention etc. Then, having 'seriously considered' the sources, I think we could name the defendant without violating WP:BLPCRIME. In terms of 'what it adds to the article', it's factual and relevant information, if there's no policy reason to remove it and someone decides they want to add it then it belongs here. (PS: there's a fairly active discussion on the policy on Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLPCRIME) JeffUK (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@JeffUK, their name may be factual, but I do not understand why you think glorifying them in this way would be "relevant information" to this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto there are ways of reporting an attacker without 'glorifying them'; naming the person who killed an MP does not really 'glorify' that person. If we were talking about setting up an article for them to detail their views, motivations and statements in court etc. that would be different! At some point someone will hear the name of the accused, out of context, want to find out who they were, and turn to WP for an answer. JeffUK (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@JeffUK, the best way to report them without glorifying them is to say what they've done but without mentioning their name or their cause. That would totally frustrate their desire for publicity rather than gratuitously pandering to it. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Include name when it is 110% certain that there is a suspect, instead of BBC referring to him as "man believed to be suspect". Include name before formal charges. Related: Don't redirect name before formal charges; redirect name after charges. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

In my view, "arrested at the scene on suspicion of murder" = suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

NYT says three days ago "Scotland Yard has not yet publicly named the suspect". BBC says yesterday "man believed to be suspect" instead of "suspect". So something else can happen, as in police coming out in the next few days and publicly naming the suspect. Then we will be 110% sure about the validity of the "suspect" label in every legitimate sense of that term. Let's wait a few more days. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Unless the police are granted more time from a magistrate, they have until some point on Friday (none of the sources I found on a quick google give the time, but I would imagine it's either something like 17:00 or 23:59) to question them before they must either charge or release. You can be completely certain there will be RS coverage of which of the three options happens shortly after it does.

In terms of when to name the person arrested, I've repeatedly argued above that including their name in the context of the person very widely named by the media and confirmed by their own father as the person arrested is perfectly compatible with BLPCRIME, given that we are clearly not accusing them of anything nor implying any wrongdoing. Whether they are innocent or guilty (and if the latter what crime(s) they are guilty of) it is and will remain factual that they have been widely named in multiple RS as the person arrested. This means that their name is and forever will be associated with the case - compare Murder of Joanna Yeates which has multiple prominent mentions of Christopher Jefferies, despite him being released without charge. He is also prominently mentioned in a hatnote at Chris Jefferies. Given all this I really don't see any justification for not naming Ali here, either now or after he is charged or released. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Even so, we have to wait for the police or a court of law to confirm it themselves. We never know if the off-chance that the person they have is NOT their suspect can actually happen. Love of Corey (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

There have been numerous requests to remove Brenton Tarrant's name from Christchurch mosque shootings because it is "glorifying the killer and giving him the publicity he wanted." But it isn't going to happen because his name appears widely in reliable sources and it is in the public interest to name him and discuss him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

In an interview about Amess's death, Jo Cox's husband spoke of the need to change our response to terrorism. He said "it's about denying terrorists what they want" and that "they want that infamy so let's give them neglect, let's not put their pictures on the front page of newspapers - we have to stop playing into the hands of being the inadvertent amplifiers of terrorism".[16] I agree, and we can play a part by denying them the pleasure of seeing their name included in this article. What happens in other articles is of no relevance here, and we can choose to be more responsible about what we add here. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ali Harbi Ali a big reader of Wikipedia is he? Not sure he'll have too much access right now. I appreciate your very laudable motivation, but WP:RGW also applies. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

X killed y' in the bottom of a wikipedia article is NOT 'putting them on the front page of the newspapers. You've constructed a false dichotomy between either 'glorify them and somehow give them what they want' and 'refuse to even acknowledge that they have a name' there is a middle ground. There are downsides to not naming them here, If someone looking for their name doesn't find the information here, they will look elsewhere and will find it in the front page of a tabloid with crosshairs and graphics with batman style 'POW!' symbols on. and we open ourselves up to claims of 'covering up the extent of terrorism' and 'censorship' etc. JeffUK (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and for any article about a killing "X killed Y" really is the bottom line. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If a judge has allowed the person to be named in media reports and people are seeing it on BBC, CNN etc, it is not the job of Wikipedia to right great wrongs by hiding it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A judge?? He's not even been charged yet, let alone got into a Magistrate's Court? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to cases like the Christchurch mosque shootings, where Jacinda Ardern said that she would refuse to use the killer's name.[17] This led to a slew of requests to remove Tarrant's name from the Wikipedia article, but since it is available in reliable sources there would be little point in hiding it, particularly if it was in the sourcing anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. I suspect any similar intervention, in this case, by Boris Johnson, would be very unlikely. In fact, it's far too late for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No, not to right great wrongs, but to not encourage further great wrongs by guaranteeing glorification here. If they know they will be totally ignored there will be less reason to do it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, you're suggesting that the names of all convicted terrorist killers be hidden in all the relevant Wikipedia articles, yes? Presumably this would also include the names of such killers as Salman Ramadan Abedi, who killed themselves in the process of their crimes, so that they could never be tried? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Not just hidden, but not included or mentioned at all, yes. I cannot see why the names are needed and think part of the reason they do it is for the free publicity they know they will be given in places like Wikipedia. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If WP followed your suggestion, (those accused of being) perpetrators of high-profile crimes wouldn't be completely ignored; their names would simply be excluded from WP. The media wouldn't change any of their policies as a result of us changing ours; the general public would still know their names. Jim Michael (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

But those hearing a name and wanting to know more would find Sweet FA here on Wikipedia, as there would be no search redirects either? Or at least, they might find Fanny, but never discover that she was murdered by solicitor's clerk Frederick Baker? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

We can only do our best, and refuse to give them the glory they crave here. The French press took a similar stand back in 2016.[18] -- DeFacto (talk). 21:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe after being charged is the suitable time. And I fundamentally disagree that neutrally informing "X is believed to have killed Y" or whatever is the most accurate phrasing is in any way glorifying. This is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. We have full articles on many criminals, if they are notable. That is the line for inclusion. And as mentioned above, the bottom line is that when the subject is a killing, a Wikipedia article or encyclopaedia entry or other complete coverage needs at minimum the victim's name and the Cluedo information: who did it, where was it, how was the victim killed. Kingsif (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the 2021 edition of Cluedo also has "who posted the fundamentalist hate videos on YouTube?" Although now hastily denied, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Charged

Ali has been charged and named by police.[19] WWGB (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems he'd been making practice runs to the Houses of Parliament, and to another MP's surgery, over the course of the past 2 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

And there you have it. Love of Corey (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Exact location

As I understand it, and as one would expect, the surgery was held in the church hall, not in the adjoining church itself. I would guess the assault and the medical procedures also both occurred in the same place. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

p.s. we did have an article about the church, for a short time, which might have clarified things. But it's now been deleted? Perhaps someone has access to a copy. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we had an article; see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_15#Belfairs_Methodist_Church. BTW there's a website and photos of the church here. As for the exact location in the building(s), your guess is as good as mine. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing isn't ideal. Some say church, but others (more accurately I suspect) say church hall.[20] This probably isn't Murder in the Cathedral.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah thanks. That must have been a redirect I saw. My guess would be the Fellowship Hall. Amess's own website does not make it clear (although I see that one had to make an appointment?) Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The Times has church hall in its headline here? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The full text requires a subscription, the part that I can read says "The knifeman struck at lunchtime yesterday during a constituency surgery meeting held by the veteran MP in a church hall in suburban Essex." It wouldn't make sense to hold the meeting inside the church, surely?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently on the £3 special deal: [21]. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Well that settles it. The article here shouldn't say "inside the church" because this is misleading.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is misleading, especially as Amess was a keen church-goer, albeit at the Catholic Church. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't sure there is a distinction, but found on their website a mention of " The church AND hall" (i.e. as two separate entities) [[22]] some sources do mention just the church with no mention of the hall. JeffUK (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you see that diagram from The Times? I guess it's under copyright and so can't be copied. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

My local church has a hall which is used for coffee mornings, line dancing etc. They aren't doing these things inside the church itself. This is why it is important to make a distinction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Weight Watchers is not generally seen as an act of worship. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a Methodist Church, right? So here I think the hall is the Church, because Methodist Churches do not have chapels as such. They have congregation in the same place as non-denominational pre-school and, apparently, political surgeries. As Amess was a Catholic, I don’t really see the relevance. Kingsif (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

What?? I can assure you that very many, if not most, Methodist Churches in the UK (or at least the many I have been in) have a church area for services (usually with a pulpit, organ and pews) and sometimes a connected but separate church hall. Are you suggesting that the diagram provided by The Times is totally wrong? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

And what has Amess being a Catholic got to do with it? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I was responding to the initial question, see the indentation, and have no idea what diagram you’re on about. If it shows a separate chapel and hall, and the location of the attack in the hall, what was the point in asking, Martin, hey? Every single Methodist church I’ve been in, in both the UK and US, have the one hall used for every purpose. Clearly that isn’t your experience, but you can’t use yours to ignore mine. I answered your question to the best of my ability, don’t treat me like an idiot. I obviously mentioned Amess’ faith because the question seemed poised to, like the past edits trying to make a big deal about someone being stabbed in a religious building, bring religion into the matter, and I wanted to point out that no matter how you spin it, this building would not be Amess’ place of worship. Kingsif (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Errm, I'm not trying to "spin" anything? Pardon me for missing your indentation. I had initially thought some readers might have assumed, from a glance at the infobox, that it was Amess' place of worship, as he was a regular church-goer. That's why I thought the use of "church" was misleading. Nor was I trying to "treat you like an idiot." And I certainly wasn't "ignoring" your experience; I was just responding with my own, which is obviously very different, with some surprise. I have no experience with Methodist churches in the States. Sorry, I had assumed you had read all of this thread before contributing. The link is still there above, in my post of 09:59. Do you take issue with that diagram, or perhaps you can't see it? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I assume it is right if the Times has it published. If you had it, I don’t know why you didn’t just edit the article, though, rather than ask if Methodist churches have separate halls... even just ask directly if it is something that needs attention because of the religious angle we both seemed to pick up on... Kingsif (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It was published in The Times article "David Amess killing: Church hall knifeman ‘made no attempt to flee’ after stabbing" at 12.01 am on 16 October. I asked my initial question at 09.13 on 17 October. I found the image at 09.59 on 17 October. The diagram does not carry its own copyright statement. But it's part of the published article. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It's important not to give the impression that this was like the death of Thomas Becket. If Amess had been killed inside a church, I'm sure the media would have made this clear by now. The Times graphic makes clear that the church has an adjacent hall and this is where the constituency surgery and the stabbing took place.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we can now all agree that the stabbing occurred in the church hall. The article now reflects this. I suppose if someone really wanted to, they could produce their own diagram, "based on" The Times one and the church's own website. The Times graphic is very useful as it also shows the timing. I was also concerned that calling it just "the church" would erroneously suggest a religious element to the killing. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

p.s. we now know that there may have been an extremist "religious element to the killing", but (as far as we know) in no way directly connected with Methodism per se. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• News now reporting it was in an office at the back of the church hall. Does that have RS? Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that. I also heard that on BBC Radio 4 News. But I am unable to find any online source that confirms it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Witnesses

This BBC source makes it clear that the witnesses to the stabbing were one of the two female assistants, who was taking notes for Amess and who screamed out when it happened, and "a small group of waiting constituents". Perhaps this detail should be added? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit WP:NOTNEWS. As long as it is in the sourcing an interested reader can click on the link. It doesn't have much bearing on the stabbing itself, because we know that there were no security guards present during the meeting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Stabbed 17 times

I reverted a good faith addition by User:WakandaQT here because the source was Metro. However I see it's also included by The Times here (paywalled). Should it be re-added? In both main body and lead? That source also mentions that Amess had just finished a zoom call before he was stabbed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC) p.s. same applies over at David Amess.

The Zoom call is irrelevant, but I would include the 17 wounds as an indicator of the intensity of the attack. WWGB (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I think the zoom call made him a few minutes late in starting, so it sounds like the suspect was first in the queue? Also some sources say that the stabbing took place in front of "two female staff" - is that at all relevant/notable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You asked whether the part about "in front of two female staff" is relevant and I would think it is, since it makes a huge difference in terms of identifying the perpetrator, etc. Darren.enlight (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. They were obviously witnesses. I think they should be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I cannot read The Times because of its paywall. I don't know whether the perp was "in the queue" with an appointment, or just rushed in and started flailing. But I still think the 17 wounds is significant by itself. WWGB (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That source does it make it totally clear. But here's another graphic if you can see it: [23]. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The graphic says "up to 17 times" which isn't quite the same thing as 17 times.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I had not spotted that. What a very odd thing to say. But the text says: "... 100 yards from where Amess was stabbed 17 times by a 25-year-old man." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Up to" is likely because the number hasn't been confirmed by official sources, there is conflicting information about the number from different sources and/or there is a degree of uncertainty (e.g. "16 or 17 times"). In those circumstances journalists will often pick the highest figure and quietly say "up to" whereas an official report would give the range or state the uncertainty. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that all makes sense. Should any number be added before official confirmation is provided {even though The Times is thoroughly WP:RS)? Surprised that the text and the graphic differ. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the text and graphic do differ, I'd be wary of putting a specific number down so of the two I'd go for "up to 17" and maybe something like "multiple times" would be better. I'd definitely avoid saying anything in wikivoice without multiple RS (I've not looked to see if there are more). Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

We have "multiple times" already. User:WakandaQT made the edit saying "multiple is pretty vague, source says seventeen". I have looked for other sources, e.g. Hindustan Times also says "... before he ended up stabbing the lawmaker 17 times". But, lo and behold, they attribute their story to the good old Daily Mail. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this some form of autopsy report or some poor and morbid police detective novel (or worse, a tabloid like the Daily Fail)? I don't see any encyclopedic reason to include the exact number if there is nothing else to be said about it beyond the mere number. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

People can easily be killed by a single knife wound. This sounds like what is commonly described as "a sustained and frenzied attack", although we would never use those words unless quoting the police. Post mortem results will very likely be presented in court, during a trial, which may be some way off. But yes, as I mentioned above, this detail did not escape the notice of the Daily Fail. The exact number is not important. But it looks like a simple fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The exact number is important, but obviously the approximate number (16-17 not 2-3) can be more valuable. Could we settle for perhaps "over a dozen" then? "Multiple" could just mean two. WakandaQT (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean the "exact number is not important" (16 or 17), probably, from an "ending someone's life" perspective. But of course we don't know. Maybe it was No 17 (or 16) that was the fatal one. Legally, sure it's important. It's another fact in the prosecution case. It would usually be obtained by a post mortem. But the paramedics would have had a pretty good idea of the number of wounds? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

But the paramedics would have had a pretty good idea of the number of wounds? Maybe, but it depends how the wounds were distributed. If you have widely spaced wounds (e.g. chest, both upper and lower arms, etc) they they'll have a greater idea than if they are all in about the same place when it will likely take a pathologist to be absolutely certain, although obviously they'll be able to tell the difference between 16-17 and 2-3 regardless of circumstances. The exact number isn't that important to paramedics anyway, all they care about is whether they've assessed and done their best to treat all of them or not. Thryduulf (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, fully agree. I must admit that I was surprised this detail was shared with the media, however it emerged Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Supporting Brexit does not mean someone is a social conservative

I mean obviously there's a link but the way it's talked about you would think that it was exclusively socially conservative as a position when that's not 100% true. Jeremy Corbyn famously was not 100% about the EU due to workers rights, which is not a socially conservative, but a left-wing economic position. George Galloway is not socially conservative and still supported the Leave campaign, due to similar concerns over workers' rights.--Phil of rel (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Phil of rel: Can you relate the above to a change in the article? — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It turns out I can't read, I thought it called Brexit a "socially conservative position". I would revert this talk page but I don't really know the procedures for doing that?--Phil of rel (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I actually think you're right, "a socially conservative politician who opposed abortion, supported capital punishment, and campaigned in favour of Brexit." does lump 'anti-abortion' 'pro capital punishment' and 'brexit' together a little bit. Not quite sure what to do about it though! JeffUK (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)