Talk:2020 Reading stabbings

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2020 Reading stabbings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

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

Archives: 1: 3 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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

Berkshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

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

British crime (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles

Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Request for revert reason[edit]

Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello De Facto, Please could you tell me why you reverted my edit of the Casualties section of the 2020 Forbury Gardens Stabbings article, in which I stated that the victims were gay/homosexual, and gave a source reference? This is important information which people have a right to know. Thank you.Cjcooper (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cjcooper: my reason is in my edit summary: "unexplained - why?". Why should that be added, especially as the main body of reliable sources do not mention it. See WP:DUE. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The victims' sexuality is no more a factor in their death than their hair colour. You do not demonstrate why it is "important" to include. Such an inclusion could be construed as victim blaming. WWGB (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the best course is. But the WWGB argument is quite silly. Hair colour of the victims is not mentioned in articles. So the analogy fails completely. 2604:2000:E010:1100:3CB1:2CAD:16BF:6112 (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be mentioned. --TrottieTrue (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about category removal[edit]

Moved here from my talkpge. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want you [DeFacto] to explain to me why you deleted this category
Category: 2020 murders in the United Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerberon-900 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerberon-900: I explained it in my edit summary: "not supported in the article". Per WP:CATVER, categorisation must be verifiable, and as the article doesn't provide that verification (probably because the suspect hasn't yet been tried for murder), then that category should not be used. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attacker pleads guilty (11 November)[edit]

BBC reporting that the attacker has pleaded guilty to three murders. Presumably this could/should now be incorporated into the article? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done, then I updated the lead and added the new categories. Surely now this man has admitted to three murders, he can be named on this page. I've just obeyed the notices to play it safe Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, he can be named. No walking on eggshells any longer. WWGB (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It was later confirmed that Saadallah faked a mental illness, and was acting in pursuit of his extremist ideology."[edit]

The two sources given here do not say that the attacker "faked a mental illness", just that the judge said he played up mental illness while being questioned by police (the judge is not a mental health professional). The attacker here was under the care of multiple mental health services - he was certifiably mentally ill, this was simply not judged to have played a major role in these attacks. This part of the article is therefore very poorly phrased - OK to remove or is there a better way to phrase this?

Mmslynceaie (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]