Talk:2020 Reading stabbings

Wait for confirmation of incident type

For an incident such as this to be asserted to be a 'terrorist' incident, we need to wait for reliably sourced confirmation of this. "Suspected" or "being treated as" is not confirmation, and if mentioned in the prose those caveats need to be added. Usually a court conviction for a terrorism offence is required for terrorism to be asserted in Wikipedia's voice as fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You're right (my latest edit summary was "Labelling this as terrorism is premature. It might be. It might not. Sky News don't give their sources for why it might be treated as such, so that's not WP:V or a WP:RS. Thames Valley Police is who we should follow for this categorisation, and they haven't used that label."). MIDI (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Gianluigi02 - ping to provide further context around why I have reverted your edit on List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_June_2020. Best, Darren-M talk 23:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I see that, despite there not having even been a charge, let alone a conviction for a terrorism offence, that we have broken Wiki's WP:VER policy again by asserting terrorism was involved and putting the article into terrorism categories. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

RS say that the police have declared it a terrorist attack. Jim Michael (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not the police who decide, it's the courts. We should wait and see if any terrorism convictions are made. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The page says "As of 21 June 2020, the attack is being treated as a terrorist incident". This is accurate to the sources that we have, irrespective of any terrorism convictions. I take your point about the categorisation though; that is worth discussing. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

But it is incorrect to assert it as a terrorist act until a conviction for such an act is confirmed. The best we can say is it's being investigared s a terrorism incident. The categories don't make that clear, so should be removed per WP:VER. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That page doesn't say that the verification of a (type of) crime has to be from a criminal conviction. Also, we're not naming the suspect or saying that he did it. Jim Michael (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Location Map Many vs OSM Location Map

Most incident maps are using OSM location maps in favour of the Location Map Many Template. My recent edit got reverted by (Buttons0603) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020%20Reading%20stabbing&diff=963637401&oldid=963637212

OSM of Reading looks a lot cleaner than original location map. Which one should be used? Smithr32 (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Map Many looks horrific. I'd say use OSM, and use multiple copies of it if we feel we need to also explain where Reading is (which, I think we do). @Buttons0603 you were the reverter here, can you help provide context around the revert please? Best, Darren-M talk 00:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Arrest location

There is footage on social media purportedly of the arrest of the suspected perpetrator of this incident. While I'm not for a moment suggesting we use this as a source, it may be helpful to know that despite statements that say "was detained at the scene" or similar, this arrest (if it does indeed show that of the perpetrator) did not take place at the scene. The footage shows the roundabout at the junction of the A329 road (part of Reading's de facto ring road, the IDR) with Friar Street. It's a little under half a mile from the site of the stabbings. The Council's list of roads closed for investigation would seem to corroborate this. HOWEVER, per WP:V we go with what is reported (the TVP statements are the best source at the moment)—I'm only posting this here so we can remain vigilant to ensure that a) we only include verifiable information, and b) we can keep our eyes open for any updated information on this that we can include. I'm very local to these events, so I'm able to help clarify anything or provide local context to any editors if it would be helpful. MIDI (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Page moved

Hi folks, I've WP:BOLDly moved the page to "2020 Forbury Gardens stabbings" from "2020 Reading stabbing". "Reading stabbing" is vague; Reading is a large place, and unfortunately, I'm sure many stabbings will happen there this year - and almost certainly others already have happened. Forbury Gardens is much more specific, and we know that there were plural stabbings, not just one, so "stabbings" is more accurate.

For consistency with e.g. 2017 Westminster attack, "attack" may be considered in place of "stabbings", but I think that should take an RM, as it might be controversial. It should probably also wait until terrorism charges are actually filed IMO, but that's a point of potential disagreement.

Cheers, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, As discussed on IRC, I'd support with this ultimately ending up as 'attack' but would want more robust confirmation of it being terrorism first. Thanks for the interim move. :) Darren-M talk 10:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the new title is that the vast majority of people outside Reading haven't heard of FG. Jim Michael (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: The old title redirects in; redirects are cheap. The actual title of the article should be specific enough to identify the actual incident, I feel. We don't call the Westminster attack the "London attacks", because that's not specific enough - this in spite of the fact that many RS's at the time were calling it that, because contemporaneously it was obvious which one they meant, but we're building an encyclopedia to last. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I take your point. However, there are some major differences. There have been many notable attacks in London, but far fewer in Reading. The only other notable attack in Reading is the murder of Mary Ann Leneghan. Westminster is world-famous; very few people outside R have heard of FG. Jim Michael (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fair; I suppose it depends whether you read WP:PRECISION as more or less important than WP:COMMONNAME (although I'd contest that "Reading stabbing" can ever be a reasonable name for an article, for the reasons I mentioned above). Anyone else's input here would be much appreciated. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The common name is not going to be anything like the current one; the media are reporting it as the Reading stabbing. No-one is saying that the article should be Reading stabbing; the year has always been present in this article's title, which adequately distinguishes it from the Leneghan murder. Jim Michael (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Another consideration is how people who haven't heard of Reading would read the name. It's probably unnecessarily confusing to have the word 'Reading' in the title here. Kingsif (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a good point, and one that I honestly hadn't even thought of, being a Brit; if you have no idea what Reading is, you're absolutely going to read that as reading. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

No, because it's a capital R; this issue was discussed in regard to the 2016 Nice truck attack. Jim Michael (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't that because 'nice attack' is an oxymoron and the concern was the impression of that? In any case, Nice is a big, famous city that most adults have heard of. Reading - whether in England or Pennsylvania, or elsewhere - isn't (FYI, Monopoly is different in every country, so it wouldn't bring any fame). Kingsif (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but they're both about possible misunderstandings regarding the name of a settlement. It's unlikely that it would be viewed as an attack against people who were reading, especially with a capital R. Jim Michael (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There's also a Reading, Pennsylvania made quite famous by the board game Monopoly. It's too early to determine COMMONNAME. Naming after the garden satisfies PRECISE. Reading doesn't. John from Idegon (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be an argument to move it to 2020 Reading, Berkshire stabbing.

A separate issue is shouldn't the title be singular? It was 1 attack by 1 person in 1 place, rather than multiple attacks. Jim Michael (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Jim Michael, that makes no sense. Who are you talking to? John from Idegon (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

And if you stick a person, no matter how many times, it's a stabbing, singular. If you stick multiple people, each victim is a stabbing victim and the attack should be termed "stabbings", plural. John from Idegon (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, Jim, you've mentioned people not knowing of the garden as a reason not to move, but that's a red herring. We didn't even have a school article on Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School when that event occurred. Most people had never heard of it. They have now. John from Idegon (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it clear that I was replying to your comment immediately above mine.

The Stoneman Douglas High School shooting was on a much larger scale; FG won't become well-known in the UK - let alone in the world. Many of the articles we have on mass shootings at a single location have singular titles, including that one. Jim Michael (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

To my mind - and I realise this is subjective, because all language is, but nonetheless - "shootings" carries with it an implication of multiple locations, because a "shooting" singular can affect multiple people. I would never use "stabbing" to refer to multiple people being stabbed; those are plural "stabbings", at least in my own English. I don't really have a policy or dictionary to point at and go "this is correct", but then nor would that make a great deal of difference, considering that these things are naturally subjective, and that English does not have a linguistic academy. Of course, consensus may determine that my own version of English is not what people think the article should be called - just trying to explain why I made the move I did! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I also think it is far, _far_ too early to say something will or will not become well-known. Still today, people remember Finsbury Park for the attack there in 2017. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Finsbury Park was already well-known for Finsbury Park Mosque, which had received a lot of media coverage for its extremism & support of terrorism from 1997, 2 decades before the attack outside it. Jim Michael (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

How known the location is isn't a factor. That can be handled with wikilinks. Catagories and list articles exist to help people find the article. Jim, please confine your arguments to policy. Otherwise, we'll be dancing long after the band goes home. Do you have any policy based arguments? We haven't talked much about COMMONNAME, but I'm guessing that is because like me, most editors feel we need more input for that. It sounds like, except for you, we have a consensus to keep this name. And it has been acknowledged that we'll maybe have to revisit it later viz COMMONNAME. Can you live with that? If so, we can close this discussion and move on. John from Idegon (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned that Westminster & Finsbury Park have long been well-known to show that attacks there didn't make those locations well-known - unlike Hungerford & Dunblane.

How well-known a location is will be a major factor in what the common name may become - it's highly unlikely to be anything like the current title - the media are consistently using Reading in their article titles about this attack.

If the area is specified, the year should no longer be in the title.

It would be better if more editors were brought here to add to the discussion. Jim Michael (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspect name

Kingsif reverted my sourced addition of the suspect's name: the Guardian, the BBC, Sky News etc have all reported the name. The revert was made with edit summary "BLP concerns, please discuss" - could you let me know what the concern was? Cheers! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME - try not to use the name of a person when they have not been convicted of a crime, especially in early reporting, when authorities could have the wrong suspect but being labeled a terrorist by Wikipedia can stick. Kingsif (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Cheers - I'd not seen the or is accused of having committed part of that policy. Nonetheless, it seems strange that even if RSes report a suspect's name, we cannot do so until the suspect is convicted based on that policy. The Telegraph is also reporting it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Serious considerations have to be made. Others argue that the press can make mistakes but Wikipedia shouldn't repeat them. In this case, we can at least say it's probably too recent. Kingsif (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, understandably. Thanks for the revert - although I fear we may need PC protection soon enough for the number of people not following that policy, in which case... hopefully my fears are unfounded. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, Kingsif WP:BLPCRIME is to give 'serious consideration -, it does not require an outright ban. Factually reporting that the individual has been arrested with the plethora of RS that Naypta has provided does not to me stray into BLP territory, so I would argue to retain. Best, Darren-M talk 13:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose putting the suspect's name in the article per WP:BLPCRIME. They were not a notable person before this, so there is no apparent excuse to add them. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto, Kingsif, and Darren-M: Someone's added the name back; I've reached 3RR on the page for the next few hours, so won't revert myself, but you may wish to be informed. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly support including the suspect's name. That section of BLPCRIME is to protect eg the high school principal arrested for drunk driving or bar brawling. There is nothing there saying the subject cannot be well known for the crime that is the subject of the article. I'd go so far as to say that if this isn't enough to make him well known enough to include his name, then this crime isn't notable enough to have an article. John from Idegon (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps an RfC may be appropriate here; I'm not sure how quickly some semblance of consensus on this might or might not appear otherwise. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  I've also added comments in the body of the article pointing out to people that there's an ongoing discussion about whether or not to include the name; if people continue to add it, I'll request pending changes protection, but AGFing for now that people just haven't seen the discussion before changing. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Good move on the hidden comment. An edit notice might be an appropriate addition if the comment goes unheeded. The suspect is only held on suspicion of murder; he has not been charged. Certainly at this moment we should avoid the inclusion of his name. WP:BLPCRIME says "For relatively unknown people, 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". Is this individual, at the moment, relatively unknown? Yes. Would inclusion of their name suggest they have committed or are accused of having committed a crime? Yes. Has a conviction been secured? No. With that in mind it's a strong oppose from me right now. MIDI (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOLD inclusion of the edit notice. MIDI (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@MIDI: I'm not sure they are "relatively unknown" now, in the sense that I pointed out further up here at least four different major UK RSes reporting on him - and in the sense that his name and photo are on the front page of the BBC currently, as well as on the Telegraph, and again his name on new stories on the front page of Sky News, the Guardian, and the Independent. His name is also reported in articles from RTVE in Spain, as well as El País.

I think you can reasonably make an argument that Wikipedia shouldn't necessarily follow them; I don't think you can make the argument that they are "relatively unknown" in the context of the attack at this point. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• I support including the suspect's name. It is widely reported by RSs. We are not protecting the privacy of a person when RSs widely report it already. All we are doing is making Wikipedia an inferior source for encyclopedic content. There is no outright ban on its inclusion. There is no requirement that they be notable beforehand. We do it on similar articles. 2604:2000:E010:1100:CD1F:E212:F875:244F (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't deny the value the newspapers put on naming the individual, but we're not comparable as a publisher. Clearly the relevant part of WP:BLPCRIME hinges on whether or not the individual is relatively (un)known, and that, unfortunately, is subjective. Incidentally, in our article on the Death of Andrew Harper last August (which occurred about 10 miles away from these attacks), which both User:DeFacto and I edited, the outcome was a removal of the defendants' names (and a subsequent WP:REVDEL) of the edits that involved a defendant's name – despite it being used across many media outlets. I'm sure this case was as big in the news (different circumstances; this was the death of a police officer in the line of duty); it may be worthwhile considering similarities in the two articles (whichever decision is made!). MIDI (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

Further input is requested regarding this article—specifically, whether or not a suspected perpetrator's identity should be included in the article. The individual's identity has been used by news outlets in the UK as well as in Europe. The existing discussion is above in the "Suspect name" section. MIDI (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• For me the appropriate time to name the person is if / after he is charged. This is when police and other authorities will name him and an inevitable process towards a high profile public trial in crown court will begin. After this legal process has begun, whether he's ultimately found guilty or innocent, his name will be notable. Until then, and it will probably only take a day or two but almost certainly less than a week, I see no rush to include the name and we should actually exercise some caution about press reports including it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Unrelated

My removal of the unrelated Murder of Mary Ann Leneghan from the "See also" section has been reverted. It seems that the only reason for including it is that it also happened in Reading, and in the same century. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

As you know, I also mentioned the relevant points that - like this attack - it happened in a park, was committed with a knife & was fatal. That's a lot of similarities: a) killing, b) of a person, c) with a knife, d) in a park, e) in Reading, f) in the 21st c & g) it received a lot of media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I know Britain is supposed to be less violent than the states, but I'd be willing to bet that worldwide, someone gets stabbed to death in a park somewhere every single day. John from Idegon (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I concur. I initially left it in (and added some context to explain why it was there) because WP:SEEALSO suggests the threshold is 'tangentially related', which I couldn't disagree with. Nonetheless it seems to be that this article is more about terrorism than it is about a stabbing, so I'd support the see also being struck. Best, Darren-M talk 20:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of see alsos

An editor has deleted most of the see alsos. Asserting there was no logic to them. That is wrong.

See wp:see also. "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics ... The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number."

The logic is that these are also fatal stabbings. In England. In the past few years. Where the government has charged that Islamist terrorism was the motive. --2604:2000:E010:1100:CD1F:E212:F875:244F (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Per my reply on your talk page, your edits introduced an implication that this incident is an Islamist attack. This has not been confirmed by the police and any news outlets that report it as such is speculation we can't verify (they'll all cite "sources"). Rather than including multiple other incidents across the country with an undefinable threshold for inclusion, could we compromise on an inclusion of a link to List of terrorism-related stabbing attacks? MIDI (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

So change the word "Islamist" to "terrorist."

Better to add back the three you deleted. They are all terrorist-related, as is your proposed list. But they are also all in England - your list is broader. And they are also all within the past few years (actually, three years) - your list is broader. And they are all fatal - your list is broader. 2604:2000:E010:1100:CD1F:E212:F875:244F (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)