Talk:2023 Nottingham attacks

Remember - we're not a newspaper

Per WP:NOTNP and WP:RSBREAKING, remember this article does not need to be a running commentary of the situation and investigation as it progresses. When editing, take care not to introduce incorrect information in order to "be the first" to make the change.

To quote RSBREAKING, "Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors." Couruu (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. People come to wikipedia to want to know certain facts. Wikipedia should provide these facts, in an objective, accurate manner. Even newspapers make objective, factual statements, such as "31 years old" (if it is correct, but I believe this is correct). The "breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies" makes no difference because many wikipedia articles already DO provide incorrect statements, so wikipedia is not 100% fail-proof. Thus, wikipedia SHOULD report, and simply be objective about it. It does not need lecture units what to display and what not - people come to wikipedia expecting accurate statements to be made. "It is better to wait a day or two after an event" - no it is not. I don't want to have to arbitrarily wait for 2 days because some random user thinks wikipedia needs to be slow in processing. Wikipedia should be FAST and accurate, not SLOW and accurate. "than to help spread potentially false rumors" that's why it is required to provide cross-refence links and references. 2A02:8388:1641:4980:52EB:F6FF:FE28:C651 (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

RSBREAKING and NOTNP aren't essays, they're guidelines - you may disagree, but that's how the system is run. Additionally, "many wikipedia articles already DO provide incorrect statements" is a misunderstanding; compare to WP:WHATABOUTX. Just because other articles do it does not mean it is the correct thing to do.

I also think you might've misunderstood my original message - I'm warning against people hearing about something on the grapevine and adding it to the article without following proper verification processes. I agree that in an ideal world Wikipedia should be fast and accurate, but accuracy should always be prioritised over speed. Couruu (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Victims' names

All three victims have been publicly named and have appeared very widely, often pictured, in the press. They were Barnaby Webber, Grace Kumar and Ian Coates, e.g. Sky News. Should their names now be added to the article? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Some media orgs stating their names doesn't mean that we should. It's not useful info for readers, nor does it help them to understand what happened. Also, the families may want privacy. Their ages & occupations are their only biographical info that we need to include. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure the families will want privacy in their grief. But having released pictures and biographical details of their loved ones, I'm not sure that the families have any interest in keeping their names out of the public domain. Quite the reverse, in fact. And I'm not sure what difference it would make to them whether their names were published here or not. Victim's names are also not generally sub judice. I would suggest that the fullest "understanding" of these suspected murders would include the names (and probably also pictures) of the victims. Perhaps there is an agreed Wikipedia policy on this. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

WP Articles about attacks against multiple people don't usually include images of victims. Though we don't include names of surviving victims, there's no policy, guideline or consensus regarding whether or not to include the names of those killed. There have been discussions regarding this matter on the talk pages of dozens of articles about attacks, many of them very long. Whether or not there's consensus regarding this matter on a particular talk page & in which way depends on who contributes to that specific discussion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I see. So if one person gets killed, we have a picture. If it's more than one, there's no picture because....? Again I assume there's no agreed written policy on this. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Articles such as Murder of Sarah Everard are different. There's one victim, whose name is in the title. Such articles focus a lot more on the victim. They often include a photo of the victim & a substantial amount of their biographical info. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I see. It seems a little unfair to focus a lot less on a victim, just because they were not the only one. I don't see how the possible murder of Barnaby Webber makes the possible murder of Grace Kumar or Ian Coates any less notable. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Articles such as this one focus on the attacks first, the perpetrator second & the victims third. The victims were merely very unfortunate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They didn't have an active role & aren't the subject of the article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that photos would take away from the focus of the article, but names would probably be fine. Other articles such as Orlando nightclub shooting have lists of the victims, and that particular one had 49. ~ OneRandomBrit (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree the victims were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But it might we difficult to separate attacks, perpetrator and victims. All seem equally essential to this event. Until more is known about the suspect, this article is perhaps 50% about the attacks and 40% about the victims? I guess a trial and conviction will eventually swing the balance. I think we're unlikely to get any pictures of the attacks, even if they are "the subject of the article". We have a lead image of a city skyline and that certainly is not the subject. 86.187.227.8 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The Suspect section is very short because there's little known about him. More info will be released & added to it after further action is taken against him. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should include the names of those killed in these attacks. Their identities are well verified and have been widely shared. Their families have been speaking to the press and at a public memorial, so they are not seeking privacy. There is no specific policy, whether WP:NOTMEMORIAL, aspects of WP:BLP, or WP:CRIME, that prohibits listing victim names or details - we just shouldn't write biographies of them or tributes to them (standalone or as part of the article). Fences&Windows 18:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe we should not add the names unless we can explain here what value they add to the understanding of this event. Currently I don't see any such explanation, so I do not support adding them. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Not only have names and pictures of those killed been very widely published in the press and on TV, but the family members of each of the three victims have now spoken very publicly about them, at two of the public vigils in Nottingham. In view of this, I am convinced it would be wholly appropriate to add the names. This will have the benefit of making the article easier to read and thus aiding an "understanding" of what happened. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You need to remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so does not need to include all the stuff that news media does. How do you think the names will make the article easier to read? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

People's names are generally more easily remembered than anonymous vague descriptors. Readers will also associate the names with those they have seen and heard in the media. A person's name is perhaps the most fundamental detail about them. So an encyclopaedia ought to at least get that right. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@205.239.40.3 and @DeFacto - an interesting essay on this is WP:VL. Couruu (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Couruu, but I'm not sure that's entirely relevant. That essay is about indiscriminate lists of names. This discussion is about just three people, described in the text, whose names have received very widespread media coverage. I just don't accept the argument that the names do not help the reader "to understand what happened". The article currently names the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, Paul Williams, Vice-Chancellor Professor Shearer West, the Lord Mayor Cllr Carole McCulloch and Leader of the Council Cllr David Mellen. Yet all these people were really just on the periphery of the event. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to "butt in", just more demonstrating that WP doesn't really have a clear policy, as the only essay I could find was relatively undiscussed. Not commenting on the overall discussion, since I don't really have an opinion here. Couruu (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Then yes, I agree. A clear policy seems to be somewhat lacking. At one end of the scale we have George Floyd etc... at the other end perhaps terrorist attacks that kill hundreds of people? Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Crime categories

Can any categories, such as Category:June 2023 crimes, be added before the suspect has been charged and/or convicted? Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

We usually do when it's clear that crimes were committed, although we don't include murder cats when suspects/defendants are in custody &/or having criminal proceedings taken against them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Clear to whom exactly? Clear to you? Does the CPS routinely ring you up for a bit of advice? I thought the UK had an entire judicial process to establish whether or not any crime had been committed. I thought everyone was innocent until proven guilty? 86.187.160.38 (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

How could there not have been any crimes committed? Three people were stabbed to death in the street. The article title & most of its many references use the word attack - not accident, incident etc. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. It's almost impossible for you or I to imagine how these could have been anything other than crimes. And popular media reporting supports this stance. But you have failed to address the issue of presumption of innocence. I am very surprised that Wikipedia does not have a clear written policy on this matter, for articles such as this. Given the number of articles we have on shootings in the US, this very same question must have come up very many times already? 86.187.228.40 (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

We're not saying that the accused committed crimes. We're saying that crimes were committed, the police arrested a man & the Crown Prosecution Service charged him. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Categorising the incident as a crime implies that a crime has definitely been committed. As the police have charged someone with criminal offences, we are, in effect, with our categorisation, removing the option that the accused may be responsible, but without having committed a criminal offence. WP:BLP is very clear on this, it says: editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Let's wait and see if a conviction is secured first, then decide on the categories to apply. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Um, I just had to re-read that twice... "... that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." But the police have now accused him. He has been charged with triple murder. This strongly suggests that he has committed these offences. But any conviction is still quite a way off, I think. So that's quite a strange "very clear" policy? 86.187.228.40 (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't name him or declare anyone the perpetrator. Backed by many RS, we're saying that a series of attacks were committed & that a suspect was arrested & charged. All of that is clearly relevant & in the article. It makes no sense to not categorise the attacks as crimes. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I see, Maybe that policy should make it clear what's allowed if the person is named and what's allowed if they are not named? 86.187.228.40 (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if we named him, we still wouldn't be saying he committed any crime, merely that the police suspect & CPS accuse him of the attacks. It's commonplace for innocent people to be suspected/accused of crimes. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Well Category:Crime is pretty broad. There is no actual description at Category:Crime in Nottinghamshire as to what that means. Perhaps it's misguided to assume that including any article in a Crime Category means that a crime has been committed. It might just mean, as in this case, that it involves the judicial process? 86.187.228.40 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

We're categorising the attacks, not the suspect. RS & this article are very clear that serious crimes were committed. The crime cats are verified, defining, neutral & well-sourced. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

By categorising the attack ourselves, prior to any court decision, we are prejudicing what happened. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

We're not. The article clearly describes this series of events as attacks. The many RS which back it also do so, none of which suggest that it may not have been a crime. All those mainstream media sources wouldn't clearly & unambiguously describe the events as attacks/crimes if they'd be prejudicing legal proceedings against the accused by doing so. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jim 2 Michael, what it looks like and how the press choose to portray it may well differ from the final conclusion. That is because we do not have enough evidence to call it. Wait for the court cases to complete, rather than prejudge - per WP:BLPCRIME. There is no deadline. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The article isn't a biography. A man whom we're not naming has been charged, so we shouldn't avoid suggesting he's accused; we state it clearly. We're not suggesting he's the perpetrator; it's commonplace for innocent people to be charged with crimes. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that we would be asserting that a crime has been committed, and we are not absolutely sure of that until court proceeding are complete. Let's not go around this loop again. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself, mate. You're not "asserting" anything. You're just adding a bit of useless meta-data so that you and your anorak Wiki gnome chums can decide if it's in your favourite little Wiki Project or not. Everyone already knows he's a murderer. The families just have to go through the agony of waiting for the trial. You really think this Wikipedia article will affect the outcome in any way whatsoever? loop yeah. 86.187.174.193 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

IP 86. That's a little unfair. Even if the general reader doesn't understand what article categories mean, or even ever read them, editors still have to follow Wikipedia guidelines. It's just that guidelines do not seem to be very clear in this area, allowing for contrary perspectives to develop. The article seems in pretty good shape apart from this very minor disagreement. The article can simply not assume that the suspect is guilty. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"Crime" has a dictionary definition, and not matter how the category is described in it, that definition still stands. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The the implication as much as what we say. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

That argument doesn't work because the name is implicit from the cited sources. Wait until the court cases have finished and we know for sure. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Under what circumstances could someone be responsible for all the attacks, yet not have not committed any crimes? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Self defence? I'm sure you can think of several others too. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

That certainly does not fit with the witness statements and other facts reported here. The suspect drove a van at pedestrians in self defence? Really? But all this relies on hearsay and subjective judgements by individual editors. I'm still surprised that policy is not clearer. Simple questions: do you believe that any of the "Crime" categories imply that a crime was committed? On what basis? 86.187.227.64 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not for us to judge. Wait until any court proceedings are completed. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. The simple questions were about Wikipedia, not court proceedings. It is for us to judge what Wikipedia categories mean. In fact it's actually up to us to define what they mean. Category:June 2023 crimes in Europe looks pretty clear as it uses the word "crimes". But what do you understand e.g. Category:Crime in England to mean? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

If the category uses an English word, then the contents become categorised as the dictionary meaning of that word. That is the problem here. We cannot re-define "crimes" to mean anything else. If we mean not just "crimes", then we need to rename the category to say what we mean. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Glossary of Brazil investigative terms has Category:Crime. Does this mean it describes a crime that has been committed? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, I've never been involved there. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious that it doesn't? There are plenty of articles like this. This was just a random example. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I've read & heard a lot about these attacks & this discussion is the only place I've heard a suggestion that they could've been self-defence. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

That's just one lawful excuse, there are obviously others. The fact is that we do not know what the courts will decide, which is why we must wait per WP:SUSPECT, until they have decided. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree we can't add anything like Category: Murder in England, until there is a conviction. But the suspect is now in custody, so I'd see e.g. Category: Crime in England as quite reasonable, whatever the outcome. Three of the categories used at the bottom of this Talk page have the word "crime". 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The event has not been proven to be a crime, so we cannot categorise it as being one. It's very straightforward. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you possibly explain to me why some Categories use the word "crime" and others use the word "crimes"? Perhaps you consider these two words to be interchangeable. Are you disputing the use of the Categories on this Talk page? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You need to gives examples of the cats you mean. As for this talkpage, I do not believe that it is a crime or crime-related article for the reasons given above. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Then I think you might want to find away of removing them. Although I'm not fully convinced that general readers understand what article categories mean, or even ever read them. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Not known

The article now says that Calocane was not known to the security forces. He seems to have appeared at MI5 in 2022 and demanded that he be allowed in. 2A00:23C7:99A5:9E01:CC21:8902:6610:6805 (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have a RS source, that should be corrected. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

MI5 told the "Sun" newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:99A5:9E01:CC21:8902:6610:6805 (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, not sure The Sun is regarded as RS. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There is extensive coverage of the suspect's background here and here. He allegedly grew up in Haverfordwest in Wales. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Of these The Daily Telegraph is RS, but the Daily Express is not. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The Sun story is here but we'd can't use it as The Sun is not RS. Their own source is some anonymous "security source". The story also appears in the Daily Mail: here, which attributes it to The Sun. But I think the phrase "not known to the security forces" is generally interpreted as meaning "was not on a security service watch list". 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

MI5 and MI6 staff are usually anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C8F:A400:60A9:5254:8F74:B29F (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems that the defendant is not being charged with the second driving attack, although two people were injured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C8F:A400:60A9:5254:8F74:B29F (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-65937873 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C8F:A400:60A9:5254:8F74:B29F (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

To save time and effort in the judicial process, and because of the relative seriousness of the main allegations, it's likely that, in any forthcoming trial, these matters would be "taken into consideration", rather than tried as separate charges. 86.187.228.40 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Suspect's name

The suspect's name has been added here. But I think concerns of sub judice at Wikipedia mean that it should be removed. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The name was removed here with the summary "no value in including name". 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It's usual to include the name of the accused after they've been charged with major crimes. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems he also uses an alias: "The suspect, 31, who gave his name in court as Adam Mendes, appeared in the dock at Nottingham Magistrates' Court on Saturday wearing a grey T-shirt and grey jogging bottoms." 86.187.228.40 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that the suspect's name already appears five times in the article, in the headlines of five of the references. I guess this is unavoidable. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Page protection

In January, MIDI semi-protected this article, Special:Diff/1197899972; any idea why the silverlock icon is not showing?-- 82.13.47.210 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

MusikBot II often adds these, not sure why it didn't in this instance (not that one should rely on any other editor – bot or otherwise – for a task). While the current protection has been successful at stopping persistent vandalism from unregistered users, I'm going to remove it (rather than adding {{pp}}) to see how we go – but this page is on my watchlist and I will reapply the protection if and as soon as necessary. MIDI (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks, it's just me being OCD. I didn't even know this existed as it was returned by a different browser/search (Chrome/DuckDuck Go), usually would be Firefox/Google, so wanted to know the origin date, as I have been maintaining University of Nottingham#June 2023 stabbings. rgds,--82.13.47.210 (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Two more injured

The two injured in the Sherwood street area are not named. It seems that Calocane was not prosecuted for attacking the two. Ans45df45 (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)