Talk:2019 London Bridge stabbing

Merge proposal for Usman Khan (militant)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm proposing we merge the article Usman Khan (militant) into the section about him in this one for now, as at present the biography doesn't contain any additional information. We can always split it again if that changes. This is Paul (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The person has committed more than one incidences of terror and repeating his entire bio does not make sense. There is much background to the attacker than that can be attributed to this attack only 75.154.241.1 (talk)

I agree. The two cover the same material. David Crayford ☎ 15:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree, he is only notable for this really.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Disagree - he is also notable for the plot for which he was imprisoned from 2012-2018. Jim Michael (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the proposition. --Razdelyon (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I oppose in this case. Quite a serious terror plot before, two notable events within a militant career, plus notable associations and a prison case. Kingsif (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Disagree - per the reasons given by Kingsif. 5.81.164.70 (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Merge: no real need for a WP:BLP1E article about the attacker right now, it can be covered here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. He was also notable for the 2010 stock exchange plot. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue the stock exchange plot is a more notable topic, but we don't seem to have an article about that incident. This is Paul (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose He is previously notable for his conviction and incarceration for another terrorist plot. This individual has a history apart from this single event. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose He has previous notoriety for other incidents outside of this one. Zerbey (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The terrorist was previously convicted of terrorism in 2012 for terrorist activity that took place in 2010. XavierItzm (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject althought the perpetrator in the 2019 London Bridge stabbing is notable in himself.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the subject. Has previous notable criminal and terrorist activities which was covered by reliable media. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. Tabletop123 (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Merge. Everything about him, including his prior conviction, can be covered adequately in 2019 London Bridge stabbing. WWGB (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Merge This article can handle all the priors of this criminal. ---- HammerFilmFan
• Merge The very fact that he didn't have his own article until this incident is the strongest possible evidence that he is not especially noteworthy outside this incident. Although it's true he has prior terrorist history, none of the plots he was involved in were themselves significant enough to have Wikipedia articles, and he played no special role in those un-noteworthy plots. If he gets his own article because of this incident -- which is true, because he hadn't previously, despite his supposedly significant history -- then everything in his own article can be covered in the incident article. (Being covered personally by reliable media is necessary *but not sufficient* evidence of notability.) Spartan S58 (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose We are currently having this Merge discussion, and an AfD vote at the same time. Choose one. Otherwise it will be POV pushing. Other than that, this is a clear case of WP:GNG as of today.BabbaQ (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm going to be blunt: the statement that "this article can handle all the priors of this criminal" is false. The article demonstrates that this man has a terrorist past and time in jail from a separate offense. The only reason anyone wants to merge this article is to focus on the attack itself and ignore the attacker, who could have been stopped if he had simply been kept in jail for a longer period of time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 12:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Merge. Policy guidelines are pretty clear at WP:CRIME which states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." That article now exists and previous criminal history can easily go there. Mramoeba (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

He's not known only for his recent crime. He's known for the stock exchange plot as well. Jim Michael (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I am referring to policy on crime/criminal where there are specific guidelines regarding perpetrators of crime, it's too much info to reproduce here which is why I wikilinked it but it is pretty clear he does not fulfill the guidelines. I am quite aware of his previous history and his specific biography received little press at the time. Mramoeba (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This person was notable long before the recent London Bridge stabbing because he had been the principal protagonist in a significant criminal conspiracy to carry out bombings in the UK. For his participation in that criminal conspiracy, he was charged, convicted and sentenced to indefinite imprisonment under legislation that quickly became controversial and was repealed by the next UK government, though not repealed retrospectively. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal under Lord Levenson overturned his original sentence. He was sentenced then to a definite term of imprisonment. On release from prison, but on a licence, and wearing a tracker, he was a guest at a conference for convicted criminals and prison officers organised by the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge. At the conference, he attacked one or more of the conference organisers, killing at least one of them. He was then pursued out of Fishmonger Hall onto London Bridge by fellow attendees at the conference, more than one of whom was a convicted criminal, at least one of whom who knew the killer from sharing a prison cell with him. This man is notable, and his story is far too complicated to be distilled into a subsection in the London Bridge stabbing article. 58.84.105.119 (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Merge, The article fails WP:GNG.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It easily meets those criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

How? This is Paul (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence at WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.. This person has, and continues, to receive significant media coverage, as of course does the incident of this article. 5.81.164.70 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe that only suggests that the previous event is significant enough for an article. This is Paul (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Merge – I do not agree that the subject was notable for his prior crimes, or that those prior crimes were notable. I do agree that all the relevant encyclopedic content about the subject can be adequately presented as part of the article about the 2019 London Bridge attack, including the subject's background, including his prior crimes and incarceration. The subject is notable because of this attack–and the attack is notable because of the way it was stopped more than anything, not because it was carried out by a notable perpetrator. All of this suggests to me we should have an article about the attack, and discuss the perpetrator and his background in that article, rather than having a separate article about the perpetrator. So, merge per WP:PAGEDECIDE. – Levivich 20:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject's article has now been expanded beyond the London Bridge attack. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The subject has had at least 2 encounters with police on domestic terrorism charges resulting in his death in the 2019 London Bridge stabbing. A separate article is warranted based on the subject's prominence in reliable sources. "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered." The significance of the event justifies an article on the alleged perpetrator. Bus stop (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Despite the article's nomination in Afd, I still feel that the subject is passing the WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm worried that if we have to merge we choose between stuffing this article with a load of too much detail, or losing background which we need. I think the easiest solution is to keep the separate article and then all the stuff about Stoke on Trent etc etc can live in there. 82.39.96.55 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I have closed the AfD for procedural reasons and because it was already clear that that discussion was unlikely to result in 'Delete'. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:BIO1E. Nothing else he ever did was notable enough to warrant a biographical article. TomCat4680 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Merge He might have passed WP:N a week ago, but we hadn't been prompted to write an article then. WP:N is the possibility of an article, not alone enough for the need for one. I don't see that we have any omission by placing all coverage in a section here - which can and should cover his past too. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Merge Regardless of whether he theoretically might have been notable enough for a biog article, interest in him is now focused on this stabbing. There MIGHT be so much biog material arising in the long run, the circumstances of his release MIGHT cause so much controversy that the situation will change, but on current evidence, he is of interest only because of this event - which can easily incorporate his 'backstory', including the prior conviction and any political, or other 'fallout' from his release/being allowed to go close to the location of his planned prior attack (the Stock Exchange). Pincrete (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• I Oppose merge taking into account the subject's notability and past history and convictions. I am solely pointing out his singular 'notability' here and that the London Bridge stabbing was 'one' of his crimes. Khan was previously convicted of such Al Qaeda inspired serious crimes:
  • Plans to bomb the London Stock Exchange
  • Plans to bomb the Houses of Parliament
  • Plans to bomb the the US embassy
  • Plans to bomb several religious and political figures
  • Plans to build a terrorist training camp in Pakistan occupied Kashmir
  • Attending terrorism-related operational meetings
  • Preparing to travel abroad for terrorist activities
  • Assisting others in travelling abroad for terrorist activities
  • Fundraise in the UK for terrorist activities

Althought the conviction for the above crimes were one, they all are seperate crimes in themselves.

I am surprised why an article hadn't been published on Wikipedia ten years ago. He was already a notable criminal then.Tabletop123 (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

these are not meaningfully, seperate crimes. Eight people were convicted of "engaging in preparation for acts of terrorism", clearly the court was persuaded that the eight seriously intended to commit some (ie one or more) of these acts. It is extremely unlikely that even the eight seriously intended to commit ALL these acts, even if they had not been caught after early acts. The most developed plan appears to be placing a bomb in a Stock Exchange toilet. Regardless, the number of targets considered by the eight, has almost no bearing on the need/value of a seperate article for Khan. Pincrete (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Merge as he fails the notability test at WP:PERP and this article can hold all we need to know about him in a sentence or two. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Merge. In Wikipedia terms, "notable" means "has been the subject of significant media coverage", not that (with hindsight) it seems now to have been important. At the time of the Stock Exchange plot, the guy and his mates were teenagers with delusions of grandeur. None of these 'plans' came even close to fruition. There was minimal press comment at the time. If the judge hadn't decided to impose a 'public safety' detention order, he might have got 30 days. So he is only notable in our terms for this offence and he will never be notable for any future event (even if some other nutter cites him for a so-called revenge attack). --Red King (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The Usman Khan article currently features:

• One 2008 BBC interview with Usman Khan

• Two 2010 sources, by Channel 4 and The Daily Telegraph

• Six Five 2012 sources, by The Daily Telegraph, BBC, and The Guardian

• One 2013 report to Parliament by the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

In addition, Khan's 2010 conspiracy that resulted in his previous terrorism conviction, MI5's Operation Guava (the Khan et al. plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange, kill 2 rabbis, open a Kashmir madrassa/terrorist training camp, etc., etc.), has its own Wikipedia entry, featuring 17 sources. One might say "it is notable", don't you think? XavierItzm (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The number of sources has little bearing on the need for a seperate article ... but nearly half of the 17 referred to above on 'Operation Guava' are from 2019, and many of course say nothing about Khan.Pincrete (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You do not address the Red King's concern, which is that according to him there was no "significant media coverage" of Usman Khan in 2008-2012. The contemporaneous Khan coverage back then, nearly a decade ago by the BBC, The Daily Telegraph, etc., gives the lie to his argument. Now, with regard to the Operation Guava article: the fact that such an article exists, and that Khan was a protagonist, goes to show that Khan's detailed bio should be incorporated in neither the Operation Guava article nor on the 2019 London Bridge Stabbing article; it should be separate from either incident.XavierItzm (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Red King, your comment 'the guy and his mates were teenagers with delusions of grandeur. None of these 'plans' came even close to fruition' I am sure is not made with all seriousness owing to the fact that the subject did eventually commit the crime on London Bridge and had he escaped would've no doubt commited more. If the law were to work on your line of thought we would've all sorts of murderers on the streets. There is no room for sympathy once evidence of wrong doing is proven. My apologies, I had to say this as others might be misguided by your statemnt. Regards. Tabletop123 (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. IMO, he is notable enough due to his involvement in numerous terrorist plots. Even if they did not succeed, his long career as terrorist is noteworthy enough. Applodion (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Lots of detailed sources about the subject's long history and so he's notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. One subject is the person, the other the event which happened in Fishmongers' Hall and on London Bridge. The article on this event has to reflect the action of the police which shot an unarmed man, which had been overwhelmed and fixated on the ground be several people, making it easy to handcuff him, instead of shooting to kill. This event merits an article separate from an article on the person shot dead by the police. --L.Willms (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

At the time he was shot dead, Khan was wearing a fake explosive belt, which police had to assume was real. If it had been, he could - & very likely would - have detonated it before the police were able to cuff him. It's not reasonable to describe Khan as unarmed. Jim Michael (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC) There will be an inquest into the circumstances of his shooting - assuming stories about the fake suicide belt being true - the inquest will almost certainly conclude that the shooting was justified. A police spokesman said that armed police are trained to continue shooting where they have good reason to believe that the person has access to an explosive device! Pincrete (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC) The events on London Bridge were recorded by different people from different angles. Stills taken from him lying on the ground after being shot show what looks like an explosive belt around his waist. Jim Michael (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Usman K. was held tight by a group of people, he was unable to move, his hands and feet immobilized — how does Jim Michael think that he could have triggered the purported explosives? Just by thought? The police did actually tell the people holding him "Let that man loose, so that we can kill him" (by whatever means, not necessarily by those words, but the cops obviously scared those who had immobilized K. so that most of them jumped away; one cop dragged the remaining one violently away. The sensible thing to do was to handcuff and possibly bind his feet, so that then those holding him could let him lose. It was a senseless act of murder of an disarmed man lying on the ground. --L.Willms (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Htf would you know he was "disarmed". It is acknowledged that he was wearing an apparent explosive vest; the police were not to know it was fake. And where was the second knife? Stick to the facts and stop asserting fake news. WWGB (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC) It's hardly fake news. There is some merit in what L.Willms has to say. 31.52.163.204 (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC) The facts are what everybody can see in the various videos of the event, not the fake news which are spread by the cops and the ruling class media. Fact is that Usman K. was captured and had no means to move. The claim that he had explosives on his body did not scare those people who had overwhelmed and forced him down on the ground, but U.K. had no means to trigger those purported explosives. Police could have simply put handcuffs on him and take him away. No, the murdered him in cold blood. That is irrefutable. --L.Willms (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC) The police had a duty to tell the public to move well away from Khan to avoid being killed/injured by what appeared to be an explosive belt. Had the device been real, he would only have needed to have free one arm & could have detonated it in a second. In addition, it's common for explosives to detonate prematurely. They can be accidentally triggered by means other than pressing the detonator, including by use of a taser, which is why a taser wasn't used against him. Preventing detonation was of great importance. Only after the event was it possible to determine that the device was fake. Attempting to handcuff him would have required getting much closer to him, increasing the risk for the police by doing so. Jim Michael (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC) This WILL be the subject of an inquest - we don't need to 'second guess' it's outcome. Pincrete (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons given by Kingsif.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose not one event, so BLP1E doesn't apply. Notability is for two separate topics, so a merge to one or other not obvious. Widefox; talk 19:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

But it was, essentially, a single event; I believe WP:BIO1E still applies, here. There was only one noteworthy event perpetrated by this individual. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- especially per WP:BIO1E. This is a person involved in a single incident; not noteworthy on his own. Why are there not articles for the perpetrators of the far, far more notable Murder of Lee Rigby? Or the 2016 Russell Square stabbing for that matter. Or the majority of the other stabbings in London? GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Usman Khan was not involved in only a single incident. On his very page, it says that he was arrested for terrorism in 2010, and convicted in 2012 GoldwaterMan1771 (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

In addition, he was released less than a year before this event, was wrongly regarded as having been rehabilitated & was invited to a conference on that basis. A lot of the media coverage is about the attacker, much more so proportionately than in regard to Rigby & Russell Square. Jim Michael (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Merge as per Spartan S58 and DeFacto. He didn't have an article before this release, so he appears not to have been notable in Wikipedia terms before this attack. Everything about him can be covered under the 2019 attack. Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment If this article is merged, some of the content should be merged into Operation Guava. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:1EVENTBIO not applies and he was known for his plot before this attack and training center in Azad Kashmir. Article in current state justifies a separate article. Störm (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Merge - Apart from the attack, he is not notable in any way. JamesSmith1988 (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC) 23:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This attack comes 10 days from UK elections and might be important to history. We need to keep separate information on the man. 70.26.231.207 (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Islamic terrorism

How is this article in a lot of categories, including such irrelevant ones as "filmed killings", but not in a single category to do with Islamic terrorism? The ideological background of the attacker is known and is also mentioned in the article. Put it in the categories!! 90.186.72.105 (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Whilst extremely UNLIKELY to be anything other than Is-Ter, no authority has explicitly said it is thus yet - which is the threshold for inclusion in the article or in categories - WP:DJTG. Pincrete (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Have any reliable sources mentioned his (possible) motive? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The consensus is to leave the motive to the investigators. I can remember various mass shootings where the media came up with all sorts of motives in the first 48 hours after the shooting that were not confirmed by the investigators. This case is different because it is very likely that the motive was Islamist extremism. However, this has to come from the investigators, not media reports.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Khan was, for over a decade, known to be an Islamic extremist. He was imprisoned for Islamist terrorist plots & there's no indication of him having changed his ideology. Jim Michael (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

But he was also at a meeting for offenders, this may have as much been about them not giving him the help he thought he needed. We need RS, not what we know to be true, to say what his motive was.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Bullet ricochet

Hi. This artcile is quite interesting. Not sure how it can be incorporated into this article, if at all. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It's an interesting detail, but the sourcing does not confirm that one of the rounds fired by the police went through the top deck of the double decker bus as a ricochet. This may well have happened, and if it did, it is lucky that nobody on the bus was killed or injured. If this is confirmed, it should go into the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I added this, and someone removed it, apparently because of the use of the word "possibly" - but that is exactly what the police, reported in reliable sources, are saying. So I've restored it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I originally wrote about this as part of an Investigations section. IMHO it should be put back there as it is an ongoing enquiry and is a contiguous element. David Crayford ☎ 19:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

We could say that about the whole event, and events leading up t it, all of which are being investigated by various bodies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. From the photos and witness statements I don't dispute it was a richochet. Police use of "possibly" is standard neutrality. Wherever it goes, I agree it should be on the page. David Crayford ☎ 21:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What about aftermath beyond the UK?

The publication of the Pakistani origins of Usman Khan led to political upheaval in Pakistan, with mobs calling for the editor of newspaper "Dawn" (Pakistan's major paper) to be hanged, as he had tarnished the reputation of the country. Even Pakistan's human rights Minister questioned the freedom of speech in this case. I added a few sentences on this peculiar aftermath in the article, correctly sourced, only to see it repeatedly removed by Slatersteven. Instead of an edit war I submit the question to a broader audience. Is the heading "Aftermath" only intended to describe events in the UK? Is the Pakistan aftermath relevant enough for a few sentences? Loranchet (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you went into too much detail over incidents which are only tangentially related to the attack, and really more about media and nationalism in Pakistan. One sentence might be ok, something like “In Pakistan there was controversy after a newspaper mentioned Khan’s Pakistani origin, with protesters calling it unpatriotic and defamatory.” P-K3 (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Loranchet: I was about to give a similar response to P-K3. The article is about the attack, and noting aftermath is important but 1. not as important as attack coverage, and 2. must be weighted, e.g. the most important 'aftermath' for a UK stabbing would be if it affected knife laws in the UK. Your coverage of Pakistan was excessively detailed and also written in a non-encyclopedic tone that was half journalism, half advocacy. A few sentences, rewritten neutrally, would be much better. Kingsif (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I was 50-50 on this. It was OK in principle but did have some problems with WP:DUE. Could be worthwhile if it was a bit shorter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

In my view definitely relevant. Blanking something twice that is relevant and properly sourced, just because it could do with a little editing is not appropriate. Davidships (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That's how things are supposed to work - the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes that is true, but I was bearing in mind WP:ROWN and that Loranchet's reinstatement answered the question that Slatersteven had asked. Davidships (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually it did not as has been pointed out above it still failed wp:undue. Not am I sure it even deseves one line as it is still not about the attacker, or the attack (for a start he was not Pakistani, he was British). Nor would I call a few demos "upheaval in Pakistan".Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

That's picky. It answered your question in good faith - though clearly not to your satisfaction. The addition noted, in the aftermath of the stabbing, a notably extreme and distinctive response by Pakistani government ministers and others to the accurate reporting of the attacker's ethnicity and strong connection to Pakistan. I agree with those above who suggest that a shorter mention would be proportionate. Davidships (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The reaction in Pakistan is relevant & should be included - a shortened & improved version of what was added. It's easily relevant enough. Our coverage of reactions & aftermath aren't limited to the country in which an attack occurs. There's a strong link to Pakistan in that the attacker was from a Pakistani family, visited Pakistan & was buried there. The Pakistani media covered it & there was a bad reaction to that coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your views. I consider the majority opinion to be that a shorter mention of the aftermath in Pakistan is indeed relevant, and I have done so, with a single sentence. Loranchet (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)