Talk:2020 Reading stabbings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wait for confirmation of deaths

We need to wait for reliable sources to confirm number of deaths, no take speculation over this. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not speculation. The Telegraph, a reliable source, literally says 3 dead. Any further reversion of this source will be seen as vandalism. Buttons0603 (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies I will retract the above comment as the Telegraph have now moved from "3 dead" to "3 feared dead". Buttons0603 (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

BBC and Reuters have already both changed their reports to "sources suggest" or some other flimsy line—they're both clearly using the Thames Valley Police (TVP) statement. MIDI (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Unsupported category

Without a reliably sourced court conviction to confirm it, how can we justify putting this article into a murder-related category? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: We can't. Good spot; removed. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Mass stabbing?

All we know for sure is that two people are being treated for injuries. Can this really be called a "mass stabbing"? Or do we have a consensus amongst the reliable sources that it is indeed such a thing? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

DeFacto, agree - have amended for now. Albeit, I can't imagine it will be long before we have a RS that backs that up. At this stage, we don't have a direct confirmation that the injuries that have led to hospitalisation are stabbings. Darren-M talk 23:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto and Darren-M: For what it's worth, I was the one who re-added the "mass stabbing" wording when it was first removed. I don't think it's a substantial sort of original synthesis to say that something where we knew at the time that at least five people had been victims of a stabbing was a "mass stabbing", but I can understand the disagreement - and the point is sort of moot, because the current wordsmithing is *far* better than how it was previously anyway. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: as I say above, all that was confirmed by per reliable sources in the article at the time of my post was that two people were being treated for injuries. The rest was speculation. Now we know six people were stabbed. Are there any reliable sources now calling it a "mass stabbing"? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not specifically aware of any, no - to be clear, I think we should keep the current wording, it's better than "mass stabbing". Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:32, 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)

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)

See also attacks

Murder of Mary Ann Leneghan

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)

But she was stabbed to death in a park in Reading, the same town as this attack - it's not merely a park somewhere in the world. No-one's suggesting adding all park stabbings to the See also section. Jim Michael (talk) 09:24, 22 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)

Others

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 (worldwide). 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)

Even if confirmed as islamic terrorism, the connection is insufficiently close to justify being a 'see also' IMO. That is why we have categories and other ways of tying articles. Were we to list every terrorist incident and/or every fatal stabbing and/or every Islamic incident in the last X years in UK/Europe, the list of see-alsos on each article would be impossibly long. A close, eg geographic connection needs to exist for inclusion to be justified or useful.Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

See also, categories, and lists all work in tandem, not to the exclusion of each other (though people often are confused because of the large overlap between categories and lists). The same as leads, infoboxes, and text. The synergies that lead to acceptable overlap are discussed at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates ("The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems."). The incidents deleted number three, so that's not an issue. 2604:2000:E010:1100:1D29:7812:9826:44C8 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

Without proof (a conviction) we cannot assert that it was an act of terrorism, just that it is being investigated as such. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Usually the English courts do not rule on terrorism. An act like this is going to be prosecuted as murder with a potential conviction for murder. Really, it's the police and media who make determinations of terrorism, and for the record, I don't think either have so far said enough for us to say that it was terrorism. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The judge may comment on the motive, and there may be a charge for a separate terrorism related offence. For now, we have no reason to call, and should not attempt to call it ourselves. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 22 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)

This appears to have now been clarified in the news and added to the article appropriately. MIDI (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

LGBT attack?

Was this an example of Violence against LGBT people? [1].--Egghead06 (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

If we follow our article and define this as "violence directed toward their sexuality or gender identity", I see no evidence for this in that article or elsewhere. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch at the moment. As zzuzz says, our article's definition of such violence would imply that the reason for the Reading attack was the victims' sexuality or gender identity. We don't know a motive, so it can't (yet) be described specifically as violence against LGBT people. That may of course change, but for now we should wait until we know more. MIDI (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7103:4EB4:D27F:3D0D (talk) 09:43, 23 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)

My two cents on the matter is that London's neighbourhoods and landmarks are sufficiently well-known to justify titles like 2017 Westminster attack and 2017 London Bridge attack - Forbury Gardens is not. There are under a quarter of a million people in Reading. People around the UK will be going to work and saying "did you hear what happened in Reading", not "did you hear what happened in Forbury Gardens", it is not Hyde Park. I can't see this as being interpreted as an attack on people who are reading, nor do I think that such a misinterpretation could cause any offence. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed - whatever the common name of this, it certainly will include Reading & not FG. Even with this attack in the news, the large majority of people in the UK - let alone outside it - wouldn't know the name of that small park. Had it happened in a well known London park, then the park's name would rightly be in the title, as in Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings. Jim Michael (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:PRECISE suggests we shouldn't be overly specific with titles. In my opinion we should aim for the least specific title that still holds accuracy and does not introduce ambiguity. "Reading stabbing(s)" is not specific enough (per another incident with a Wikipedia article), so the next logical step would be to remove ambiguity by adding the year. As previously noted, "Forbury Gardens" is simply not well known enough for the article subject to be inferred from the article name alone. MIDI (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Title

As the stabbing is confirmed to be a terrorist incident by authorities, we should change the title in "2020 Forbury Gardens attack". Gianluigi02 (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Why? See June 2017 London stabbing and 2019 London Bridge stabbing. --2604:2000:E010:1100:1D29:7812:9826:44C8 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it's only confirmed that it is being investigated as one and that someone has been arested under a terrorist act. It won't be confirmed, one way or the other, until any court cases arising have concluded. For now we cannot assert in Wikipedia's voice that is was actually an act of terrorism. 06:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A bigger issue is having FG rather than Reading in the title. Jim Michael (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

England or UK?

I don't care, and don't express an opinion, but see some movement between describing Reading as being in England (which is what the wikipedia article on it says; Reading, Berkshire ... actually, specifically South East England; same with Berkshire ... and then England is used in 2017 London Bridge attack) or UK (which it was most recently changed to in the first sentence of this article). I'm not sure what the criteria are, but this being wikipedia I imagine that there may be some. --2604:2000:E010:1100:7103:4EB4:D27F:3D0D (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The international address is the United Kingdom. UK is the sovereign state, England is one of the UK's constituent nations. 'England' does not fully qualify its location in the international context of this encyclopaedia, so I favour 'United Kingdom'. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary: England not only "fully qualifies its location in the international context", but is more precise. And England is valid in international addresses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure it's more precise, but then just 'Reading' is even more precise. I think the point here is to define the sovereign country that it sits in, in the international context, and that is the UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

No "Reading" would be less precise, as there are a number of places with that name. I don't believe that there is any policy requiring us to "define the sovereign country"; the use of England in such cases is commonplace, both on and off Wikipedia. It seems to be no more than a matter of personal preference. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment : Agreed with DeFacto, "England is more precse" is irrelevant here, as Reading is the precise location of the attacks and UK the sovereign state.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

England or UK is acceptable, but not both together. Sovereign state is not always the bottom line for identifying the location. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Map dot

The map dot on the inlay map (i.e. the one covering the whole of Berkshire) is wrong. The markup in the infobox is correct inasmuch as the coords for both maps are the same, so something else is up. I have neither the time nor the knowledge to fix this... hopefully someone else does! MIDI (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:DIY :) MIDI (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Names of those killed

An editor has deleted the names of those killed, saying that the reason is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. But they are not living, they are dead. I think it is fine for their names to be included. --2604:2000:E010:1100:1D29:7812:9826:44C8 (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

See the WP:BDP section which explains that the policy also applies to the recently deceased. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I read it. It does not mandate deletion. --2604:2000:E010:1100:1D29:7812:9826:44C8 (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

True, but there have been discussions on many talk pages of articles about incidents in which multiple people were killed. In most cases, consensus was against including victims' names. I see no reason to include them here. Jim Michael (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The policy doesn't mandate deletion. And there are certainly similar stabbing incidents where names of victims who are no longer living persons are included. For example, 2019 London Bridge stabbing. I see no reason to delete the names. We reflect (and will ultimately here reflect I expect) names of perpetrators who are alive. Surely there should not be great difficulty concluding that the living persons guideline does not cover these people who are not living persons. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7103:4EB4:D27F:3D0D (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You've got this the wrong way around. Those names were added without consensus, so per WP:BRD should be removed pending a consensus being reached. And the policy mentioned above does not mandate their inclusion, quite the contrary. Wait for the consensus to develop. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not about BLP or BDP. The inclusion of victim names had been discussed at many attack articles. The current position is that inclusion must be handled on a case-by-case basis, usually by reaching consensus on the talk page. Here is the relevant link: [2]. WWGB (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly - wait for consensus and do not try to force it in just because it isn't actually completely prohibited by the above mentioned policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with including the names, so I'd support their inclusion. It would fit well into the prose we currently have in the article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The reasons to omit the victims' names are the same as those mentioned on many other talk pages, which are chiefly the victims' families' privacy & the names being of no use or relevance to over 99% of readers, for whom the names mean nothing & don't help them to understand the events. Jim Michael (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Sub judice template

I've removed the {{sub judice}} template from this page. Don't get me wrong, this is an ongoing legal process and we need to be careful about WP:BLP and other standards. However, when it comes to this template, I think the need for it is proportional to the probability of good-faith editors unknowingly breaching restrictions. It's useful for example when there are court injunctions affecting certain classes of editor, and there are none here (that we know of). Otherwise the template is quite distracting. By all means put it back or make a comment if you disagree. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm the one who added it, so obviously I disagree. I think the threshold for including this template, as well as WP:BLP templates, should be low. I view it as a "better safe than sorry" kind of deal. TompaDompa (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Ahead of any trial we need to err on the side of caution, and it's not really good enough to take an approach that the template is only needed once an issue arises. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:24, 27 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)

I support adding the suspect's name, per Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED. Readers of Wikipedia can easily click the references cited in the article and the link is there. The news is already out, since the suspect is not formally convicted yet wording in the article should abide by the standards set by WP:CRIMEPROJ to address suspects that have not been formally convicted for their (alleged) crimes. Under the oppose logic, Osama bin Laden's name should not be mentioned in the September 11 attacks article since he was never formally convicted for his role. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is completely irrelevant here. Nobody is claiming that the name is offensive. TompaDompa (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No, WP:NOTCENSORED is completely relevant. The crux of the argument for not including the name of the suspect arrested is that he has not been formally convicted yet. Wikipedia is not censored over what some people might think, and if including the suspects name will offend those who think he is innocent or his relatives, than so be it. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The crux of the argument for not including the name of the suspect arrested is that he has not been formally convicted yet. Yes, and the relevant policy there is WP:BLPCRIME, not some nebulous "offense". Just about the only times WP:NOTCENSORED is relevant is when dealing with profanity, sex/nudity, and depictions of Muhammad. What's more, the guideline Wikipedia:Offensive material (which is a corollary to WP:NOTCENSORED) explicitly states that "Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content, so citing WP:NOTCENSORED is not even an argument in favour of inclusion, it's a counterargument against an argument that was never even made (i.e. that the name should be exclude because it's offensive). TompaDompa (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I am rather perplexed as to why the suspect's name is not here. I appreciate BLP concerns but I am sure that those rules are there to stop gossip and rumour rather than to omit names that are published in reliable sources. There are in-depth articles about this man from BBC, Guardian, Times, Sky etc, none of which are unreliable or tabloid. Are those British publishers also going to face consequences for mentioning his name? If names of suspects are withheld on Wikipedia, that must be a very new policy, because Derek Chauvin has an ARTICLE. If all mentions are factual and legal and based on reliable sources, I don't see the problem. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

While I'm usually against the shouting inherent in all caps, I must admit that Walla used that device exceptionally well and appropriately in the preceding comment. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7103:4EB4:D27F:3D0D (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The article on Derek Chauvin didn't appear until well after he had been charged with murder. As I suggest below, this would be the appropriate time to include the name. At this time, ask who is naming this person? I doubt it's the police, or prosecutors, or anyone in government on the record (but please prove me wrong). In fact Sky News says, "is believed to be..", and several other outlets are pretty vague about where this name comes from. I don't think for one second that they're wrong, but I think we should await official confirmation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Worth noting that the article on the killing of George Floyd used Chauvin's name days before he was charged. Without prejudice as to whether or not the following of the precedent is a good idea, there is precedent for such a move. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that was after (or around the same time as) the names were officially released by the City's government. As I say above, I don't think anything has been officially released by the authorities here, and it probably won't be until charges are laid (or not) in the next few days. I stand to be corrected. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not clear how we can reconcile excluding the suspect's name from the body of the article, while naming him in the title of multiple cited sources. Also, people arguing for the inclusion of his name, because it's in the press, or given by the authorities, would do well to remember the cases of Christopher Jefferies and Jean Charles de Menezes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Note to editors: could someone with more time (and more Commons experience than I have) see to File:29929484-8448703-image-m-20 1592859182683.jpg? It has been recently uploaded and presumably it's at the very least fair use (which means it shouldn't be on Commons)... MIDI (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I tagged it there for speedy deletion as a copyvio. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. MIDI (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Police charge and naming

FWIW, Thames Valley Police have now issued a statement saying they have charged an individual with murder, and for the first time they have named him: [3]. It should be noted that 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. 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.

Two important points still remain—first, a conviction has not been made so we must "seriously consider not including material [..] that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having commited, a crime". Second, we must decide whether or not the individual is a "relatively unknown" person. MIDI (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason to add their name at this stage. At least wait until all the court proceedings have finished. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm not pushing for it; rather, I felt it might be worth pointing out where we currently stand in terms of released information vs. WP policy. MIDI (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) TompaDompa (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

---

2020 Reading stabbings → 2020 Forbury Gardens stabbings – As per a fair deal of previous discussion when I originally moved the page to "Forbury Gardens stabbings", I do not feel that "2020 Reading stabbings" is an apt title, because the title is insufficiently precise. Jim Michael has just unilaterally reverted the move with the edit summary "moved without discussion; media are consistently referring to it using Reading, not FG - which the vast majority of people still don't know of"; I do not think that this was a wise idea to do that way, when it was patently a controversial move from the earlier discussion (I would have RM'd the original move if I had realised it would be controversial), but so as to avoid a move war, I'm opening this RM.

As to the substantive argument of the edit request; the "vast majority of people" not knowing of something, I'd argue, is a poor argument in this context. Even were it the case that the common name for the stabbings was to be "Reading stabbings", I'd argue it would still be a bad idea because of the lack of precision; however, I don't think there is a "common name" in this context. International media reported the story variously with "UK stabbings" etc; we wouldn't use that, due to the lack of precision. Likewise, tragically, there have already been at least two other (attempted) stabbings in Reading in 2020, and it is sadly likely that there will be more. As these other stabbings do not appear to meet WP:NCRIME on a first glance, I'm not suggesting we have articles about them; however, I am suggesting that having this article's title as something that would be ambiguous for them is inappropriate. This page should redirect to the other one, not the other way around. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. There was no discussion prior to the move to the previous name. We don't usually name attacks after places that are only known locally. The UK media are consistently referring to this by Reading, not the name of a small park that - despite this high-profile attack - isn't known by many people other than locals. FG isn't in titles of media articles (except perhaps locally). It's clear that the common name includes Reading & not FG. Although this isn't the only stabbing attack in Reading this year, it's the only notable one - hence the year is sufficient disambiguation. Comparisons made in the previous discussion to London were replied to by a few people (including me) with the facts that there have been many notable attacks in London & that some parts of it (including Hyde Park & Westminster) are world famous. Jim Michael (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: "Reading stabbings" seems to be the common name used in the media. Out of interest I Googled Forbury Gardens stabbings to see what I'd get, and I got a string of headlines that begin "Reading stabbings" [4] so to my mind the choice of title seems like a bit of a no brainer. As mentioned above there have been other stabbings in Reading, but this is the most notable of them. This is Paul (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of the entries on the first page of those results, the first word in all but 2 is Reading; in none is Forbury the first word. Those other 2 are both articles from The New York Times.

Even with this attack in the news, asking anyone outside Reading: "Did you hear about what happened in Forbury Gardens?" would much more likely than not be met with a puzzled look. Jim Michael (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Is Nayptal suggesting that his preferred name is the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)? Or suggesting that that should not be the test? As to the concern a boout precision, we could always refer to them as the Reading, England stabbings, as is done, when the country of the media is not in England. See the title here, "Reading, England, stabbing spree leaves 3 dead, authorities say; motive unclear", which is just one example. https://www.foxnews.com/world/reading-england-stabbing-spree-leaves-3-dead-authorities-say-motive-unclear2604:2000:E010:1100:3CB1:2CAD:16BF:6112 (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The OP's saying that precision is more important than what the common name is & that the current name is ambiguous. However, we only need disambiguate from other notable stabbings. This is the only notable stabbing in Reading this year; in the event of another, the month would be added to the title. Adding the county or country to the title would only be needed if there were notable stabbings in other places called Reading. Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I do think we should go with common name. 2604:2000:E010:1100:3CB1:2CAD:16BF:6112 (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm British and had never heard of Forbury Gardens prior to the attack, let alone be able to tell you where it was. That leaves little hope for international readers. And besides, "Reading attack" seems to be WP:COMMONNAME, so I would weak support a move to 2020 Reading attack although think the current title is fine too. Buttons0603 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with the OP regarding the manner in which the latest page move was made, I do agree with the outcome of the move and oppose using the name "Forbury Gardens" in the article title. Common name aside, we should only be as specific as we need to be to avoid ambiguity. MIDI (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reliable sources mostly refer to the attack being in Reading, not Forbury Gardens. WWGB (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME Vpab15 (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Snow close? 2604:2000:E010:1100:75DA:EA3A:A0E6:82C8 (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2020 (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.

WWGB continued deletions from lede

WWGB continues to delete from the lede the fact that this suspect charged with terrorism was shouting what the prosecutor later said was heard to be words to the effect of Allahu Akbar.

Surely that is relevant in understanding why he was re-arrested while in custody under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000. And why Counter-Terrorism Policing South East stated that the attacks were "a terror incident".

WWGB seems to want to strip from the lede what would appear to be a basis for the terrorism charge. That's not NPOV editing.

WWGB first deleted it under WWGB's personal OR view that: "likely mental health issue, not terrorism, does not warrant such prominence."

It was pointed out to him that that was classic OR, inconsistent with the charge against the suspect.

WWGB then pivoted, again deleted it, and made a completely different argument. Asserting it "does not warrant inclusion in the first sentence of the lead, already covered elsewhere in the article." That's silly. As wp:lede demonstrates. As the lede is summary of the article, in its entirety the lede is covered elsewhere in the article.

This is just as baseless as the first reason.

Rather than simply revert him again - silly, no? - I am first bringing this to this page. I'm dismayed when editors make arguments that they are smart enough to know are silly, but which they make anyway to try to push their personal opinions, and hope this is not yet another example of that. --2604:2000:E010:1100:40AE:9CCC:FC6E:4A6C (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The shout is already covered in the article (see 2020 Reading stabbings#Attack). You have made no cogent argument, per WP:ONUS, why you think that matter is of such overwhelming significance that it must be in the first sentence of the lead of the article. By the way, where is this "terrorism charge" of which you speak? I will happily be guided by the opinions of other editors. WWGB (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

First, you started with a completely specious OR argument. They changed it completely to another suspect one. This reeks of something bad. Second, as I indicated, he was re-arrested while in custody under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000. And Counter-Terrorism Policing South East stated that the attacks were "a terror incident". Third, nearly everything in the lede is almost always (or should be) covered in the article. That's obvious from what I alread pointed to. See wp:lede. So that "argument" is again specious. 2604:2000:E010:1100:40AE:9CCC:FC6E:4A6C (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I can make whatever argument(s) I want, I'm not the one who wants it there (see WP:ONUS. Everything in the redacted lead is still covered in the article. Conversely, not everything in the article needs to be in the lead. The attack may have been considered a terror "incident", but it is noticeable that no terror charges have been applied to the accused. I do not intend to continue our banter as we will not convince each other. I await the opinion of others. WWGB (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is important enough to warrant inclusion in the WP:LEAD based on your arguments. You say Surely that is relevant in understanding why he was re-arrested while in custody under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000. And why Counter-Terrorism Policing South East stated that the attacks were "a terror incident". and that this is what would appear to be a basis for the terrorism charge, but what do you base that on? TompaDompa (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that what a prosecutor says in court is not lead-worthy. It is couched in legalese and qualified with caveats and not asserted as incontrovertible fact. It is an interpretation of what a witness recalled. It should be kept just to the section where the court case is described. Also, it contradicts what another witness was reported to have said to the press, which had been in the article since day one. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It does not contradict what another witness said. We are talking about Reading. Not everybody is familiar with or find intelligible the Arabic phrase. Plus, I don't see it being "couched in legalese" - and anyway legalese is common in ledes of cases that become legal cases. It does not have to be "incontrevertible". That is the nature of these cases. It has to be accurately reflected. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B984:6CB9:D3C5:2BE1 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This does not belong in the lead for the following reasons. Firstly, the suspect has not been charged with 'terrorism', he has been charged with murder and attempted murder. Secondly what is said by the prosecutor to a court hearing could be a loaded interpretation of what a witness has said, and it's not necessarily related to fact. Thirdly it does contradict what another witness was reported to have said (read the 'attack' section), so including it is giving it undue weight. Keep the discussion on what was or wasn't said to the article body, and just summarise the main points of the article in the lead. Fourthly, even if he did say that, we don't know what the significance was to him, so we should not attempt to put words into his mouth by linking it to a specific meaning. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with TompaDompa and DeFacto, we need to stay within the rules on this one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Unintelligible

I cannot understand the edit summary "not sourced" = leading to the deletion of an inline. Here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Reading_stabbings&diff=965931774&oldid=965922354 We do not source an inline. --2604:2000:E010:1100:F856:9ED:44C:C02B (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly we don't know for sure if it was said. Secondly, if this was said, we don't know if he knew what it meant. Thirdly, it has more than meaning, so we cannot be sure which was meant. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is an RS reporting on this. It can be cited. In the voice of the speaker if you like, or mentioning the RS - but no compelling need to whitewash it out. Your second comment is odd - that can be said of anything said by anyone. No cause to delete the inline. Very far-fetched argumentation that does not strike me as serious. As to the third comment, one can perhaps get any idea from the circumstances (he was not sitting down to daily prayer, though I recognize a whitewasher may want to suggest that), but in any case the inline collects all the meanings. --2604:2000:E010:1100:44A2:42FC:27B8:3379 (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There is an RS of what the prosecutor said in court, yes, and we use that to support what they said in court. There is also an RS from just after the attack saying what he shouted was described as "unintelligible words". So there is no clear consensus as to exactly what he said. But either way, there is nothing in the sources claiming to know what he would have meant by it if he had said it, and that is why we cannot link it to one meaning, when there are other meanings. We are told he is Libyan, well that was also the national anthem of Libya until shortly before he left there. Without a sourced explanation, we cannot guess what might have been meant, if it was said. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Should this incident be included in List of terrorist incidents in 2020?

Does anyone here have a view on this? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, for the same reason we can't call it terrorism in WP:WikiVoice – it's a gross WP:BLPCRIME violation. Terrorism is a specific type of crime. The suspect is alive, and has not been convicted of terrorist crimes (yet). Wikipedia's editors must not do the court's job of determining whether the suspect is guilty and of what, and deciding on our own that this was terrorism would be doing precisely that. We can quote people as saying it's terrorism, but we can't say it is in WP:WikiVoice. I removed it, and I'll note that this is covered under WP:NOT3RR as an exemption to the three-revert rule. TompaDompa (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)