Jump to content

Talk:Murder of David Amess/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Title

Closed as duplicate of previous suggestions (see #Name and #Requested move 16 October 2021). MIDI (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

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.

Shouldn't this article be titled Murder of Sir David Amess? - (2406:E003:E13:E101:59DB:3764:D7A6:7268 (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2021 (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.

Name

I suggest we should avoid renaming this article as "murder" because of legal issues, "killing" or "death" would be ok. PatGallacher (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There's been a move to "Assassination" then back to "Stabbing". Fences&Windows 14:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
"Murder" and "Assassination" are inappropriate for legal reasons, and assassination isn't generally used in UK articles anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I would support "Killing of David Amess", and "Murder" only if someone is charged with murder. And assassination never, as it's an Americanism not used in any UK sources to describe this event. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)]
(edit conflict)I will also note that Murder of Jo Cox was not given the name "Murder" until November 2016, after someone was convicted of murder. The same should apply here. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep it at "stabbing" for now. It's accurate and seems to be how the media are describing the event. Readro (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Seconded. I'd call it murder in conversation, but the sources all say stabbing, which is only deficient in that it's not immediately obvious whether fatal or not. ∰Bellezzilla Solo✡ Discuss 14:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Stabbing or death are both fine. While we have a tendency to rush things, IMO enough sources have confirmed that Amess is the person who died that it's fine. Still this doesn't mean there is a rush and it's fine to keep the article at stabbing for now. IMO the circumstances means that even killing is fine. Murder is clearly not acceptable at this time, potentially a long way off. Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
We have well established practice in this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths)! -- KTC (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree with previous comment, having just amended caption of picture in the infobox from 'Targeted' to 'Killed'. I would wait at least on what the police establish before refining the description further.Cloptonson (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Assassination should only be used if the killing was an execution. Basically, anything besides a single guy (Not group), stabbing him would be an assassination just based on definitions. But from they way it sounds, this was a single guy who stabbed him. Unless the attacker releases statements saying it was paid for by someone, then this is a killing. But if money comes into play, we should automatically change it to assassination. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
When more information is given, this can be renamed to Murder. For now, keep it to Stabbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegeographicalterm (talk • contribs) 15:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2021

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: page moved per general consensus. "Murder" is not appropriate until someone is convicted of murder. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Stabbing of David Amess → Killing of David Amess – Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) KTC (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That can't work right now per WP:BLPCRIME. Love of Corey (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree, strongly oppose this per WP:BLPCRIME. Murder of Jo Cox was only given that name after a conviction was made. That should be the case here too. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2021 (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.

Timeline of events

The article is currently a bit short; this is understandable as it is being written.

IMO the timeline of events should be cleared a bit more as well as the location of the attack and the attacker. Some media report it was a 25 years old attacker; the article should include more information as soon as events are confirmed. For example, right now some news media do not publish that he died, but others already confirmed that he died, so there needs to be more accuracy in general. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:0:0:0:4 (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit: to explain this, right now the article says "Police were alerted to the attack shortly after 12:05 PM.". This is ok, but it misses other information, such as when the attack happened, when David arrived there etc... It's a bit confusing without that information yet. It's also a bit weird that the time states 12:05 PM, because right now it is 16:25 here in central europe, so in the UK I guess 15:25, but that means we already have a 3 hours delay? So clearly that isn't the most-current information right now when the "police was called" is already ~3 hours old ... 2A02:8388:1604:F600:0:0:0:4 (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
It would be natural to infer that the time given is UK time. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Never mind. Time is given as BST in infobox. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Given it's mentioned in the infobox, I don't think it needs to be said in the body. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Edit again: I see others already added some information, such as the age of the attacked. I guess we now need to know what can be confirmed, to avoid rumoor mongering. Lots of details are still missing. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:0:0:0:4 (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"Died shortly after, aged 69"

This claim seems to be inaccurate and is not well supported by the current sources. As reported here: "paramedics worked to save him on the floor of the Essex church for more than an hour. But police confirmed Amess' death at around 3pm." BBC News at Ten tonight also reported the police confirmation at about 3pm. Also not sure about tagging on "aged 69" there. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The BBC live feed text source also has time of death at just after 3pm - if that source is in the article, use it. You know, not a Nigerian(?) website... We can also assume that the paramedics were indeed trying to save his life from when the emergency services arrived until he died, it’s not anything that needs to be explained. I’m not sure if this sentence is the place for the age, but I would say the age at death should be mentioned somewhere, if you want to better incorporate it. Kingsif (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, certainly his age should be mentioned somewhere. But it seems quite lazily and disrespectfully tagged on there. That source was the first that came to hand, I'm afraid. I personally have nothing against Nigerian(?) websites. We don't need to include the word "desperately" (desperate seems to be one of their favourite words in that article). Yes, I understand that paramedics usually do try to save his lives. That's their job. But over an hour seems notable. The word "shortly" is conveniently vague, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Saying how long paramedics did their job can be hyperbole, and you seem to suggest it should be hyperbolic by saying over an hour is a long time. Surely they keep doing their job - trying to keep people alive - until a person dies, however long it takes? The article says what time the emergency services were called, and if it includes what time he died, well, there’s no need to then do the math for the reader unless you really want to highlight the length of time. Doing that is emphasising it, which is hyperbolic. The article should say nothing more than, you know, there were paramedics. Which it already does. Kingsif (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that giving slightly more detail is necessarily really "hyperbolic" I guess it's just a question of how much detail is appropriate. We don't say when the paramedics arrived. So perhaps we don't actually know if "over an hour" is fair. If they arrived shorty after 12.05, and he died after 3.00, then it seems they were trying to save him for about three hours? But I suspect there was a delay before the police announcement, while they contacted family to inform them first. The timeline at Murder of Jo Cox is much shorter of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I was looking for a prose source for 3pm and found this. With the other timeline details there, I made this edit. What do you think? Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Kingsif, that looks like a big improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


Assassination now - terrorist attack

Article has now crossed the time to rename to assassination due to this (CNN). Elijahandskip (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I personally think that calling it "assassination" is likely appropriate, though Wikipedia naming conventions would typically prefer a conviction before doing that, and in any event the standard is to call it "murder" rather than assassination. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Assassination is a strictly political/religious term and this has not been proven.86.87.191.180 (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope, one American source saying so doesn't make it true. It just reaffirms the fact that the word assassination is used in US too much compared to the UK. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"Belfairs Methodist Church" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Belfairs Methodist Church. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 15#Belfairs Methodist Church until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. JeffUK (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2021

At the end of para 1 of Background section. “Amess was also a strong advocate of the Iranian opposition group, Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). The day before his killing he had an article published calling for the arrest of the nascent Iranian President, Ebrahim Raisi, should he attend the COP 26 conference in Glasgow, Scotland, on 31st October 2021; for his role in the 1988 massacre of dissidents in Iranian prisons, many of whom were MEK members.(https://townhall.com/columnists/davidamess/2021/10/14/reverse-a-pattern-of-appeasement-by-arresting-irans-genocidal-president-n2597370). At the time of his death, he was co-chairman of the British Committee for Iran Freedom.(http://iran-freedom.org/index.php/587-bcfif-statement-following-the-passing-of-its-co-chairman,-sir-david-amess-mp,-after-being-stabbed-in-a-constituency-meeting-in-leigh-on-sea) 82.69.41.97 (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the addition of the above material? Is Arness actually mentioned in the first source? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

9th parliamentarian to be killed in office

The Independent tells us that Amess is the ninth parliamentarian to be violently killed in office in British political history. But I'm not sure this is sufficiently notable to be added to the article. Spencer Perceval was aged only 49. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

This raises questions about how you define British political history, when did it start? Do you include e.g. MPs killed in the Civil War? PatGallacher (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Possibly easier to define and keep track of British "parliamentarian" history, which would then include everything after the setting up of the (English/British) parliament Vatsk (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It's best to concentrate on the modern era. Now that The Troubles are over, the main risk to MPs seems to be getting killed by a crackpot of some variety. The obvious comparison is the Murder of Jo Cox--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes "Parliamentarians" meant something else in 1642-1651. Surprised there are only 51 listed at Category:People killed in the English Civil War and even these are not split between Parliamentarians and Royalists. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, British MPs start in 1707 when Scotland and England united into one country, so after the Civil War. I do not know if anyone was killed between 1707 and Spencer Perceval in 1812. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
There are also issues about how you define "violently killed in office", e.g. there were 22 MPs died in the First World War. PatGallacher (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
As I've said, until Jo Cox, all of the MPs since WW2 who were killed while in office died as a result of The Troubles. It isn't going to help the reader much to mention Spencer Perceval etc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

UK national

If a UK national is of American descent for example, they are not labelled as such. They are just a UK national. So why is it relevant that the man arrested may have Somali somewhere in his family history?2A00:23C4:220:CF01:1824:77E5:BD07:1623 (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Very good point. Perhaps because so little has been revealed about the suspect, we're just keen to use whatever the RS sources say. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, MOS:ETHNICITY has been brought up as a reason to omit the ethnicity from the lead section; I concur with this and would request any editors wishing to reinstate the Somali heritage back into the lead to discuss it here first. MIDI (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the most acceptable way that this is done is on the Murder of Lee Rigby page - there, the attackers are first mentioned by name, then their Islamist motive is mentioned, and then it is said that they were from Nigerian Christian families in the UK and converted. Right now, we should wait until the investigation is done, and if the crime was done in the name of Al-Shabab or because of some foreign policy relating to Somalia, then the Somali angle would be relevant. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @unknowntemptation Abheygpt1 (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"Ali Harbi Ali" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ali Harbi Ali. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 16#Ali Harbi Ali until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. JeffUK (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Terrorism Act

He was detained under the Terrorism Act 2000, per BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58943184.amp --2603:7000:2143:8500:A807:AEB1:9E73:BD45 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

And...? Love of Corey (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Should this be termed an Islamic terror attack?

Police has arrested a Muslim guy who hails from Somalia. They say that it was an act of terrorism. Should this attack be labelled as Islamic Terror Attack ? Abheygpt1 (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

How do we which which faith he professes? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I do not think they are certain of the exact motif yet, it looks to be mostly speculation at this point. We should wait for the police to confirm that it was an islamic terrorist attack first. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree Eliegot (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Not yet, no. That would be original research. ToeSchmoker (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't see "Muslim", with a source, in the main body of the article text, and without that I don't think it's appropriate to add it to the lead section or the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2021

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: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED. SNOW close as the vote tally is clear and the article is linked from the main page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Killing of David Amess → Assassination of David Amess – I feel it is now appropriate to refer to this as an assassination. DeaconShotFire (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - not until somebody is found guilty of murder and the details become clear, see similar discussions that happened in the archives at Talk:Murder of George Floyd before murder was charged. Also, along these lines why isn't Murder of Jo Cox an "assassination" as that was also politically charged? ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 03:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
A conviction is not required for a crime to be labeled as murder. That determination is generally made by a coroner on a death certificate under the heading "manner of death." Police also usually have legal authority to treat a death as a presumptive crime pending the formal autopsy. Lots of people are murdered and no one is convicted. President Kennedy was assassinated, yet no one has ever been convicted (for obvious reasons). As for Jo Cox, her death should absolutely be labeled as an assassination. But it is not relevant to this discussion. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
That's simply incorrect. In the vast majority of anglophone countries with a common law system, coroners do not rule something as a murder in the absence of an existing conviction. (I'm restricting it to such countries since equivalent terms to murder and homicide don't always function the same way in other languages especially when you consider more diverse legal systems. And countries with differing legal systems can have different roles of courts etc.) They may rule the manner of death as homicide, or at worst unlawful killing. Murder is something left for the courts to decide. Here's the autopsy report for JFK [1] Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It clearly meets the generally accepted definition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Although "assassination" hasn't been used by the press, and murder hasn't been charged as of yet, this is an intentional killing of a political figure. Sounds like assassination to me. Lucksash (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now until a clear political motive has been established and because RS are not using this term generally. Either way I would support 'Murder' without waiting for a conviction because no RS is seriously suggesting that Amess was not murdered, despite the guilt of the accused needing to be established in a court of law. RandomGnome (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
"Homicide" is a completely separate word from "murder". You can kill someone without it being called a murder, and we can't reasonably expect the off-chance of such a scenario NOT happening here. Love of Corey (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Terrorist attacks cannot be homicides. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but the decision of a court of law can and will overrule anything else, so we need to err on the side of caution in BLP cases. Love of Corey (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip: sorry but your statement makes no sense. A large number of people die by homicide in terrorist attacks every year. While the perpetrators of terrorist attacks do sometimes die by suicide, accident or homicide (generally a lawful killing although sometimes it might be from another perpetrator); there is almost no other manner of death that can arise in a terrorist attack for victims other than homicide. To be clear, outside of some weird borderline cases of felony murder etc where there might be legitimate arguments, every murder is a homicide. Please do not confuse homicide with other terms like manslaughter. Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think murder is a better word than killing until a clear political motive has been established. For example, the Murder of Jo Cox is still labelled a murder, despite it very clearly being an assassination. DarkHorse234 (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It would be WP:OR for us to determine this is an assassination without reliable sources referring to it as such. I feel this is a further example of the issues with our current naming practice when it comes to "Death of", "Killing of", "Murder of" etc articles, and why I believe all such articles should be at "Death of" unless reliable sources commonly refer to it with a different descriptor (in this case, the common descriptor appears to be the current one of "killed"). I would also move for this to be speedy-closed, given how prominent the article is at the moment. BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: "Murder of" and "Assassination of" are off the table at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose as violation of WP:BLPCRIME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Nobody has been convicted yet, so murder and assassination would be inappropriate terms. Also, literally no sources call it an assassination. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, the OP of this RM has been blocked for disruptive editing, and we had a RM on the name about 15 hours ago with a clear consensus. Absolutely jumping the gun to have another RM straight away, and that's before the BLPCRIME violations with the proposal. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I do understand your point and I'm definitely willing to defer to your experience, but could you clarify why we're unable to use 'Murder' when RS are widely reporting it as such? It can surely be established fact according to RS (but not yet the court because no proceedings have occurred) that Amess was murdered while simultaneously not violating the BLP of the accused/chief suspect. Thanks. RandomGnome (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
RS do not have a WP:BLP policy. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
To add to that you cannot have a murder without a murderer so the claim that you can call something a murder without violating BLPCRIME makes no sense especially in a case like this where there is only one possible suspect. Several discussions have supported the view that unlike some other stuff, murder is something we should not use when no one has been convicted of murder and there is a living person accused of the killing. A significant example is Killing of Rachel Nickell where despite sources calling it a murder for a long time, long before and now long after the conviction or suspect arising, we do not do so (as supported by an RM) since in the end there was only a conviction for manslaughter. Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Your explanation makes the most sense, thanks. The fact that the crime could conceivably be categorized differently is a good argument, though in itself something of a slippery slope because you could say that a post-conviction appeal could change a murder conviction to manslaughter. So where does it stop? I did some research and found that it was largely foreign media who were using 'murder', while UK media were at this point reticent and sticking with 'killed by stabbing/stabbing death', so it makes sense to defer to local RS and follow their lead. Of course those who state that an 'act of terrorism' (factually established by the police), can only ever be murder, have a point, too. RandomGnome (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, under the terms of Part 1, Sections 4 of the Criminal Appeal Act (1968), the Appeal Court is entitled to substitute a verdict for an alternative lesser offence where this would have been open to the jury. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Interesting, I've never heard that assassination is exclusively a US term. According to assassination one of the earliest documented uses was by Shakespeare in Macbeth. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Of course it's used in British English as well, see Assassination of Spencer Perceval. Lexico.com says Murder (an important person) for political or religious reasons.,[2] perhaps being a backbencher does not meet this threshold whereas Perceval obviously did. The more obvious distinction is the term is used less often in UK media than in US, consider List of assassinated American politicians. Solipsism 101 (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Billy-boy may have coined the term, but I don't feel it's common usage (vs. murder) for someone in the UK. I'm not saying it's exclusively a US-term, but more US-centric than UK-centric. Compare the assassination of JFK vs. the murder of JFK and the same terms for Jo Cox. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He was murdered by what appears to be a religious extremist lunatic, so assassination doesn't really fit as they tend to be politically motivated. 'Murder of David Amess' would suffice. StickyWicket (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't even know if the suspect has been charged yet. The incident appears to have been a murder. But in English law murder is decided by a judicial process. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This is not a normal crime with robbery, revenge as a motive. ZebraaaLounge (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Assasination (as used in Britain) is only mainly used for very high-profile incidents. Unless that there is a overarching scheme (which as of now, there is none), I don't think it would be appropriate to use the term 'assasination'. - 49.144.214.48 (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible support Although "assassination" hasn't been used by the press we don't take dictation from the press. WP calls assassination "the act of murdering a prominent or important person" and Amess is listed in List of Assassinated British MPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.200.23.238 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
— 1.200.23.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . WWGB (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per COMMONNAME, press is stating stabbing or killing. IP "we don't take dictation from the press"... that's literally the opposite of RS. No merge as per Andrew Davidson's suggestion. This is an independently notable topic, Sir David wasn't a BLP1E, and once this is over, the content here would come to dominate the biographic page. I think that would be inappropriate. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This page should remain as Killing of David Amess unless (and until) his attacker is convicted of murder, at which point Murder of David Amess would be the most appropriate title. Murder of Jo Cox is the precedent here, and we should follow it IMHO. "Assassination" is rarely used in this context in British English (especially so in WP:RS), I would think that term would only really apply to a senior member of the government or royal family. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Very very Strong oppose i believe that the article should be titled "Murder of David Amess" if the murderer is convicted. The RM is sound bizzarre. 36.76.235.22 (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This page should be changed to murder of Sir David Amess, the term assassination is used when someone is killed as a result of a political motive or for money by a surprise attack. At the time of typing it was premeditated as they brought a knife for the purposes of depriving him of his life in what appears to be a terrorist act. The deaths of Jo Cox and Alexander Litvenenko respectively are titled as a murder and a poisoning and are classified as assassinations as there was a political motivation behind them. In this case, it should be called a murder, as it appears to be a terrorist act and premeditated. I think it would help if Wikipedia had rules determining when the terms "death of" "murder of" or "assassination of" are actually used as there is a need to be consistent across the piece. Perhaps as it has been, it can be listed on this page List of assassinations in Europe but for the purposes of clarity and consistency it should be renamed as the "Murder of Sir David Amess". Kandaris (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Kandaris: In so much as we have "rules" we already have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) albeit not directly covering assassination. This was already linked above, and as also linked at least once in the earlier discussion on the moving from death to killing which ideally anyone participating in this should read. Nil Einne (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Wikipedia's rules, stated above by many others. I did look into supporters' comments for reasons why these rules shouldn't be applied here, but I couldn't find anything beyond plain "It's clearly an assassination", with no beyond analysis. Wikipedia has well-established rules regarding someone's death, such as this flowchart establishing the difference between "Killing" and (in that case) "Murder" as the presence or absence of a conviction. There has been no conviction so far; unless we should consider "Assassination" to be closer to "Killing" than "Murder", which I admit would go against the "it's clear" argument, there is no doubt that this article should be called "Killing". Application of this rule is consistent with WP:BLPCRIME, which recommends the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" (presumably implying "officially" declared guilty, after a trial, even if it's obvious that this is an assassination), as well as WP:CONSISTENT (5th point - I couldn't find anything in the first four that would help with this poll), which recommends naming articles with consistent rules - requested move precedents does not seem to contain any entry using "Assassination". Finally, I'd like to add another guideline to the discussion: WP:ORIGINAL. If no article mention this as an assassination, as a few people mentioned, there's probably a reason, and Wikipedia shouldn't be one to decide otherwise, even if it's plain and obvious. That being said, it's always unwise to claim certitude too quickly, hence why my position is not strong; if anybody believes any of the guidelines or reasons I mentioned don't apply here, please explain why they don't. Also, if any supporter knows about any guideline which supports the usage of "Assassination" here (or supports application of plain evidence over the rules I mentioned - I did search, but I couldn't find anything satisfactory), please mention them to help make the discussion more constructive. Skencer11 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Support comments are entirely discountable, while oppose comments are eminently well-founded and form a massive majority. This should not last seven days. An administrator should close this per WP:SNOWPRO. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
While I am on the other side of this, I concur that consensus in favor of the proposed move will not develop. IMO any uninvolved admin or even an experienced editor can safely close this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2021 (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.
  • @力: um hello??? Vote tallies mean nothing. It is what the content of those !votes say. I watched an afd last year have 3 keep and 7 oppose. It was kept because the keep reasons were better than the opposes. Also there is no true clear consensus yet. (Maybe 70-30 right now), but there is no way SNOW can be used here. I kindly ask you undo the non-admin SNOW closure. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    I respectfully disagree. Although I was on the other side of the discussion, it is obvious that there is no realistic likelihood of consensus developing for the proposed move. Both the vote count (which while secondary in importance, is not meaningless) and the weight of argument are insurmountable. And FWIW if the discussion were not closed I'd likely strike my support vote. In any event this is a good close and an excellent example of WP:SNOW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    Here is a screenshot from the BBC News website taken a few moments ago. It uses the title "Killing of Sir David Amess". The BBC has also decided not to rush in head first until things become clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2021

Not done per WP:SNOW. See discussion below. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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.

Killing of David Amess → Murder of David Amess – As per the Murder of Jo Cox article. n.b. 'Assassination' has been deprecated as per the above discussions on the talk page. —AFreshStart (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I've speedy closed this proposal (though you're welcome to continue the discussion). It doesn't stand a chance since there's no conviction for murder. Please see the previous discussions for more information. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Murder of Jo Cox wasn't moved to its present title until there was a murder conviction. Until that happens in this case then this page should stay at the current title. This is Paul (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose it's been 16 hours since the last RM was closed, and barely over 24 since the RM before that. Both clearly showed Killing is correct as per WP:BLPCRIME, and the established guidelines for this scenario. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: We can't keep going round in circles on this, and as already pointed out, Murder of Jo Cox did not have this title until Thomas Mair was convicted of her murder. So please don't keep ignoring WP:BLPCRIME.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oppose. The absolute earliest title could be correct would be when one or more people have been charged with murder; the more correct point in time is when one or more people have been convicted of murder. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2021 (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.

Hello everyone. I am informing you about a RS Discussion taking place about CNN being reliable for news about the killing of David Amess. Feel free to participate in the discussion here. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you want to say CNN is unreliable for all British news based exclusively on their use of “assassination” in relation to this event? As discussions above show, “assassination” is the common American term, while it is not typically used in the UK, so it is not even an innocent mistake from CNN, it’s just ENGVAR. Kingsif (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Where the heck did you get that opinion about me with "you want to say CNN is unreliable for all British news". I never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth. If you actually read the discussion, you would know I said "I personally believe CNN is still a good, reliable source for UK news". Please read next time before commenting. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I did actually read, that’s the only possible way I could come to that accurate conclusion; perhaps you should read your own words because they were, and I quote, I got to wondering if a consensus should be drawn about CNN not being reliable for UK news.... Please have a memory next time before replying. You also seem to not get that merely starting a discussion where option 1 is to ban use of CNN for all UK news is in many ways endorsing that, whether you say you think it’s still a good source or not. Now, let’s get to the actual point - you deflected to accuse me of not reading the things you apparently forgot you wrote, instead of acknowledging that your entire reason for starting the discussion was incorrect, which was my clear reason for commenting. Should I have just said “why ban CNN for using their correct ENGVAR?”, would you have been less defensive replying to that phrasing? Kingsif (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Fine, you want me to acknowledge my position publicly, I will. I personally hate CNN and believe that the only true, full reliable sources are AP News and Reuters per that media scale on neutrality. I would personally love if CNN and Fox News were both prohibited from being used as sources on Wikipedia, but I know and fully understand that Wikipedia is a consensus place. That is my opinion and now let's drop this stupid discussion and forget either of those discussion happened. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Create Category or List for Attacks on British MPs?

Right now there doesnt seem to be a good way to find them except through incomplete See Also sections, and I think it should be organized in some way. jonas (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jonas1015119, I'm not opposed to a category being made - feel free to get one started if you wish ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 02:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ed6767: Are there enough events that fit into this category to create it? Eliegot (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eliegot, I'd think so. There's been quite a few over history. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 03:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, I can help out if you need. Eliegot (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I created Cat:Attacks on British politicians yesterday. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
There’s a list article and a category already, no? Kingsif (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
There's a List of attacks on British aircraft during The Troubles. But I don't see any List of attacks on British MPs. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Keir Starmer tribute

I am not sure why Starmer's tribute was removed [3]. The intial edit summary states: "adding one invites adding all. this kind of waffle is a perennial issue with current events, and is strongly discouraged. why Starmer and not literally any other political leader." I do not understand this 'Slippery slope' argument I am not advocating the leader of UKIP, Reform UK, Lib Dems, SNP, etc. Starmer is leader of the opposition and the leader of the second largest party in parliament and is frequently mentioned in reports about the killing [4][5][6][7][8][9]. Any other political leader's tributes can be judged on their own merits.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I will assume you are not being deliberately obtuse but responding feels like feeding a troll, I must say. 1. This is an encyclopaedia. Meaningful details are included. Any given politician with Twitter saying they are sad is not encyclopaedic content. WP:Indiscriminate comes to mind. That should be the end of the discussion, and really obvious, but since you want to make it specific let’s also point out: 2. The response section already contains a sentence along the lines of “various politicians across the spectrum expressed condolences...” - presuming you bothered to read what you were editing, you knew you were specifically highlighting one politician and naming their party when they have already been covered in general. This emphasizes either their relevance or the importance of their statement. Is Starmer more relevant to this specific event than, e.g. a politician from Essex? Do his words matter more than those of e.g., the Royal Family. 3. Speaking of, the Prime Minister, international leaders, the Royal Family, all made statements and when adding Starmer you felt that those politicians with actual power shouldn’t be mentioned?
All those public figure responses are the same. X, who is Y, said it is bad. They’re all the same, so we don’t need to name. You keep pointing out you only want to include Starmer, so it’s not going to be too busy, and reject the idea that this would lead to someone else deciding to then add a different person saying the same thing. But they would, for the same reason you want to add Starmer, whatever that is, when it’s better with no names. If "[random person] says [same thing as everyone else]" was to be added, it should be an important and relevant person, Starmer is neither in this context. Also significant would, of course, be someone actually saying something different. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how it's inviting an avalanche of irrelevant 'waffle' to include the tribute of the Leader of the Opposition in the context of this being an event of exceptionally rare occurrence and terrible sadness, regarding an MP who was widely appreciated and respected on both sides of the aisle according to RS. I would say it's highly appropriate, and with RS frequently quoting Starmer, it should be included. Characterizing Starmer as a 'random person' when an MP has been murdered is most baffling. I would also remind you that casting aspersions about editors behavior without specific evidence, and not WP:AGF is against policy and works against creating a collegial editing environment. RandomGnome (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Starmer tribute is significant as it's the leader of the opposition. It will always be significant, in 10 years or a 100 years, that the lead of the opposition said X about this killing. Solipsism 101 (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
It isn’t significant, he has said basically thoughts and prayers. It’s not a reaction that does anything, is it. It has no effect on the event. He said nothing that everyone else hasn’t. If you want to argue his words are sooooo important, then he and the Scottish leader would naturally come behind the PM, the Queen, every politician in Essex, and every other Conservative. The article would need a long list of quotes to justify Starmer, and including him instead of those other people is undue weight. It is. Simply saying that lots of people said the thing that Starmer did, because they all did, is the only sensible way about it. Kingsif (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
It arguably is very significant, a quick Google shows that Starmer and Johnson also laid flowers together at the site of the killing [10], so it was more than "thoughts and prayers".
Also, arguing that the leader of the opposition is less important than "the queen, every politician in Essex, and every other Conservative" so based on nothing and a fundamental misunderstanding of British politics. And, "every politician in Essex" would also include people like parish councillors, so you're basically saying that the people who vote on bin collections, whilst of course important, are more important than the leader of the second biggest political party in the country?
I don't understand why you saying "it has no effect on the event" even influences your argument here because if anything the reactions to the event are just as important as the event itself (we wouldn't be talking about this if nobody cared, like the vast majority of "run of the mill" stabbings that happen every other week), and if you stood by that argument you'd vouch for the removal of all reactions, not just Starmer's. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 09:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, Ed, I have removed all other reactions (random Conservatives, Sturgeon, Trudeau, Scott Morrison, anon) with the same argument, that I obviously stand behind - and for the record, not once have I said only Starmer should be removed, so your baseless accusation would hold no weight even if no other reactions had been added to also be removed. If only one employee is failing to work, a boss can only fire that one person (but, again, to extend the analogy, in this case other employees were also failing and were fired, they just didn’t piss on the floor on the way out to try convince people to think their dismissal was unfair). See, most of these removals were happily accepted because it just makes sense, but one editor is really really desperate to make sure readers know Starmer feels sorry. Oh, Ed, did you miss those other removals when trawling through edits, or ignore them to yell at me? Don’t try to act like there’s some bias in removing Starmer when there are no other statements present - the only possible bias is to continue adding him when there are no other statements. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I really don't see how adding the 19 words "Sir Keir Starmer, Leader of the Labour Party, paid tribute saying he was respected on all sides of Parliament" unduly unbalances or damages the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Those words unbalance the article when we do not include the (very similar) words from the PM, Queen, leaders of other parties, leader of Southend Council (the UA of which Leigh on Sea is part), Jo Cox's husband, Stephen Timms, previous MP for the area, adjacent MPs, world leaders, Amess' wife, Amess' children, Amess' constituency office manager, vicar of the church, local Islamic leaders, witnesses, local police commander, representative of organisations that campaign on public safety, on knife crime, on Islamic terrorism, etc. All of whom have at least one claim to be at least as important and/or relevant to the situation as Starmer. And yes, I do take this stand on all reactions to all events - we should summarise the reactions into a single short paragraph (at most) of prose, singling out only those reactions about which there is significant sourced commentary in reliable sources. Quotes belong at Wikiquote. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I would agree, if Johnson's words are not included (as they originally were?), Starmer's alone do not belong. If all of those parties are notable in their condolences, shouldn't they all be mentioned? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
if Johnson's words are not included (as they originally were?) - back before the article was cleaned up, there was a bullet list of name + quote, I assume Johnson was in that list. All of those were removed (by other editors, for the record) and nobody contested the removal.
If all of those parties are notable in their condolences, shouldn't they all be mentioned? - not at all. They are all saying the same thing, so repeating the sentiment becomes ridiculous; the next shortening step is to list all the parties and then the collective sentiment, but when the list of relevant parties itself is so long, the most logical step is to summarise the parties into some collective noun phrase. It is still perhaps questionable if people sending condolences, as expected in tragedy, is really notable, but it is standard to mention on Wikipedia so total exclusion would unfairly suggest that nobody cared about this tragedy. Unless there is a particularly different statement from someone, though, there is no need to expand on condolences being sent by lots of people with names and quotes. Kingsif (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I see. I tend to agree about condolences, they are pretty much expected. I see there is no mention of the local book of condolences that was opened, and which was mentioned in the news. So what about Wills and Kate? Do they trump the Queen? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Amended now that I’ve seen that. Kingsif (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, as a rule of thumb if you cannot write 2-3 sentences of reliably sourced prose about an individual's reaction to an event, excluding quotes, then you should not be individually quoting their reaction in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Centrist?

The centrist description in the background section seems strange to me. It is immediately followed by an opposition to abortion and being Pro-Brexit, which in my opinion are not centrist positions. The only source is a quote from a CNN reporter, all three British sources do not mention it. If we want to keep it, we should reorganise the sentence or add something that balances his political positions Chaosquo (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"Centrist" is self-evidently a descriptive term that varies according to your readers' perspective'. (Readers, for wikipedia, are surely far more important than writers/contributors.) Most of the rest of the para appears to pin him down as a political extremist, IM(H)O. But given the tragic circumstances of his death and the horror/shock that this triggers in all of us, it's understandable that folks are popping up all over the place just to say what a lovely fellow he was; and no doubt there were many ways in which he really was lovely. In simple terms of human solidarity it may be a bit soon to launch a wiki-pissing contest here on definitions of centrism. Nevertheless, where the aspiration is to make wikipedia objective/encyclopedic, then "centrist" and "leftist" and maybe even "traditionalist conservative" are probably terms to be applied, if at all, sparingly, with caution. and preferably identified as the opinion of an authoritative figure. "David Dimbleby called him a centrist in 1992". Except, no, I suspect David Dimbleby would have had more sense. How about "identified by many of his admirers as a centrist"? Charles01 (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think he is a 'centrist' in the perspective of UK politics; which is surely what matters; In fact in the context of UK politics 'Socially Conservative' and 'Centrist' are almost mutually exclusive. Personally I don't think a life-long conservative who voted against abortion, against welfare increases, and for stronger immigration rules is 'Centrist' in UK Political Terms [[11]]. He would be centrist if he were politician in America, which explains why CNN might use the term, but he wasn't a politician in America! Probably more importantly, it's not a description used on the main article about him, on that basis I'm removing it. JeffUK (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. In the context of UK politics, Amess was very definitely not a centrist - the lead of his main article says he "opposed abortion and same-sex marriage" and that "his political views included support for the return of capital punishment and Brexit." Most (but not all) supporters of Brexit are right wing, all the other positions mentioned are unquestionably right wing for a UK politician. His other strong cause appears to have been animal welfare, which (in UK terms at least) is not significantly correlated with a position on the political spectrum (support for fox hunting is weakly associated with being right wing, but opposition to it is not a reliable indicator of being left, right or centre). Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Precisely. This just seems to be a way to make him more likeable to politicians across both sides. A noble idea considering the circumstances of his killing, but it suffers from the unfortunate disadvantage of being completely wrong (to paraphrase Bercow). Carrying on from the above, Ann Widdecombe is definitely right-wing and no 'centrist', but also opposes fox hunting and is patron of a Levantine donkey sanctuary. #NotAllTories support fox hunting or oppose animal rights; this should be self-evident. In any case, Amess is not described as centrist in his Wikipedia article; if there are any authoritative sources saying he is (which I highly doubt), they should be included there first, not here. —AFreshStart (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Please change it to Murder of David Amess instead of Killing

Not going to happen. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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.


It was not just a killing it was a murder by a radical Islamist extremist. By calling it a killing in my opinion is not very elaborate and I think everyone who reads this should know it was a murder by an evil Islamist extremist. Salandarianflag (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see [12] and [13] for discussions on why this is called 'Killing' not 'Murder' at this point. JeffUK (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2021 (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.

Somali suspect

@Gianluigi02 has removed mention of Somali national origin as only The Times covers it. It should be noted that the The Telegraph and The Independent also report it.[14][15] This is clearly significant background info at this time, but as it's not confirmed in any of these sources it makes sense to attribute it rather than assert in Wikivoice. Best wishes, Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The goalposts have changed and the nationality of the attacker now apparently cannot be named because it is "irrelevant for now". If nationality is irrelevant, then the age and sex of the perpetrator are irrelevant as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:6021:AD80:7C11:74A8:FDB3:7AB9 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The police have not confirmed the suspect’s nationality, so it is not a significant (or certain) detail. SPAs also trying to add the nationality to lead, infobox, and every body section, is clearly some kind of agenda editing, so it is safer to either select a specific phrasing for the investigation section only, or to exclude since we don’t even know if it is true. Police were quick and forthcoming with sex and age, so these details are taken as the suspect’s identity for the article at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. We should wait for official confirmation by authorities. Love of Corey (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not taking a position on this but at least one of the editors above should bear in mind WP:3RR.Tammbecktalk 19:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The IP is angling for another block after recently coming out of one and now using multiple IPs to edit war. Kingsif (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
"The police have not confirmed the suspect’s nationality, so it is not a significant (or certain) detail." Okay. It is significant, insofar that it's reasonably relevant, but it's true that it is not certain. While multiple highly reputed newspaper articles stating that as fact would normally be considered grounds on Wikipedia to state as fact, waiting for official confirmation seems reasonable. 2A02:8084:6021:AD80:7C11:74A8:FDB3:7AB9 (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
If the police don’t consider the nationality relevant enough to state, it is an editor’s prerogative on if it is relevant, something often known as WP:OR. Sources, yes even RS, publishing unconfirmed facts are frequently questioned, discussed, removed, on Wikipedia. They want new news since there aren’t many updates, not every part of the investigation is notable, or we’d be adding everything the priest said in the multiple reliable articles interviewing him about how devout Amess was. Kingsif (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The journalists seem confident but they are using off the record sourcing. If the suspect is Somali I'm sure we will find out soon enough.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, and if the suspect is charged we’ll find out name, etc., in due course. We must also adhere to BLPCRIME, of course. Kingsif (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
BBC has it now: A government source told the BBC the man arrested is a British national who, according to initial inquiries, is of Somali heritage.[16] Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
If he'd saved Amess he would have been British from the start. As a potential murderer, he'll be described (by some media) as Somali. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The Daily Mail and perhaps the Torygraph. You can't really say it about The BBC, The Independent and (to a lesser extent) The Times. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
That source is in the article already, I assume it has been updated. Do we say "British and may have Somali heritage", because that is the certainty level of the BBC. Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, BBC News at Ten just now used the phrase "a British citizen of apparently Somali origin". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I’ll unhide the text with this phrasing. Let discussion continue on phrasing and inclusion. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Every other news outlet has told that he was of Somali origin. BBC , Telegraph , etc… Abheygpt1 (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know what’s wrong in telling his origin. He is a British naturalised Somali immigrant. Some news outlets were even saying that he came to UK along with his parents 20 years ago in a dingy. Unlike the public , we people should be neutral, neither left leaning nor right. Abheygpt1 (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Racism
It is accurate that he is a British citizen. I wanted to add that he was an immigrant but could not find sources for it. I wouldn't call him a 'Briton' or 'British man'. If you (or perhaps your father) immigrates from Somalia, you practice Islamic extremism, and then proceed to murder an MP, you are not British. Of course, Wikipedia has to report what the papers are reporting; that he is a 'British man of Somali heritage'. I expect someone will try to remove the 'Somali heritage' claiming it is not relevant. Kittenenthusiast88 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Why is it "inaccurate" to say he's a British citizen? Does murdering someone change one's citizenship? And why is 'Somali heritage' especially relevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I said it was accurate, not inaccurate. If he was not of Somali heritage, the motive would be less clear. The murderer could have been a far-left extremist or other sort of political radical. But as he is a Somali Muslim, Islamic extremism is the likely motive. Kittenenthusiast88 (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I have struck the first question. 08:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Are Muslims not allowed to be "far-left extremists" or "other sorts of political radicals"? As for his nationality, The Sunday Times describes him as "British-born"[17] and the BBC say "Whitehall sources" confirmed he was a "British man of Somali heritgage".[18] Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
You need to admit to yourself that a Somali man would not kill a Member of Parliament on the basis of, say, economic policy, or not being 'progressive enough'. His actual nationality is important, and is a key factor in the crime. Besides, the name gives it away. Trying to obfuscate by replacing with 'British man' is redundant. Kittenenthusiast88 (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot every Russian is a raging Commie trying to dismantle Western society, every Arab wants to persecute women, every Australian is a cricket playing criminal, and every Viet turns into a killing machine when they see Americans. If you believe even a single word of your comment, I invite you to google things like “don’t judge a book by its cover” and “free will” before even thinking about editing any article covered by BLP again. Kingsif (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
"Besides, the name gives it away." The only thing it "gives away" is his name. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The Guardian: Ali Harbi Ali, a 25-year-old British born man whose family fled to the UK from war ravaged Somalia
Al Jazeera: a man
Wall Street Journal: a suspected extremist (Note that they said 'extremist' and not which kind of extremist.), Ali Harbi Ali, a 25-year-old Briton whose father once served as a spokesman for a previous prime minister of Somalia
CNN: A 25-year-old man...a British national with Somali heritage
RT: a 25-year-old of Somali origin
New York Times: a 25-year-old man
Washington Post: media outlets in Britain named the 25-year-old suspect...a British national of possible Somali heritage.
BBC: British man of Somali heritage

Most of the RS are mentioning his ethnicity. It is directly relevant. If you really insist, we can say 'Muslim' instead of 'Somali'. But I believe Wikipedia should follow the sources and state '25-year-old British man/British national of Somali heritage'. Kittenenthusiast88 (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"If you really insist"? But then you'd have to provide all the popular newspaper sources for "Muslim", wouldn't you? And then you might still find similar arguments for not including faith in the lead section as for not including ethnicity. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_David_Amess/Archive_1&oldid=1082121519"