User talk:2604:2000:E010:1100:CD1F:E212:F875:244F

2020 Forbury Gardens stabbings

Hi, Anonymous User! I've removed your additions to the "see also" section of the 2020 Forbury Gardens stabbings article. This should not be a general list of stabbings, none of the recently-added ones were in Reading or particularly nearby, and the Forbury Gardens incident hasn't been listed as having the same or similar motive. There is currently no rationale for their inclusion. Please let me know if you'd like any further clarification. MIDI (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• 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 terrorism was the motive.

There is no policy that suggests that the stabbings need not only be in England, but more precisely in the town of 200,000 ... or in the park. Nor do similar see also sections use that approach.

And this attack has indeed led to a charge under the Terrorism Act 2000.--2604:2000:E010:1100:CD1F:E212:F875:244F (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Something being labelled a terrorist attack DOES NOT mean Islamism. The "see also" section should invoke common sense, and including these attacks implies that this was also an Islamist attack - an implication we MUST NOT make. We should really avoid citing unverifiable statements (such as "sources say" or similar). I'm not going to remove them again, but if you take it upon yourself to re-add them, please may I request you don't add the implication of a link through Islamism – solely as the article does not mention it so it should not be in the "see also" section. MIDI (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion on the article talk page – let's continue there rather than split a discussion across two pages. MIDI (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair point on Islamism. Agreed. Also as to any other comments on talk page. I will wait to re-add; wait to see if others have a comment. 2604:2000:E010:1100:CD1F:E212:F875:244F (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. We seem to have discussions going on the article talk page about most things, so gaining consensus shouldn't be too difficult (or at least, we've got a number of editors involved). We're far enough on from the initial event that we'll start to see things settle down in the article now anyway—it's always the case! That said, my watchlist is absolutely bonkers at the moment... MIDI (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

---