Talk:Glasgow hotel stabbings

Breaking news on BBC, not yet American cable

Friendly reminder. --2603:9000:A511:9E76:EC47:7D74:AF65:2334 (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

IP, I saw it on CNN too, therefore it is on American Cable: https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/glasgow-stabbings-latest-gbr-intl/index.html - there was a TV clip on the page, but it might've been removed. Ed6767 talk! 16:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Understood... Quick question: Regarding the death toll (was at first at 4 + suspect, than 2 + suspect, now just him) I think we should wait for confirmation by Scotland officials. --2603:9000:A511:9E76:EC47:7D74:AF65:2334 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

We should. Ed6767 talk! 16:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait for confirmation of number of deaths

Before we can assert in Wiki's voice how many people have died, we need to see those assertions being the consensus in the reliable sources. Currently all we have confirmed is that the suspect was shot dead by the police. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Without trivialising the incident, this seems to have become a perfect example of why we shouldn't rush to announce things. MIDI (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Messy revisions

Someone screwed it up. I think it was right before. I don't have the time to figure out who did this. It now says "The other injured men are three asylum seekers and two hotel staff members, aged 18, 20, 38 and 53". That does not add up. Sloppy and stupid. --2604:2000:E010:1100:3CB1:2CAD:16BF:6112 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleting the country, etc

Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Not everyone knows where Glasgow is. I don't think it a good approach for you to delete the country from the article here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glasgow_hotel_stabbings&diff=964745350&oldid=964745112

Also, I do not under stand your other edits here, in particular for example your changing "suspect" to "alleged suspect." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glasgow_hotel_stabbings&diff=964745112&oldid=964744666 He was a suspect. Period. You can say alleged attacker (though I am not sure when alleged gets dropped when someone is killed since there is not court determination). But a most definite suspect. What support do you have for calling him an "alleged" suspect? Or are you making that up, adding that description on your own take of the situation? Other changes, such as your deleting the fact that people were hospitalized, or changing the normal phrase "mass" stabbing to "multiple" stabbing, are also puzzling to me. I do not see them as improvements.

--2604:2000:E010:1100:3CB1:2CAD:16BF:6112 (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Taking your points one by one:

• If readers don't know where Glasgow is they can click on the link - we don't need to clutter the article with unnecessary detail. What if they don't know where Scotland is - do we add United Kingdom? What if they don't know where the UK is - we add Europe? Etcetera.
• The source said alleged, and so should we until we have a reliable source to confirm it.
• I didn't delete the fact that people were hospitalised, I might have re-phrased into more traditional British English though.
• Same with 'mass stabbing', the British sources that I read were calling it 'multiple stabbing'.

Hope that helps. If you don't like my style though, feel free to edit the article yourself, that's what Wikipedia is about. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

That does not make sense. First of all, why ever put in the country then, if you put in a city? It is done all the time. It is standards. Maybe so you don't require people to make extra clicks. Maybe so people can print off a copy and see it there. Anyway - it is totally standard to include it. We like standard. Instead of "I prefer."

A suspect is alleged to have been committed a crime. We put alleged in before "committed a crime" because crime is something determined by court. But suspect is not. So it is silly to say "alleged" suspect. Make sense?

You say you did not delete that people were hospitalized. But didn't you? See the edit I referred to. It clearly shows you as having deleted it, am I wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glasgow_hotel_stabbings&diff=964745112&oldid=964744666

Here is a "mass stabbing" cite. https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/suspect-shot-dead-after-mass-stabbing-in-glasgow-20200626-p556rf.html This one from the Times in the UK (title: "Suspect shot dead after mass stabbing in Glasgow"). https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suspect-shot-after-mass-stabbing-in-glasgow-9q2qr5scc This one from BBC in the UK. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-53204696 This one from the Telegraph in the UK. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/26/glasgow-stabbing-armed-police-reportedly-seen-storming-hotel/ And of course it is the name of the related wp article. It seems unfriendly and silly to change another fellow editor's "mass killing" to multiple killing under these circumstances.

Look at all the papers calling him a suspect and not an alleged suspect - which you should instinctively know is nonsensical here. BBC News in the UK. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-scotland-53198982/suspect-shot-dead-after-stabbing-attack-in-glasgow The Guardian in the UK. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/27/glasgow-hotel-attack-stabbing-suspect-park-inn-mental-health The Independent in the UK. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/david-whyte-glasgow-stabbings-police-asylum-hotel-a9589516.html The Standard in the UK. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/glasgow-stabbing-suspect-shot-dead-named-a4482136.html The Scotsman in the UK. https://www.scotsman.com/news/crime/glasgow-stabbings-suspect-warned-carrying-out-attack-hotel-2897266 Yahoo News UK. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/suspect-shot-dead-six-people-162604285.html

I don't think this a case of "if you don't like my style you edit it." This is where we can do best by both of us agreeing to edit sensibly and .. and I think this important .. not revert or replace other editors BETTER edits with inferior ones. We should advance the shape of the article, both of us advancing it. Not with one of us reducing the quality. Above, I think that is what you did, and I think there are objective reasons supporting my concern. 2604:2000:E010:1100:3CB1:2CAD:16BF:6112 (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, all that over a couple of simple wording changes! The country name might be useful for small provincial towns, but not for major cities like Glasgow. Why didn't you link to all the sources showing "alleged suspect" and "multiple stabbings" too? Your cherry-picked selection doesn't prove anything at all. And the lead doesn't need all the minutia, I updated the detail in the main body of the article about the injured being taken to hospital. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You just seem in the above examples to have your own personal style, and instead of being sensitive to the fact that there is another editor who has first written something that is completely fine, you choose to delete it and substitute your "no better and in some cases clearly worse" style. That is not collegial, and does not lead to a spirit of working together, and does not improve the article imho. As far as what is "needed" in a lede, the question is not what is needed. But what is appropriate. Under wp:lede. Nothing is "needed". Not even this article. And as far as your saying you changed the wp-article-named mass stabbing to multiple stabbing due to the fact that that is what British sources say - I responded by showing you that British sources are in line with what you chose to change. You opened up that issue with that statement. I didn't focus on that until you did. It seems there (as with the other changes) were no reason for you to do the good work of others. To insert inferior "simple wording changes." Why even do that? 2604:2000:E010:1100:3CB1:2CAD:16BF:6112 (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Naming the suspected perpetrator

Added name, which was just released by SKY News, subsequently removed. Perpetrators name is Badreddin Abadlla Adam. Unsure why it was removed, but the edit removing it suggested taking it to the talk... Cheesy McGee (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we name the alleged perpetrator who was killed by the police? See WP:BDP. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

My view is that it is ok to name him. A reliable source has confirmed his death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. I'm not convinced that the possible exceptions hold sway here. Also, the Scottish police have confirmed his name. It is all over the press. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Badreddin+Abadlla+Adam --2604:2000:E010:1100:3CB1:2CAD:16BF:6112 (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:BDP, it covers those who have recently died. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I did. My comment relates to that. 2604:2000:E010:1100:3CB1:2CAD:16BF:6112 (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The attacker has been named by police. He is the perp, not merely a suspect. His name has been published widely in reliable sources around the world. There is no justification for withholding his name from this article. BDP is not relevant here as there is no "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends". WWGB (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

None of that means we need to add the name to this article though. And until any investigations are complete and details are confirmed, we should continue to respect living relatives and friends. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand your personal feelings, but please explain how inclusion of the widely published perp’s name breaches any WP policy. WWGB (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:INFO, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Please explain how the inclusion of this name is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject here. Currently, it seems we're adding it because we can. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Because a Wikipedia article should be ... a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. The inclusion of the perp's name in multiple reliable sources from around the world demonstrates that it is accepted knowledge. WWGB (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

As the person's name adds nothing of any intrinsic value to the article, this is a case where "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Title

Should the title include the year of the attack to identify it more precisely, like the reading attack for example? Llewee (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Not needed unless there is another notable Glasgow hotel stabbings event with an article in Wikipedia. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is different to the 2020 Reading stabbings, which needs the year in its title to disambiguate from the murder of Mary-Ann Leneghan. Jim Michael (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Smithr32 there is a discussion about the name here, please participate in it rather than renaming the article again. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)