Talk:2024 Hainault sword attack

Page thinks it is a redirect.
I am not Wikipedia-savvy, I don't know how to change this or why it is like this in the first place, but, per the content assessment scale, the page appears to be a "redirect". It does not redirect to anything. If someone more knowledgeable could fix this it would be appreciated. Macxcxz (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Apparently me typing this fixed it. Alright. Macxcxz (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Calling this a "mass stabbing" or "stabbing"
I think it is far more reasonable to call this a mass stabbing rather than stabbing, even if most sources call it a "stabbing attack" or "sword attack". "Stabbing" is often indicative of a singular victim rather than several (see Cambridge dictionary definition), hence the reason for the existence of the term "mass stabbing". Further, several articles involving the stabbing deaths/injuries of several victims have the term "mass stabbing" applied either in the article or in categories, despite that not being the primary terminology used in sources. Many of these articles are long-standing and of high-profile incidents. See the following, for a few: Trollhättan school stabbing, 2017 London Bridge attack, 2024 Rockford stabbings, Franklin Regional High School stabbing, 2014 Isla Vista killings, Ohio State University attack, 2020 Reading stabbings, Rackhams' stabbing incident, Glasgow hotel stabbings, 2016 Russell Square stabbing, Rzeszowski family homicides, Quebec City stabbing, 2014 Calgary stabbing, and many more.

Looking at the article List of mass stabbings in the United Kingdom, a mass stabbing is defined as "at least three people being stabbed", and indeed this article is part of that list. Why have this article be part of that list, which it should be based on the criteria, and not also have it be in the category of practically the same name? It seems pedantic and only serves to prevent this article from being discovered on a wider basis. As such, even if this is not a conventional way to categorise an article, Ignore all rules may be applied to say that it improves the encyclopaedic quality and accessibility of the article and does not alter the perception of the events of the incident in any way.

This is mainly directed at @DeFacto, who changed it from "mass stabbing" to "stabbing" initially. Macxcxz (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:INFOBOX, the infobox is for a summary of the key facts about the page's subject as presented in the article body. Per WP:CATVER, it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. So what we need to see before you put that in the infobox or put this article in that category is reliably sourced content in the article body explicitly supporting that description, and an agreement here that the consensus amongst reliable sources is indeed that this event was a "mass stabbing". -- DeFacto (talk). 08:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By that do you mean that they literally have to use the words "mass stabbing" or just describe the scenario of a mass stabbing, because they all describe a mass stabbing. Many articles use some variance of the phrase "stabbing rampage", which has essentially the same meaning as "mass stabbing", however Wikipedia does not call attacks on multiple people with a blade "stabbing rampages", they call it a mass stabbing, as evidenced by the pages I linked above. To use the term "stabbing rampage" would make this page inconsistent with other similar events. My issue with labelling it merely a "stabbing" has already been written above, along with my concerns about the article being less discoverable.
 * Say there was an incident where someone shot several people with a gun, but every news article happened to use the terminology "opened fire on a crowd of people", are you then going to say that it should not be labelled as a "mass shooting" because that terminology was not used in articles, despite the fact the articles are clearly describing those two things? Would you even be allowed to call it a "shooting"? Once again, I see this as pedantic and betraying the encyclopaedic value of this article. Macxcxz (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify, when I say "Wikipedia does not call...", I mean the articles mentioned above. Macxcxz (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Literally, yes. Per WP:V, ... all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. That means that anything added to this article needs to have the consensus amongst reliable sources calling it this. "Mass", in this context, is defined as "involving a large number of people". "Large number" is clearly subjective, but I would suggest that it is definitely more than 3.
 * We can't redefine such terms ourselves and then apply them (that contravenes WP:OR), we need to rely on what the reliable sources say. If "mass stabbing" isn't a widely used term, and the sources don't use it, then we shouldn't use it.
 * The same goes for a gun attack. The use of the subjective term "mass" should be avoided unless it is unambiguously a large number (100s or 1000s perhaps) or the term is applied across the spectrum of quality reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume the word “mass” in this context refers to a “large number”? Why do you think the Cambridge definition of mass is at all applicable to terms like “mass shooting”? You are just separating the words in a phrase to assume its meaning. You assert that it is inappropriate to speculate on what a “large number” is, but you will happily speculate on what “mass” means in terms of a mass stabbing or mass shooting, despite that being just as contentious. There is no textbook consensus on what a mass shooting or mass stabbing is, but the general consensus on Wikipedia, between the articles mass shooting and mass stabbing is that it is an event in which multiple people are either killed or injured by the respective weapons.
 * In relation to your link to WP:V, I fail to see how that would indicate the term “mass stabbing” must be literally referenced in sources to be used. The sources do not at all refute a “mass stabbing” occurred, if we use the general Wikipedia definition for a mass stabbing, given that no other reliable definition exists. Rather, the sources support that a mass stabbing occurred, with each of them stating that one person was killed four people were wounded in a sword attack, i.e. multiple people. “Supports” is vague and could easily be used to justify calling it a “mass stabbing” too, as these articles all refer to an incident that fits the definition of mass stabbing, thus supporting the label of mass stabbing. Macxcxz (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Mass shooting" isn't a single word or British-English-dictionary-defined term. So for its definition we need to look up the two individual words, and "mass", in this context, means "having an effect on or involving a large number of people" - with "mass murderer" given as an example.
 * Re you 2nd paragraph, see the reply I made below at 13:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC), to see how Wiki policy expects us to apply WP:V when it isn't clear-cut. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , I am not sure why you removed the source which describes the attack as a mass stabbing since that is what WP:V, which you keep using to back up your argument, says there needs to be. That is also not the only source which says this attack was a mass stabbing, have a look yourself: 1, 2, 3, 4. Regardless of these sources, an incident with 5 victims like this is indubitably a mass stabbing, as the definition is an incident involving a sharp object with 3-4+ casualties. harrz  talk 12:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To see why I made that edit, please read the edit summary I gave with it. WP:V not only needs a source, but it needs a reliable source. And for content where different reliable sources make different assertions about a matter, we need, per WP:VOICE, not only one reliable source, or even four saying the same thing, to assess what the consensus is amongst all the available reliable sources. And even then, if all those requirements are met, and as per WP:ONUS, you need a talkpage consensus for inclusion.
 * Note: a good place to verify whether a source is considered reliable is the table in WP:RSP. If it's not in there, then it can be taken to WP:RSN. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Notability
A "notability" tag was placed at the top of the article on 2 May 2024. Since then, over the past few days, the article has been expanded further with more secondary sources. In my view this article now meets WP:GNG requirements because there has been significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Currently there are 17 different references for the article.

In the United Kingdom, reports of the attack were on the front page of some national broadsheet newspapers and on the day of the event the sword attack was the main headline on national BBC News television. The coverage of the attack received significant national news coverage in the UK rather than just local news coverage which occurs for some stabbing fatalities. Can the "notability" tag now be removed on the basis of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources? Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it is safe to remove the tag now. That tag was placed early on in the page's creation and I think the notability of this incident has been made clear now. Macxcxz (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Tag now removed as per the reasons above. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)