Talk:List of mass stabbings in the United Kingdom

Verifiability of entries
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 lead list needs to have the consensus amongst reliable sources calling it this. That is regardless of how many victims there were or what instrument was used to inflict the injuries. For that reason, I propose removing any entries that do not comply with the WP:V Wikipedia policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Many sources don't describe mass stabbing incidents as such because it isn't a widely used term, and most opt for 'attack' or simply 'stabbing' instead. Furthermore, as stated in the lead, there is no agreement on a specific definition for mass stabbings, so for this article I used the one most described in the sources I could find. A different definition would be fine, however there needs to be a consensus for it. Regardless of whether or not an attack is described as a mass stabbing by the media, if it has multiple victims then it is a mass stabbing, and other lists of mass stabbings include incidents which aren't described as mass stabbings. harrz  talk 18:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "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. Why don't we just list these as "stabbing attacks" if that's what the sources call them? What happens in other articles is irrelevant. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I cannot find a source which clearly states how many victims a mass stabbing has, so if you can find one please share it. However, looking at other articles such as List of mass stabbing incidents (2020–present), they also use the minimum of three victims to define such incidents. Also, the mass stabbing article states that "the phrase mass killing can be used to define a mass stabbing". A mass killing is then defined as involving three or more fatalities, implying that 'mass' = ≥3. If there is no clear definition for mass stabbing I think this is as close as we can get. harrz  talk 23:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't need an artificial redefinition of "mass", and, per WP:OTHER, it doesn't matter what happens in other articles, what we need is for each entry in the table to be supported by the consensus of sources as being a mass stabbing. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see why each entry needs to be directly called a mass stabbing by sources because a mass stabbing is just a stabbing involving multiple victims, which all of the entries in the list are. Furthermore, all entries follow WP:V as all information in each entry is supported by reliable sources. Removing 9 incidents just because they aren't called a mass stabbing by whatever source is used isn't a very justified reason as they all still involved multiple victims. harrz  talk 11:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By adding an entry to list you are, in effect, asserting it is a mass stabbing, and "mass" is subjective. WP:V needs that to be the consensus amongst reliable sources, not just the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. Let's drop it now, rather than going around the same loop again. Let's wait to see if anyone else has an opinion. Or you might want to start a WP:3O or an WP:RFC on it. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Requested third opinion. 21:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: I see two points of disagreement here:


 * 1) What is the definition of a "mass stabbing", and specifically how many victims can "mass" refer to?
 * 2) Does each entry on the list have to be called a "mass stabbing" by reliable sources, or is it enough for sources to report details of an attack such that it can reasonably be defined as a "mass stabbing"?
 * For point 1, a brief search shows that there are several definitions for "mass" attacks, and the most stringent require there to have been at least four victims killed. This source has a good summary of available definitions, which range from at least three casualties (killed or injured) to at least four killed. The authors decided that In the present study, the term “mass” stabbing was defined as four or more victims being stabbed as defined herein in a continuous attack, which is consistent with a general trend toward requiring four or more victims. This study chooses a more stringent definition of four or more victims killed in a 24-hr period, while criticizing the first study I mentioned as breaking from the traditional completed mass murder definition involving four or more fatalities. These two seem to be the best scholarly reviews of the subject. A web search turned up this article (as an example), which lists a stabbing with one dead and three injured as a mass stabbing. OTHER can be useful, too, since this debate has been had before: List of mass shootings in the United States lists a variety of definitions, but all fall within the range I provided above. I don't get to decide consensus, but I think it's clear that the definition of "mass" used in this article should be in that range too.


 * On point 2, I think there is no reason to require that sources specifically use the term "mass stabbing" if it can be verified that the incident was a mass stabbing. Essentially, a case of WP:BLUE. The term clearly has a scholarly definition; although these vary in the details, they are broadly similar. If sources verify that an attack meets the definition of a "mass stabbing", then it is reasonable for this list to include the attack. The first source I linked says For this study, a “stabbing” was defined as the intentional and violently forceful piercing or cutting of body tissue, by means of a pointed or edged instrument, and then goes into excruciating detail about exactly how a victim must be stabbed to qualify. The second study mentions knives and sharp objects, but doesn't bother to define the term "stabbing" explicitly, presumably because it has a fairly logical and uncontroversial meaning. Neither looked at whether newspaper articles or other primary sources from the time used the term "mass stabbing" – they instead checked if the incident met their own definition of "mass stabbing". (Incidentally, the second study got its list of attacks from, among other places, Reddit and this Wikipedia article. So much for reliable sources...) Toadspike   [Talk]  07:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging @DeFacto and @Harrz. Toadspike   [Talk]  07:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think a practical approach is to take a look at the current list and decide what makes sense. For instance, if we chose the definition of "at least four victims killed", then the Rackhams' stabbing incident could not be included, even though with 15 victims stabbed it surely meets DeFacto's requirement for a "large number". Notability is another factor not yet considered in this discussion – many lists require notability (a Wikipedia article) for inclusion. However, there are incidents listed here which arguably would not qualify as a "mass stabbing", like Leytonstone tube station attack, but which are nonetheless notable.
 * All this to say that it's pretty complicated, but maybe the two of you can agree on something. Toadspike   [Talk]  07:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, your comments have been greatly helpful. , I propose that we use the definition used in this source which Toadspike found of four or more casualties, which is the same as mass shootings. If you agree with this I will add the entries which meet this criteria back into the list. harrz  talk 17:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that Wikipedia should stick to Wikipedia policy, and not use the arbitrary 'definition' of the subjective term chosen by the authors for a paper published in a US journal. Wikipedia policy is quite straightforward, WP:V says that all content should be supported by reliable sources. What's wrong with expecting the content of this article to comply with that policy? If the sources say it's a mass stabbing then it can be included, otherwise it cannot be. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Like Toadspike mentioned, your argument of WP:V falls under WP:BLUE, and you seem to have no other reason for the omission of so many entries in this list. harrz  talk 22:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)