Talk:Liverpool Women's Hospital bombing

"Suspected" perpetrator
The perpetrator was Emad Al-Swealmeen. His picture is all over the news and the internet in general. The police have searched both his recent properties. What needs to happen for him to be no longer just "suspected"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct. Deceased suspects aren't charged. The investigation revealed the identity of the perpetrator. BBC refers to him as "Liverpool bomber". There's nothing to wait for to be able to remove "suspected". — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet the cited source calls him a suspect, why would we want to overrule that? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Later BBC source which I had already added prior to your revert added doesn't refer to him as a suspect, "suspected X" etc, but simply calls him "Liverpool bomber". — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So we have a disagreement between the sources then. We might need to say that in the article so that we don't mislead the readers. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not disagreement between the sources. The new coverage is important and the old is outdated. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably best to update the article then and cite sources that confirm the conclusions of the investigations. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I cited one source that describes him not as a suspect but as the "Liverpool bomber" in the relevant place. The conclusion of the investigation with regard to who detonated the device is already being had. This is not a normal criminal investigation where we wait to see if there will be charges. What is happening now is a counter-terrorism investigation to see if there is an ongoing threat connected to the deceased perpetrator, what his possible connections and influences were etc. There is nothing more to be learned from the investigation regarding the identity of the perpetrator. The officials said who he was. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, if you mean this BBC one, currently number 21, that only says that in the headline, and headlines are not regarded as reliable sources per Wikipedia policy - see WP:HEADLINES - unless it is substantiated in the body of the article, and I didn't spot it in there. Also, do we have a source saying it was deliberately detonated, or could it have gone off by accident? That BBC one says he "was a passenger in a taxi when his homemade device exploded". -- DeFacto (talk). 16:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, poor guy. It was all a terrible accident? Even if the device had a timer, or was triggered by a remote accomplice, he'd still be responsible? But, in any case, the police are looking for no-one else. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we have an RS saying it was deliberately detonated? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's very easy to do actually. There you are one minute, quietly minding your own business and carrying a bomb to the local women's hospital, the next minute—bang!—all of a sudden you're in no condition for a Mexican Wave. # —— Serial


 * Wow. Yes, you spend all that time since April, planning a bomb attack, and then, on the big day, the thing just goes off. How unlucky can you get. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Why would we want to tie ourselves to one source from 2 days ago? What about e.g. this one (or many, many more...)? Martinevans123 (talk)
 * Police investigation has moved rapidly since the event on Sunday 14th. They no longer see him as "a suspect". He was responsible. He blew himself up. Why is this fact so hard to grasp? Martinevans123 (talk)
 * I clicked on the cited source and it contradicted what was written. If the article content was changed to reflect later news, then the later sources should have been cited. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that source needs updating. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Martinevans123, I see you've re-added him as perpetrator, with the edit summary "sources refer to him as "the bomber" not "the suspected bomber". Which sources say that, because the BBC one only says it in the headline, which cannot be taken to be reliable per WP:HEADLINES? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I quote from the same BBC article discussed above: "The Liverpool bomber attempted to launch a fresh legal appeal to stay in the UK in January and then began making purchases for his attack in April, it has emerged." — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's in a sub-headline, not the actual article body, so not regarded as reliable. WP:HEADLINES is clear: News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You just can't trust these BBC sub-headlines, can we. It's just all sensationalist nonsense. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't write the Wikipedia policy, I'm just the messenger. But aren't you suspicious of why they say it in the headlines but then don't go on to substantiate it in the body? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no suspicions. I can probably find 50 sources that report the police confirming that he was the bomber. Do you want them all to be added? Or just that "suspicious" BBC one removed? Even "just the messenger" can also find clearer sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that the UPI source you just added say Police said the bomber, Emad al-Swealmeen, died in the blast that was set off while he sat inside a taxi cab outside the hospital in Liverpool on Sunday, whereas The Guardian's current piece also report what the police said, but report it as Police investigating the Liverpool hospital explosion say the suspected bomber began his plot at least seven months ago and most likely acted on his own. Emad al-Swealmeen, 32, died after a homemade bomb police believe he had built and was carrying, exploded in a taxi outside Liverpool women’s hospital". I wonder why The Guardian are still calling him the "suspected bomber" if it's all so clear. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's very intriguing. They also use the headline "Liverpool suspect ‘began buying bomb parts at least seven months ago’" Although we can't trust that, of course. Perhaps we should try and tease out why there should be any remaining doubt over his responsibility? It certainly seems that identity is not an issue. Would you agree he was the taxi passenger? Is it that the bomb may have been detonated "accidentally" or by someone else remotely (but police seem to have ruled out the latter). I can't think of another reason. Or is that dead terrorists always remain "suspects" and can never be murderers, because they were never found guilty in court? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It raises the question, which occurs in all these deceased accused cases, of when do you say someone is guilty of a crime when they are dead and could never be prosecuted. Do we wait until even The Guardian gives in? And on what criteria would they ever do that? Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly The Times here has "The Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker who tried to “game the system” by converting to Christianity, Home Office sources claimed yesterday. .. Al Swealmeen, 32, killed himself and injured a taxi driver on Remembrance Sunday when he detonated an improvised explosive device outside Liverpool Women’s Hospital." 17:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The BBC source from today, which uses 'bomber' in the headline, says in the body " the suspected bomber's mother was from Iraq and confirmed he was born there." So BBC is still using 'suspected' today. The likelihood of any other explanation for the incident is very slim, but the best available source should be followed IMO. He is still only 'suspected' of intending to bomb. Pincrete (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And you're saying "this BBC report is the best available source"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC) p.s. the good old DM has "Almeni blew up an IED 'Mother of Satan' bomb" and also has exclusive pictures "inside the cramped, shabby Liverpool home..."
 * BBC is current - not two days old as claimed. Why would any other source be preferred? Has the BBC ceased to be a RS? What exactly is the hurry to say that the most likely explanation is confirmed, when it hasn't yet been so by UK's most cautious but reliable source nor by UK police AFAIK ? Pincrete (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As DeFacto has quite rightly made clear, we should follow sources. But sources differ in their emphasis and in their use of the s-word. What other explanation has even been offered? Perhaps Template:Infobox civilian attack should allow "Suspect" as a parameter? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to see the word "suspected" in that same BBC story that I had referenced earlier, as I had checked for it then and I'm pretty sure it wasn't there. Just wanted to clarify that. It's plausible that the article is changing minute by minute. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They might be reading this and realised their mistake. ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 19:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * BBC articles are frequently updated/corrected. There's a tag in the top left indicating how 'fresh' the updates are. While I'm on the subject, I believe the most official statement so far is from the Counter Terrorism Police who said they "strongly believe" that's who the person is. Frankly they could have been more convincing. That may be why everyone is still saying 'suspect'. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe that should be used as a source? But the discussion here suggests his actual identity is not the moot point. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, you say here "do we follow sources or not?". You realise that The Daily Telegraph source uses the word "attack" four times? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, if I had to choose between the BBC and the Telegraph, I know which I'd choose. Secondly, what was attacked? The cite used in the article does not refer to an attack as a certain fact. How can it be an attack when we don't even know where/what the target was? And am I or a reader meant to know that the cite used isn't the one intended? It may have been/appears to be an intended attack. Pincrete (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The BBC online editions are usually anonymous and quite lazy, so I would go with the proper paper and respected journalists. Paper of record vs grad scheme anon journalist. Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The guy blew himself up. What he intended to do and why is pure guesswork at the moment. There is no reason to believe that The Telegraph has some divining rod that makes its guesses better than anyone else's. The only people with a better picture are the people investigating the clues left behind. The difference between BBC, The Telegraph, Gdn and others at present is more a matter of editorial leaning than 'reliability'. Who is more cautious, who doesn't care tuppence because dead men don't sue? Pincrete (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Perpetrator's name was Enzo Almeni
The Guardian reports here: "Al-Swealmeen had changed his name by deed poll to Enzo Almeni, in honour of Italian race car legend Enzo Ferrari, to sound more western on his asylum application. If this was his actual legal name, it should be used instead? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As they're not saying it in their own voice, it's nothing more than hearsay, so probably not worth adding. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The article does attribute this comment to Malcolm and Elizabeth Hitchcott, Christian volunteers in Liverpool, who briefly "took him in". But it is irreparably tainted by the fact they told the Daily Mail, which we officially can't believe any more. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * But, if Elizabeth Hitchcott's reported account is to be beloved, Enzo Alemni was his current name. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Immigration status and proceedings history
The BBC has an article on the proceedings history for his immigration claim and questions about the Home Office's not removing the suspect from the UK. If we're going to note CoE criticism by confirming him as if they would know, it seems the Home Office has some more pressing questions to answer. Making a note of it here, unless someone else wants to add it. Solipsism 101 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The same point was made this evening, on the BBC News at Six, by Barrister Adam Wagner, who reiterated that it's the Home Office's job to remove illegal asylum claimants, and that Priti Patel's criticism of the legal profession is just "deflection". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Bombing or explosion?
Has there been confirmation in the RSes that this was a deliberate 'bombing' rather than an unintentional explosion? We use the word in the title, infobox and categories, but I don't see it substantiated anywhere. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Independent, in the first of the list of sources directly above, says: "A fourth suspect was arrested in connection with the bombing on Monday morning." That's not a headline or a sub-heading. But Assistant Chief Constable Russ Jackson does not use the words "bombing" or "bomber" in the accompanying video clip. A title of "Liverpool Women's Hospital explosion" might be more neutral and accurate as the hospital itself was not damaged and it is not known if this was the perpetrator's intended target. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In The Times A security source said a theory was that the bomb had gone off accidentally as the driver pulled over to drop Al Swealmeen outside the hospital, and that the carnage could have been far worse. It also says The Liverpool bomber experimented with a 7/7-style device as he gathered explosive materials over several months in a rental flat, counterterrorism detectives believe., emphasis mine. So detonated early would not appear to exclude this being a bombing. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly, something "exploded" in the taxi and caused the fire. Maybe the perp was crap at making bombs. I don't like "Liverpool Women's Hospital explosion" as it does not convey that the incident was deliberate. "Explosion" might just be a boiler exploding in the basement. WWGB (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @WWGB, you say "explosion" does not "convey that the incident was deliberate". The question posed at the start of this thread was "Has there been confirmation in the RSes that this was a deliberate 'bombing' rather than an unintentional explosion?" You seem to believe there has been - can you elaborate on that? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The perp entered the taxi with a bomb. He was not taking it on a tour. Whether it went off prematurely or as planned, it was nevertheless intended to go off at some stage. That is not "unintentional". WWGB (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are using assumptions then, rather than sourced and substantiated facts. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of our articles about bombings initially have explosion in their titles due it being unknown if it's deliberate. If it becomes backed by RS that it was deliberate, we usually change the title so that it includes bombing. RS describe the attack as a bombing & al-Swealmeen as the bomber. He chose to hire a taxi to take him to Liverpool Women's Hospital & also chose to take a bomb with him in the vehicle. What's your specific angle on this? That he may have intended to detonate the bomb elsewhere? Even if it were proved that he had another intended bombing destination (which it hasn't been), it doesn't change what happened or where, which is what the title should describe. Jim Michael (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The question isn't simply whether al-Swealmeen intended to bomb somewhere, which he probably did. It is also a question of whether he intended to bomb this women's hospital. If he was intending to bomb some other location, (which has been speculated as possibly a local 'poppy day' commemoration), and the bomb exploded en route, is it still meaningfully a "hospital bombing" ? Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to back the speculation that his intended target was Liverpool Cathedral. Had it been, he'd have asked the driver to take him there instead of the hospital. The most likely scenario is that he planned to take the bomb into the hospital. In any case, we name attacks by their location, not their intended, different location. Had Ed O'Brien's bomb not detonated prematurely, the bus he brought it onto likely would've been outside Aldwych when the bomb exploded. However, even if we knew where he wanted the bus to be when his bomb detonated on it, neither its common name, nor our title, would change from Aldwych bus bombing. Jim Michael (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As to whether it is intended or not, sources call him the hospital bomber. It doesn't matter what we'd think and even if it did and we got to determine definitions, the fact sources consider it a bombing is good evidence of what the term means in practice. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are editors aware that some roads were closed around the Cathedral because it was Remembrance Sunday? This may explain his request to be taken to the hospital. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The cathedral being the intended target is merely an unsubstantiated theory & even if proven, the current title would be best. It was a bombing in front of the hospital. Jim Michael (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The cathedral is where he arrived to convert and where he met the couple he lived with. It's conjecture that that was part of his calculation, but it was covered in The Times iirc. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see the justification for including in this article speculation that the cathedral was his intended target. However, it's not proved, and even if it were it wouldn't justify changing the title, because its proven that the incident was a bombing in front of the hospital. Jim Michael (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is proof that it was a bombing, it hasn't been disclosed yet as the latest from the police is that they "still do not know how or why the device exploded when it did, but [they] are not discounting it being completely unintentional". -- DeFacto (talk). 17:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is proven that it was a bombing. The police are saying that they aren't discounting the explosion outside the hospital as a being premature. They aren't saying that they think he might have not intended it to explode anywhere. Jim Michael (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We know it was a bomb, but it isn't clear yet if the explosion was a bombing or an accident. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What's your suggestion for a better title? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He certainly intended it to explode - that's why he made it & took it into a taxi. What's uncertain is where he wanted it to explode. Jim Michael (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Seven months of planning don't really amount to "an accident" as most people would understand that term. Perhaps it could described as a "failed bombing". But still a fully intended bombing. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoever made the bomb presumably intended it to be detonatable, and whoever the customer for the bomb was presumably planned to bomb somewhere with it. However, we don't know who the customer of it was and where they planned to bomb with it. All we know is it partially went off in a taxi and killed the suspected maker of it. We don't know if he was in transit to deliver it to the customer of it, or to bomb somewhere with it himself, or whether he set it off deliberately as the taxi approached the hospital entrance. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're the only person I've known to mention a hypothetical customer that al-Swealmeen was going to sell the bomb to. What makes you think he (may have) had a customer? Jim Michael (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sell? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @DeFacto Has any source said he might have been trying to sell? Many sources say CT police have not identified an ideological motivation, but that doesn't mean he didn't intend to bomb somewhere and kill himself. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No source that I'm aware of, and I don't recall anyone suggesting he might have been trying to sell it. He could have been the 'technician' in a team, delivering it to another team member (his customer) to use, when it went off accidentally. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You mentioned a supposed customer. Jim Michael (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Making it for someone else doesn't necessarily mean for sale. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sell or donation or specific purpose trust, do you have any source that says it was for a third party? Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but we don't have confirmation it was for his own use either. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What? There was a customer?? Oh, I see, Liverpool Women's Hospital bomb product? Yeah, sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't yet know why he made it - how could we, the investigations are still ongoing. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're saying we should prove (probably unprovable) negatives, such as him not having operated or planned to operate with anyone else? Jim Michael (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No I am not. I'm saying we need to reliably substantiate any assertions of fact we make, and given that the investigation hasn't been completed, we cannot yet do that. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What is currently in the article that isn't backed by RS? Jim Michael (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I tidied it up a bit yesterday, so not so much now, although I think some of the categories still fail WP:CATVER. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Such as? Jim Michael (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Those asserting either bombing or terrorism. The investigations aren't complete, so we do not know whether it was either. Read this in The Guardian, and WP:VER. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The word you used was customer, which means selling. Even if you meant that he intended to give it to another member of a VNSA group, why do you think that? Everything point to al-Swealmeen having been a lone wolf. I've not read/heard anything about him having had accomplices, being part of a cell/group etc. Jim Michael (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Or "A person of a specified kind with whom one has to deal". The investigations are incomplete, so we do not know why he made it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the definition you linked to, that's a less common use of the word which requires it to be accompanied by an adjective, which you didn't use.
 * Is the theory of the bomb being for an unnanmed third party merely your personal speculation? Jim Michael (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting my use of English. At the moment, this article relies on speculation that the suspect bombed the hospital. As we don't know yet where he was taking the device, or why, or why it partially exploded, and yet our article seems to imply he deliberately used it himself to bomb the hospital, I was just stating the obvious, that there was an alternative: it could have gone off accidentally while he was delivering it to someone else to use. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the article is neutral but for the use of "perpetrator" (that's not certain if it were accidental) and "bombing" which presupposes some intentional act of detonation or ignition. I do not think that if it were intentional and it went off in the taxi, as opposed to the reception of the hospital, it would cease to be a bombing. Postal bombers nevertheless bomb postal service stations when their bombs go off early. As long as there is an intentional act to attack (from Lexico/OED) I think bombing covers it. (Edit: But if it turns out to be accidental, RSs will slowly reflect that by using explosion as opposed to bombing. For now, it's clear they are using bombing.) Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He intended to detonate it, even though it's uncertain if he intended to detonate it at the exact time & place it exploded. Even if it's proved to have been a premature detonation, that's still a bombing rather than an accidental explosion. Jim Michael (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that is baseless speculation as the investigation is still ongoing and no conclusion has yet been published. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The baseless third person theory (which I've known only you to suggest) isn't realistic. Jim Michael (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Logically, another possibility. But it's not for us to choose which of the possibilities to back, we need to wait for the results of the investigations to be published. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's baseless speculation. Lockerbie wasn't the intended target of the Pan Am Flight 103 bomber. Flights from London to NYC don't usually fly over Scotland, but the attack is commonly known as the Lockerbie bombing. Jim Michael (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. Incidentally, there's been no suggestion that this bomb had a timer (which might have been mis-set) Perhaps the police just don't know. But if they did know, I'm sure they would have mentioned it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, titles are often based on the common name, regardless of how accurate or factually correct those titles are. That is not the problem here though, the problem here is that if stated elsewhere in the article, that needs to be substantiated by RSes - and we aren't able to do that currently for the reasons laid out above. Let's not keep going around in circles on that, eh? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As Jim Michael just put in his edit summary, RSs describe him as the "bomber /attacker /perpetrator." If there he was the bomber, it seems reasonable to assume there was a bombing. Here's yet another source with "The suspect in the suicide bombing in Liverpool". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Without the results of the investigations being available yet though, any such assertions can only be speculation - or do you think the press have an infallible crystal ball? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We follow RSs. Whether they have a crystal ball or not is their problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And we should follow WP:VER too, which says If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight. The Guardian, for instance, says Investigators have not ruled out concluding that Emad al-Swealmeen’s alleged attack on Liverpool Women’s hospital had “no ideological or political motive” and was therefore not an act of terrorism. As yet, only an alleged attack, and not yet confirmed as terrorism. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you saying RS don't substantiate? Jim Michael (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See my reply to Martin just above @19:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC) - wrt to balancing what the various RSes say. The Gardian I cited there says as yet only an alleged attack, and not yet confirmed as terrorism. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't the good old Grauniad a bit out on a libertarian limb here? How many other RSs talk of an alleged attack by the "Liverpool bomber"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they appear to be the only major mainstream UK media source theorising that al-Swealmeen may have had no ideology. Were that true, what would his motive have been to buy the components for a bomb, build it & hire a taxi? I doubt he had a grudge against the taxi or driver; building a bomb is a complicated, time-consuming, expensive suicide method. Jim Michael (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe he had a grudge against the Liverpool Women's Hospital. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Convenience break
CT sources have said no ideology has yet been identified. While detectives have not yet found evidence of a terrorist ideology and believe that Al Swealmeen most likely acted alone, electronic material found at his home, two miles from the bomb factory, is still being analysed I cannot think of a non-terrorist bomb maker, beyond fictional arms dealers in movies like Die Hard. Solipsism 101 (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On this, a security guard said the driver saw a red light on the passenger's vest that alerted him to a potential threat. I am unsure if we should add this as it's not the security guard's direct experience. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, legally speaking this is hearsay. But we're not a court of law, we're an encyclopaedia reporting RS sources. We could plainly attribute the comment, just like the BBC. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC) p.s. I'm now waiting for an editor to suggest that it was an "accidental red-light", or perhaps part of a bomb-demonstration for an unidentified potential bomb customer...
 * Scepticism and caution are virtues in these cases IMO. There's a fair bit of "what other explanation could there be?" logic on these pages. I don't know what other explanation and wouldn't want to conjecture too much anyway - WP:OR, without even access to the investigation is pretty worthless. However news sources often engage in a 'feeding frenzy', especially if the central figure is dead. If the police haven't identified/declared a motive, or other details, how the hell would the Daily Chipwrap know anyway? I agree that ultimately we can only report sources, but a healthy scepticism about what they are saying is no fault IMO. WP isn't a newspaper, we are entitled to be more cautious since we have no obligation to attract customers. Pincrete (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, RSs have sources. It's not all press releases. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether you mean police sources, nor whether you mean on or off the record info. I do know there are very different cultures in UK/US about police speaking directly "off the record" to the press. It happens of course but is about as unaccountable as it is possible to be. Why would we accept a wholly unattributed and unaccountable "sources say ..... "? There's tons of that stuff available already, why would we want to be an "echo chamber" for anon sources? We are a good deal more rigorous about our main encyc articles!Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Security Guard Darren Knowles is very much on the record, with that video on the BBC report and his appearance on local BBC TV. It's now 11 days since the bombing, so I'm not sure that "media feeding frenzy" really applies. BBC News is hardly the Daily Chipwrap, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My point was that journalists often do have access to more info than the general public, including investigations. That's why people get Pulitzers. We as a community have concluded some sources are RSs, so that when they say they have a source, we can trust that they're not lying. Not that it has any relevance to the BBC article, as the grad schemers at the Beeb have named the source. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Darren (from Runcorn) seems a pretty straightforward guy and has nothing to gain by inventing something that Perry could very easily repudiate. (And while we're at it, I'm not sure why Perry isn't named in the article). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We currently have the passenger "carrying the device". Doesn't the account by Darren Knowles, with "a little red light on a vest that the passenger was wearing", suggest that the suspected bomber may have had the suspected explosives strapped to his suspected body, rather than carrying some kind of suspected suitcase device? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or do all the uses of "suspected" bomber in RS sources appear only in the early reports one or two days after the event (like the current iNews article)? The most recent reports just use "bomber", e.g.: BBC, The Times, NYT, The Guardian, Sky, The Independent. Aren't we supposed to keep up with this shift? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The BBC News and The Times articles only use "bomber" in their headline, not in the article body. The Guardian says " suspected Liverpool bomber". So it could be just you. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That Guardian example may be a poor one as it's dated 19th, i.e. 7 days ago. And I think we could expect The Guardian to err of the side of doubt. Happy to hear what other editors think. But my question remains: should we update in line with more recent news sources or not? That iNews article was published the day after the bombing. Why use just that one? We wouldn't want to hand pick sources just to support a given perspective, would we? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of any new information from the investigations being published in the last week? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is Darren Knowles' account part of the "investigations"? I don't have a hot-line to the Counterterrorism unit. I'm really not sure what additional evidence could be published to convince people that al-Swealmeen was responsible for this explosion. Is it a case of a dead suspect must always remain a suspect? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * About a week ago the police said it could have detonated unintentionally, so unless they have given an update since then saying they have now established that it was intentional, we cannot assume it was intentional - can we? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding, based on what I've read in the press, is that al-Swealmeen was responsible for this explosion. His possible incompetence does not exonerate him. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So what we need to do is to state what the RSes say, bearing in mind what WP:VER says: If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight. That way, the readers will be able to draw their own informed conclusions.
 * What we shouldn't do though is present our own personal conclusions, with cherry-picked sources that do not contradict them, in Wiki's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was giving my personal view, based on the RSs I have read. Sorry if you think that's WP:FORUM. I'm not sure we have laid out a comprehensive review of what RSs have said, in regard to "suspected", over the past 12 days since the bombing. To me the iNews source looks cherry-picked and out of date. As far as I can see, using just that one source certainly does not "give each side its due weight". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It depends too on how much weight is given to the level of substantiation in the sources. If 95% of them call him the bomber in their own voice - but without substantiating that conclusion with hard facts, and the other 5% call him the suspected bomber - reporting the police as saying they aren't yet sure if it was deliberate, or not; then how would we present that?
 * It also depends, of course, on how accurately the sources are interpreted, and whether editorialisation and sensationalisation are taken into account - remembering that professional journalists can craft an article to say what they think the readers want to hear, but on closer scrutiny not saying that at all! -- DeFacto (talk). 12:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not sure we have laid out a comprehensive review of what RSs have said, in regard to "suspected", over the past 12 days since the bombing. Where are these "hard facts" that prove he was merely a "suspected bomber"? It's a hard fact that he had manufactured the bomb, entirely on his own, since April. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We need to know, not only that he made the bomb, but that he deliberately detonated it. As far as I know, we do not have any sources that substantiate that second one. OTOH, we have sources reporting the police saying that it may have been detonated accidentally. Let's wait for the facts to emerge from the investigations, and not resort to speculation. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Then I think we may be waiting a very long time. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I think we may be waiting a very long time Why is that a problem? What is unknown in these circumstance is as important as what is known IMO. Police in the 2017 Westminster attack, ended up admitting that they hadn't been able to find out why Masood attacked Parliament. None of the usual signs of radicalisation, not the usual terrorist profile. Islam was somewhere in his motivation, but not in a way that fitted any 'identikit profile'. Many of the 'copy-cat', lone-wolf incidents have been like that, in the last resort puzzling behaviour by 'losers' or 'misfits' sometimes with histories of criminal or violent behaviour. The press and most WP editors had lost interest by the time police said that about Masood. If we are no more than an echo chamber for press 'guess narratives' - and that is pretty much what they are - what's the point? Between al-Swealmeen being 110% guilty as a dedicated terrorist and him being 110% innocent (which of course is pretty unlikely), lie many possible scenarios.
 * The only sources of info about what al-Swealmeen was trying to do, and why are people who have actually been in contact with him in recent months and browsing/phone records etc, and only the police have the manpower or powers to investigate these. How the hell could even the best journos in the world know anything substantive, that the police don't? We have to follow sources, but doing so very sceptically is a virtue IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please forgive my sarcasm. "I think we may be waiting a very long time" = "no-one will ever know." I think we ought to accept his known actions pass most people's threshold for his being "responsible" for that explosion. The police investigation ruled out any possible accomplice. His supposed motivation is a wholly separate question, although probably another with no answers forthcoming. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My comments were general, about press and WP tendencies in these circumstances (especially where the 'perp' is no longer alive, restraint tends to go out the window). But I don't pretend to have followed this incident's coverage sufficiently closely to voice a useful opinion. That he is NOT in some sense responsible for the explosion, seems very unlikely indeed, though what his intention or motive was still seems unclear. Pincrete (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Due restraint is all very well. But if we insist on always going back and using sources published the day after we'll never get past the point of him being "a suspect". I guess Salman Abedi was "a suspect" for a few days. Or hours anyway. Lucky no mishaps in a taxi there? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Coroner said: built with murderous intent, unclear it was meant to go off when it did. Solipsism 101 (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And contrary to the security guard's statement, the taxi driver told the inquest that he noticed nothing unusual about the man until the bomb had gone off. Mr Perry drove to the hospital and stopped outside the front entrance. Mr Rebello went on: "As his car came to a stop he didn't notice anything unusual, no warning, no movement from the passenger, just the blast. Solipsism 101 (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. So we can discount reports of "a red light on the passenger's vest", or of the driver deliberately locking the passenger in the taxi. But "built with murderous intent" seems to support the view it was "a bombing" not just "an explosion"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we can say the explosion was a bombing. We can probably say the device was a bomb, but if a bomb goes off accidentally in the wrong place is it a bombing or an accident? If it went off in his flat while he was assembling it would it be a bombing? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, by all means, an accidental bombing. Quite possibly with accidental fatalities. As distinct from e.g. a gas explosion. We get accidental shootings and accidental poisonings too, for example. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If a gun fired whilst in its case on the back seat of a car and with no human interaction or involvement, and the bullet hit the gun's owner, would that be an accidental shooting? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I'd probably be guided by the ruling of the coroner. I'm sure we could think of any number of scenarios involving accidental death by a weapon, but I'm not sure how relevant they'd be to this event. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2021‎