Talk:Murder of David Amess/Archive 3

Time of death
The inquest is reported by SkyNews thus (emphasis added): "Coroner's officer Paul Donaghy told the inquest: "On 15 October Sir David Amess held a constituents surgery at the Belfairs Methodist Church Hall and during a meeting with one individual he received multiple stab wounds. At 1.13pm his death was confirmed." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This time of death is also reported by the BBC and The Daily Telegraph says "Police were called to reports of a stabbing at 12.05pm, and the father-of-five was pronounced dead at the scene just after 1:10pm." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a very obvious conflict here with the current article text (all fully sourced) which says: "An air ambulance landed at Belfairs Sports Ground at 2:13 pm to take Amess to hospital, but the medical team decided that his condition was not stable enough to transport him and so continued to work on him at the scene. He was declared dead just before 3 pm."? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are consistent; it's the interpretation in our article that might need tightening. There are four references cited to support that last sentence (9, 14, 17, 4), yet (as far as I can see) none of them say what time he died. Two of them mention the time that the police announced his death (14 & 17) - the first says "But just before 3pm, Essex police confirmed that Mr Amess had died at the scene", and the other says "Shortly before 15:00, Essex Police said Sir David had died". -- DeFacto (talk). 14:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the police announcement was made just before 3pm. But if he died at 1.13pm, why did "an air ambulance land ... at 2:13 pm to take Amess to hospital" and how did the medical team "continue to work on him at the scene"? That sentence needs to be re-written, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you find support for "continue to work on him at the scene" is any of the sources? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I recall adding "...paramedics who desperately worked to save him on the floor of the Essex church for more than an hour. But police confirmed Amess' death at around 3pm." But that was later changed, because "that's what paramedics do", if you remember? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, "hyperbole". And then the wording in question was added about an hour later. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think what probably happened is: Helicopters and ambulances arrived promptly,  He was not moved immediately, instead those paramedics worked to save him,  and remained on scene until the police announced his death (the '2 and a half hours').  Sometime in all of this a helicopter landed at the sports field, possible to remove the body securely or possibly it just didn't (only the BBC have it at '2:13'...) Members of his team were hoping that he was going to be stretchered out at this point, but he didn't appear (having been dead for over an hour at this point).  I think that's what the BBC article actually says.  Note the Full Stop in "members of his team began to fear the worst, as paramedics remained at the scene rather than moving towards the helicopter. For almost two-and-a-half hours they battled to save his life."  JeffUK (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The current BBC source says "One witness, electrician Anthony Fitch, told Sky News that ... "There were loads of armed police, overhead there was an air ambulance as well as a police helicopter." ... At 2.13pm, an air ambulance arrived at the nearby Belfairs sports ground to move Sir David to a hospital. However, members of his team began to fear the worst, as paramedics remained at the scene rather than moving towards the helicopter. For almost two-and-a-half hours they battled to save his life. But just before 3pm, Essex police confirmed that Mr Amess had died at the scene." Even if 2:13 is wrong for the air ambulance, if time of death was 1:13, where does "For almost two-and-a-half hours they battled to save his life" come from? It's simply wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In the second BBC source the comment is attributed thus: ""We knew it must be very serious because the paramedics had been working on Sir David for over two-and-a-half hours and they hadn't got him on the way to hospital," Mr Lamb told the PA news agency." So I guess Lamb just got it wrong? We have three different BBC sources, which each say slightly different things. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He was stabbed at 1200, the police announced his death at 1500. Probably didn't let the Paramedics leave the building until they'd finished their investigations etc. (If all the ambulances left without him it would have been pretty obvious what happened)  That the paramedics were present for 2.5 hours seems plausible. That they spent all that time in a 'Battle to Save him' is possibly just hyperbole, 'working on him' said by someone who wasn't in the room could mean 'they were present'.  Having said that, I don't know if it's possible for him to be 'confirmed to be dead' at 1313,  but the paramedics continued CPR until a doctor arrived on the air ambulance, at 14:15, and told them to stop. Mostly conjecture, maybe we'll find out during the trial. JeffUK (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, 12:05 and 14:58 but, yes, I agree. As I said, I suspect the "working on him for two and a half hours" is just wrong and a mistake by Lamb. But do we add the official time of death from the inquest: "At 1.13pm his death was confirmed" at this stage in the article? The trial won't even start until 7 March 2022 at the earliest. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should, now that you've tidied it up so we can include it without being totally confusing! JeffUK (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Crime cats
These are valid because many RS describe the killing as an attack & that Amess was stabbed to death. That's verification of a crime having been committed. The cats don't state who committed the crime, so we don't need to wait for a conviction to add them. Jim Michael (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But, as DeFacto says "in the UK it's a decision for the courts and not for the press". And certainly not one for Wikipedia editors. We could say "Stabbings in Essex" or even "Violent deaths in Leigh-on Sea". But we cant say "Crime of x", as there is still a legal process to be gone through. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Crime has a legal definition. Have you litigated this case without the press knowing? Court of public opinion isn't suitable, RS or not. Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The guilt or innocence of defendants is for the courts, but I'm talking about what happened, not who did it. Verification on WP is done by being backed by RS, many of which say that this killing was an attack; a serious crime - so why can't we verify this killing as a crime? The cats you suggest are too narrow, but are you saying that this article would fit the criteria of Category:Violence in Essex but not the wider cat Category:Crime in Essex? Jim Michael (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at various other articles and the consensus is that per WP:POVCAT the categories should not include ones like murder unless a court conviction was obtained.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not including murder cats because most media sources don't describe this killing as a murder & because a trial is likely at which manslaughter may be the verdict. However, I didn't add murder cats - I added Category:Crime in Essex & Category:October 2021 crimes in Europe, which are verified by many RS. Jim Michael (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Crimes usually require convictions, although yes, some criminals die before they can be prosecuted. In the UK we still have presumption of innocence for those charged with crimes. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Crimes don't require convictions; most crimes aren't followed by convictions. Saying that this killing was a crime isn't saying that a particular person committed it. I'm talking about categorising the crime, not the defendant. Jim Michael (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Crimes can't be committed without criminals. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But in many cases, who committed the crimes isn't known/proved. If the crimes are verified by RS but the perpetrators aren't, we should categorise the events as crimes but not the suspects as criminals. Jim Michael (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well maybe. It seems we have a grey area. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't know whether a crime has been committed until the perpetrator has been tried. If they are found guilty of committing a crime then a crime has been committed. OTOH, if the perpetrator is not guilty of a crime, then no crime has been committed. We need to wait to find out which it is. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We know for certain a serious crime was committed & it's reliably sourced in many mainstream media articles who've clearly stated that Amess was attacked; he was stabbed. No RS says it was or might have been an accident, death by natural causes etc. Some RS - including Channel 4 & Sky News - have stated that he was murdered. What we don't yet know is who did it. If the defendant is acquitted, that won't change the fact that a crime was committed; its effect would be to clear him. When Barry George's murder conviction was quashed, it didn't change the fact that Jill Dando wasn't murdered - it meant that he didn't do it. Jim Michael (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. I think all reasonable people, who watch the TV news and read newspapers, "know" who did it. It was Ali Harbi Ali. No other logical explanation is possible. But we didn't actually witness it in person. Even if we had seen it, his guilt as a murderer would still have to be proven in court of law before it could be written as a fact in an encyclopaedia like this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Jim Michael, as I said above, if the perpetrator (i.e. the person proven to have committed the act) is not guilty of a crime, then no crime has been committed. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple scenarios here that are getting confused. Starting from the baseline that a person was stabbed: A trial that finds the suspect not guilty can still determine whether there was or was not a crime, e.g. when there is common ground between prosecution and defence. A coroner's court can also declare a death lawful or unlawful regardless of whether a particular person has been found guilty or not guilty of any specific crime. If a person has been charged with a crime (in these circumstances), on the balance of probabilities a crime has been committed and that's sufficient, in my view, to categorise the event as a crime. If it turns out not to have been a crime, then we correct the categories at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) A person is charged with and found guilty of murder → the victim was murdered. There was a crime.
 * 2) A person is charged with and/or found guilty of manslaughter → the victim was unlawfully killed but not murdered. There was a crime.
 * 3) A person is charged with murder and/or manslaughter but found not guilty → either
 * 4) The person was lawfully killed by the suspect (e.g. the stabbing was proportional self defence). There was no crime.
 * 5) The person was accidentally killed (by the suspect or someone else). There was no crime.
 * 6) The person was killed by someone other than the suspect. There may have been a crime.
 * 7) A person is charged with murder and/or manslaughter but deemed unfit to stand trial. There may have been a crime.
 * It's extremely unlikely that anyone will claim any version of #3. Jim Michael (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with all those. I see Timothy Evans still has Category:1949 crimes in the United Kingdom. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Was Timothy Evans ever a crime? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the scenarios and we can see from them that there remains a possibility that there was no crime.
 * While that is the case, we cannot, per WP:CATVER, verify that there was a crime, so we cannot justify adding crime categories. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We can verify that it is being treated as a crime by the police, that the courts will try it as a crime, therefore we can say it is a crime until proven otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That logic is flawed. Quite the contrary, neither premise imply it's a crime until proven otherwise. There's always a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. All we know for sure is that the police are of the opinion that there's enough evidence to make a case, as they apparently were in the case of Timothy Evans mentioned above. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The person is always presumed innocent until proven guilty. The same does not apply to the event - it is possible and indeed normal to treat an event as a crime before conviction, otherwise police would not be able to declare something a crime scene, nor would there be such things as unsolved crimes. Every reliable source, official and unofficial, is treating this event as a crime. To declare it something other than a crime is bordering on original research. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All we currently know about the event is that a crime may have been committed, as you illustrated in your list of possible scenarios above. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If it helps, think of the category not as saying "this event was a crime" but "this event is believed, understood, being treated as and/or proven to be a crime", because that is how they are used in practice. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then they need renaming (or new ones added) to reflect that situation. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's going to be a massive uphill battle considering the desire for category names to be reasonably concise and reflect common usage, which the current names currently do but alternatives will not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not just the police's opinion, but also the CPS. And I think we "know" many other things "for sure", as reported by very many WP:RS sources. By your logic all "unsolved crimes" are not crimes at all. So a change of name/ Categories might be required for any relevant articles? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And the CPS, yes. I agree that Unsolved 'crimes' may not have been crimes, yes. Per WP:CATVER, we need readers to able to verify that the article subject belongs in the categories it is assigned to. I agree that renaming categories or creating new categories might help with more accurate categorisation. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And they currently can verify, in every reliable source that has covered this event, that it was a crime, bar an extremely tiny bit of uncertainty. When the police say it's a crime, the CPS say it's a crime, the government say its a crime, every reliable source says its a crime, a person has been formally charged with a crime, has appeared in court charged with a crime, and been remanded in custody pending standing trail for a crime (with no suggestion that he will not be fit to stand trial), vs one Wikipedian saying "maybe it wasn't a crime" based on overly pedantic use of language. Verifiability, not truth is the standard used on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The verifiability policy, rather than that essay describing what the policy used to say, says: "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. This remains unverifiable as the trial has not yet concluded. Even after that, it may still not be clear, if it falls into your possibility 3.3 above. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is verifiable that everybody other than you is calling it a crime. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * DeFacto, I appreciate your robust line of argument. And I personally think we could wait for a conviction in this case. But we can see the way consensus is going here? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should wait until it is verifiable, which probably means waiting for the trial to conclude. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that according to basically everyone but you, and importantly every reliable source, it is verifiable that a crime took place. We don't know if the arrested suspect is the person guilty of the crime, and if so what criminal charge they are guilty of, but there is absolutely no question that a crime took place based on all the evidence in reliable sources - which is the only thing that matters for our purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article crime does not mention any requirement that a crime only exists if a conviction has been made. Put simply, a crime is any unlawful act, such as the stabbing of another person. WWGB (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The point here is that we don't yet know for sure whether any unlawful act took place. The soonest we are likely to know that is at the conclusion of the trial of the current suspect. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Except we do know that, because every reliable source tells us that a crime took place. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But as the court proceedings haven't yet concluded, they don't know either. They are merely cleverly editorialising speculation to read the way they think their readers will want to hear it. If you read past the headlines and into the depths of the article, you will usually see it all cleverly hedged. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to say what reliable sources do or do not know - that would be original research. The reliable sources all say, in few or many words, that a criminal act took place. They do not say who committed it (just who has been arrested on suspicion of committing the criminal act and charged with committing the criminal act). Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems "likely" that an unlawful act took place: Ali Harbi Ali stabbed David Amess up to 17 times. Amess died. Ali was arrested immediately after he did it, and he's been detained ever since. He's been charged with murder. Sure, the police sometimes get things wrong. And yes sure, there is a legal process that must be followed. But an illegal act looks somewhat likely to me. If Ali manages to kill himself, while in detention, will you then say "no crime was committed" and "no crime Categories are justified? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on how we interpret what we have been told, it may seem likely. But whether an illegal act took place and whether a particular suspect was responsible for it, is up to the courts to decide - based on all the evidence available, including any that has not been released to the media or which the media have chosen not to publish. I cannot see the problem in waiting until the court proceedings have completed rather than jumping the gun.
 * If the suspect dies before the legal proceedings are completed, then it will probably remain unproven, but because the dead cannot be libelled, the media will have free rein to call it what they want, and Wikipedia will, no doubt, not hold back or try to be neutral about it either. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether it is likely or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether reliable sources call it a crime - and they do. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A crime has a legal definition. We cannot argue semantics over likelihood and call something a crime until it has been legally found so. It would be not just inaccurate, it would be one of those violations of court process. And that would be the case if this wasn't the world's biggest encyclopedia, but it is even more vital to not forget that. The current suspect or any future suspects do not need to be found guilty for the crime label to be applied. The death, like this article, is about a killing, not a killer. Besides a trial for Ali, there will be a coroner's inquest to determine if the death was lawful, regardless of who caused it. At that point, suspect or no suspect, it will be decided if this is a crime. Are we all clear? Kingsif (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. We call something a crime or not a crime based not on semantics or our own opinions of what it should be called, but based on what reliable sources call it. All the reliable sources are currently calling it a crime, therefore it is a crime. If the reliable sources stop calling it a crime at any point in the future then we will change our articles to say that it was initially considered a crime but no longer is. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Convenience break #1
Bringing all these sub-threads together here, I agree that we should be driven by what the sources say, but we need to carefully read them and see how they substantiate any assertions they make, bearing in mind that there has not been an inquest yet. It seems we need to decide whether the RSes are actually calling this incident a crime, and if they are, can we follow them whilst remaining compliant with Wiki's policies. , do you have a couple of examples of reliable high-quality mainstream publications calling it a crime?

If the charges are murder should the title of the article be the "Murder of David Amess"?
Simple question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHeartVeronica (talk • contribs) 02:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Simple answer, no. No one has been convicted of murder. WWGB (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding onto the "simple answer". No, the article will not be renamed if the charges are murder.  It will be changes if the conviction is murder. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Defendant's background
The reliably sourced basic background of the defendant Ali Harbi Ali (born in Southwark to Somali immigrants) was removed today. The ref - which also gives other information about him that's of interest to many of our readers - was also removed. Jim Michael (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It may be reliably sourced, but as this is an article about an incident, and not a biography about the life of the suspect, adding it to this article is, I think, irrelevant and undue. References should only be used to support article content, and nothing more. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with DeFacto; only relevant information should be included. For instance, we don't include the birth location of the victim. I would also note that "it's interesting" is not a sufficient reason for anything on Wikipedia; for this in reference to deletion discussions, see WP:INTERESTING and WP:ILIKEIT. BilledMammal (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It is important to note that Ali was born in Southwark (or South London or England or UK), to dispel claims that Ali was born overseas, was a naturalised migrant, and brought his terrorist beliefs from another country. I would also note that he was born in 1996 (rather than just giving his current age of 25) as he will not always be 25. Basic details such as POB and YOB are often given for an accused, without turning it into "a biography". The age and origin of the accused assist the reader to better understand the background. WWGB (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Basic details are included where they are relevant; I wouldn't think that this is one of them. I would suggest that we follow reliable sources in determining what biographical details are relevant; they typically include his age and citizenship, but not his birthdate, ancestry, or his place of birth. BilledMammal (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It has some relevance, because early news reports may have given the impression that Ali Harbi Ali is a Somali immigrant. He isn't, he was born and brought up in Britain.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @WWGB, if we knew they were the perpetrator you might have valid point, but remember we have no conviction yet, so must presume innocence. And we have no reason to report any detail about an innocent person, including their background and even their name. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with including his place of birth as Southwark, Central London. I don't see how that should be contingent on a conviction. But date of birth seems a bit unnecessary. However, I see that at Murder of Jo Cox we have only "Thomas Alexander Mair, a 53-year-old unemployed gardener born in Scotland." And he's imprisoned with a whole life term. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For an event like this, I agree that the important point is the age of the participant(s) at the time of the event. If there is a gap of several years between important events (e.g. if he is convicted and gets a parole hearing in say 20 years; or dies in custody after a few birthdays, etc) then his age at that time might be relevant to add (but that's well into WP:CRYSTAL territory). If we were writing a biography of him, then yes his date of birth would be important. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we should include Ali's date of birth or the address it occurred at. He's in the public eye, but only as the defendant in this case and shouldn't have his own article. I think him being born in Southwark to Somali immigrants in 1996 is relevant enough to include. One of the reasons I added that info was that it's basic relevant background which many readers will want to know. Another reason was to correct the claims/assumptions by some sources that he was an immigrant when in fact he's a born and bred Londoner. His birth year was removed today, which to me makes even less sense. Jim Michael (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is relevant. The place of birth of the accused's parents is 3-4 times removed from the subject of the article. There is currently no other reason to include it (maybe we will in time learn that it is relevant to his motivation, for instance, but until then it's just trivia.) I think the fact that the accused was a permanent resident in the UK (in contrast to someone who travelled here solely to carry out an attack) is relevant, but we don't need more than that.  JeffUK (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You incorrect assertion that he was a "permanent resident" confirms my point that it should be stated that he was British-born. WWGB (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean that in common English, (He lives here) not in terms of immigration status, sorry for the confusion! I agree with 'British born' JeffUK (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The ordinary term for someone who is British-born, is Briton, just as someone who is Scottish by birth is a Scot. Why are we complicating a simple issue? Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See Talk:2017_Westminster_attack. Pincrete seems to have developed a theory that the word Briton means that a person was born in Britain, but none of the three definitions at Free Dictionary says this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * looking at just the article as opposed to this talk page, how do you derive that the change you reverted is specifically about birthplace, as opposed to a general being-from-somewhere? Why is "Briton" not an improvement if we disregard the talk's suggested born-in-Britain definition—it might as well still be an improvement... article space changes are deemed to speak for themselves regardless of the purported rationales here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What we are trying to do here is to convey the information that Ali Harbi Ali was born in Britain. The word "Briton" does not automatically do this. Let's try to get a consensus on how best to get this information across.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does it have to be in the lead? Not feeling the due aspect. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See the discussion above. Some of the early media reports may have given the impression that Ali Harbi Ali is a Somali immigrant. He isn't, as he was born in London and brought up in Britain. There is also a tendency for some people to assume that anyone with a foreign sounding name is foreign.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I get it, and have read the discussion, but the dueness is not getting accross to me. Are we supposed to be in a discourse with early media reports and tendencies of... some people? Let's simply ignore this and do our encyclopedia thing. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My problem with that particular language is that we don't know whether he was born a British citizen or later naturalized, and "British-born" implies the first, and thus goes beyond our sources. I'm not sure why we are worried about this though; unless things have changed recently, where he was born or what nationality he was born as is not relevant to the incident. BilledMammal (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Terrible framed article
You can easily spot that the authors of the article are trying to downplay the significance of this event. They call this "murder" only a "killing", no link to the islamic background and motivation of the murder in the introduction part. 62.226.91.65 (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * There have been numerous discussions of this, and the article would not be called "murder of" without a court conviction. This is standard practice based on WP:BLP. As for the motive, this is for the investigators, not media reports.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

How many sitting MPs have been killed?
This article says this was the third killing of a sitting MP. I'm aware of at least one other (Spencer Perceval), but there may be more. admittedly that event was some time ago, but we should list them all or qualify that we're only interested in the post-20th-century period. 92.22.162.222 (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nine, according to . WWGB (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I've removed this because it doesn't add much context to the Attack section. According to the Category:Assassinated_British_MPs, nine British MPs have been killed while in office. Some were linked to The Troubles, but the murder of Jo Cox by a far right crackpot in 2016 is the best analogy, as it is worrying that two British MPs have been killed in the last six years.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No motive, no section on Perpetrator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox names a motive and has a detailed section on the perpetrator why not for this article? 2A01:4B00:8697:7300:5CC5:7ECD:5D4E:3AB1 (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add a short para if you have access to plausible sources on this.  However, mere personal speculation is outside scope.  Looking on the ?bright side, there seem to be plenty of other places online where they love that stuff, however.   Success.  Charles01 (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) The Investigation section says: "On 21 October, a prosecutor told Westminster Magistrates' Court that Ali considered himself an affiliate of the Islamic State and that he had planned the attack two years in advance. The court also heard that his actions were "connected to the conflict in Syria"." What more would you want to add? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit early for all of this due to WP:BLPCRIME. Thomas Mair was convicted of Cox's murder and the judge made clear that Mair was motivated by far right ideology. Although nobody is going to be surprised if the killing of David Amess turns out to have been motivated by Islamist extremism, at the moment there is only a reported quote by Ali Harbi Ali. Hopefully more detail will come out at the trial. As for a separate section on the perpetrator, there isn't a great deal of detail in the sourcing about Ali as a person. Again, more detail may be available after the trial.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As I recall, there was a lot more biographical info about the alleged perpetrator, but it has been slowly cut down over time. We should wait for a verdict to get into the details of it all. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, most people have decides that Ali was the perpetrator. He was proud of what he had done, and admitted as much. It's pretty clear, even from the very first day of the trial, that the prosecution think Ali was handing out what he saw as justified punishment for the Commons vote to carry out airstrikes in Syria, in 2015. But the prosecution have yet to prove their case. We must await a verdict. The trial is expected to last for three weeks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Alleged perpetrator and Wikipedia
In the trial, the prosecution has shown evidence that the alleged perpetrator visited Wikipedia pages in the build-up of the attack; this has been reported by The Telegraph. In particular, he visited David Amess's Wikipedia page on 27 Sept 2021. It appears this was to find out Amess's positions on the Muslim world and Israel. I am not sure if this ought to be added. The list included in The Telegraph: The Wikipedia page for Ben Wallace MP, the Secretary of State for Defence on Sep 21 2021 The Wikipedia page for the Parliamentary Constituency of Esher and Walton (the seat of Dominic Raab MP) and the Wikipedia page of Dominic Raab on Sep 22 2021. The Wikipedia page for Sir Keir Starmer MP on Sep 25 2021. The Wikipedia page for Richard Fuller MP on Sep 25 2021. The Wikipedia page for Southend-On-Sea on Sep 27 2021. The Wikipedia page for Sir David Amess on Sep 27 2021. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This confirms earlier reports that Ali had researched various Members of Parliament as possible targets. It's interesting but unsurprising that he used Wikipedia. Possibly worth a brief mention, but the trial is still ongoing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Awaiting tomorrow's headline in The Sun: "Wikipedia used to plan vicious terrorist murder". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And here is how Amess's article looked on 27 September 2021. Agreed that the Wikipedia story, if it is to be added, should come after a verdict and should be included with care. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Amess voted in favour of the December 2015 RAF Tornado bombing of Syria, which targeted Islamic State/ISIS. This was reportedly a key reason why Ali wanted to carry out an attack, but maybe Amess was just unlucky as he was easy to meet at constituency surgeries, much like Jo Cox.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We should avoid being too self-referential. Apparently he used a number of other sites for various types of research. To keep things proportionate there's no need to focus on Wikipedia. Imagine if you were an editor for another encyclopaedia. How much of Wikipedia would you still mention? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry folks. More likely to be a headline for our favourite scandal sheet. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a risk that we (or rather I in, this case!) find it more interesting than the general public does. Solipsism 101 (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)