Talk:2024 Southport stabbings

Untitled

What was clear and unequivocal from the outset, was that Rudakubana had extensively researched and planned the attack knowing exactly who the victims were to be. He had travelled several miles to Southport at the exact time of the children's event which could call into question an inference of assistance from a third party. On 29th October 2024 the Crown Prosecution Service charged him with 3 counts of murder, 10 counts of attempted murder, 1 count of carrying a bladed article, and offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 and Biological Weapons Act 1974. It was discovered that he had manufactured ricin and that he had researched Al Qaeda training manuals. These latter charges were known about some time in advance however journalists including those from Guido Fawkes were instructed not to release this information into the public domain. Many of the arrests and subsequent jail terms were predicated on people alluding to religiously inspired terrorism which has now been shown to be correct. Political leaders including Nigel Farage and Robert Jenryk called upon the prime minister to divulge all the known information about the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.173.71 (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you proposing the above text as a change to the article? We need reliable sources and a neutral point of view. MIDI (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Most of this wiki is written referencing news articles. The whole thing is a mess and needs to be started from scratch now the court case is in process. Dosedmonkey (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense, the article is reasonable. Of course the wiki references news articles, that's the main category of WP:RS.

Feel free to edit to improve places you see as lacking. Timtjtim (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

"The teenager accused of murdering three young girls in Southport has been charged with producing the poison ricin and possessing a military study of an al-Qaeda training manual."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05zpdq0lzgo 2604:2D80:F000:2C00:6DFF:339C:A633:E810 (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The article already mentions the new charges. MIDI (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The wiki is clearly written by someone wanting to twist the narrative, quoting a specific newspaper mostly. As you say riots were due to police lying about the murderous motives from the outset. They still will not call it terrorism publicly. Dosedmonkey (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the police lying? Do you have a source that he had a terrorist motive? Timtjtim (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

New charges

I've removed the latest charges from the infobox as they're not necessarily part of the attack itself. From [1]: "the ricin and the study of the training manual were found as part of searches of the suspect's house [...] after the stabbings"; "Counter Terrorism Police have not declared the matter a terrorist incident, which would require evidence of a motive to be present". Considering both these quotes, for the time-being we cannot WP:V that the document on the Al Qaeda training manual influenced the attack (discounting the terror charge) and we know that the attack was with a bladed article, not ricin (discounting the biological weapon charge). There's no reason to remove this from the "Accused" section, but putting it in the infobox implies a link between the new charges and the attack that we cannot be sure actually exists (WP:SYNTH). MIDI (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is appropriate. The article is about the stabbings. S C Cheese (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. It should be in the lead. How it is now is just. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not hugely fussy on this, but I will say the title of the infobox section is "Convictions // Crimes perpetrators were convicted of".

Of course, we don't have to follow that title precisely. Do we have any idea of the standard for this - other articles where the perpetrator had other convictions that aren't directly tied to the core article topic?

I worry a little bit by the "putting it in the infobox implies a link between the new charges and the attack that we cannot be sure actually exists" that we're over-editorialising? Omitting it implies there's no link, which we don't know either... Maybe we'll know more after the sentencing. Timtjtim (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Not misinformation after all

The original "misinformation" that caused the riots were claims that the attacker was a Muslim and that the attack was a terror attack. After the new information from the police is out, the "misinformation" turns out to be the truth after all. 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:BC14:F5E5:8B85:5892 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not a forum. 203.211.72.179 (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We can assume that OP wants mentions of misinformation to be edited out. However, there was misinformation with a specific name and migrant (not Muslim) status, and that hasn't been vindicated by the recent news. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

All the fake motives, blaming social media and saying riots were because of exacts of migrants status being misinformation is just journalist twist, it is not genuine referencing of facts. Dosedmonkey (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It was misinformation at the time in that it was the assertion of speculation as fact. Those that had asserted it did not provide verification of it, so it was misinformation. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This article in no way should keep the misinformation claim. Those claims were proven to be correct. 81.106.174.83 (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Well there certainly was misinformation, including the suspect's migrant status and his name.[2] Both were addressed by the police statement during early stages of the riots. We can also define misinformation as information not based on known facts, which this clearly was. I also want to pick up on this Muslim claim. He might be Muslim, or might not be. We know he had a study on Al-Qaeda's methods (I gather this was an FBI book?), but that doesn't indicate his religion. Such material is going to be standard issue for any random nutter. It also doesn't provide a motive for this attack. At this time I don't see anything being proven. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

See below—is there any evidence that the document in Rudakubana's possession was an "FBI study"—or one from the "U.S. military" as our article now twice asserts? Thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that's probably answered below, and in particular by the very specific reporting of the BBC. I think I read somewhere about an FBI version, but it could very well be the DoJ, or military intelligence, or some other related agency. It's beside my main point really. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Part of the misinformation was an assertion about the attacker's presumed migrant status which led to an attack on buildings where asylum seekers were being held. While I am typing this, I see that the attack on buildings holding asylum seekers is not mentioned in the article, which surprises me as it was widely covered at the time. JRGp (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The news articles used for reference were misinformation and not fact... Dosedmonkey (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Police have not said Rudakubana was a Muslim, nor that this was a terror attack.

I assume you are referencing the new charges regarding the Al Qaeda manual. These charges do not mean the Southport attack was terrorism nor that Axel necessarily had extremist beliefs.

He was charged with possessing information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. This has no relation to his actual attack, frankly anyone could be charged with this crime, so long as they have no good reason for possessing the document he supposedly had. Police maintain, even since the charges, that the attack is not being investigated as terror related. I suggest waiting until Rudakubana’s trial in January if you want insight into his potential motive. Macxcxz (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This might shock you. But the police were blatantly lying, this lead to riots, not misinformation which the journalists are trying to spin. Realise journalism is not facts! Dosedmonkey (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any WP:RS to support your claim of police lying? Timtjtim (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You make it sound like the police just decided "oh, let's lie to the public and press about this". Would they not have been told directly by the Home Office exactly what they could and could not say? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Interest in Islamist terrorist tactics doesn't make someone a Muslim. Even the staunch atheist Unabomber and proudly pagan Breivik have declared their admiration for Jihadist strategies. CornyDude22 (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Rudakubana's copy of Al-Qaeda terror manual

There appears to be an error here—while one while one source cited in our article claims that "The PDF file was not an Al-Qaeda document but rather a military study of a manual made by the Islamist terror organisation", the fact is that the actual title of the Al-Qaeda manual is DECLARATION OF JIHAD [HOLY WAR] AGAINST THE COUNTRY’S TYRANTS MILITARY SERIES and/or Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants, per numerous translations available on the web.

"An editor linked to this version, which includes an editor's notes and could perhaps itself be called a "study" of sorts—although it reproduces the AQ manual in its entirety with the same translation of its title. In other words, "Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants" is the name of "The Al-Qaeda Training Manual".

Is there any reason to think this is the specific pdf that Rudakubana had possession of—or is its citation in our article simply the result of some editor's intemperate WP:OR? And is it perhaps even possible that some of the articles about this being a "military study" and the like are actually using our article as a source, thus laundering the OR?

None of the official documents or quotations from government sources describe what Rudakubana possessed as anything other than an "Al-Qaeda training manual"—nothing about it being a "study" of any "training manual".

In the interest of accuracy, I would strongly suggest that we back off describing it as a "study" until there's more definitive evidence thereof—and in the meantime, simply refer to it as an "Al-Qaeda training manual", just as the government officials bringing the charges have done (along with, it appears to me, a preponderance of the primary-source journalism).

I could certainly be wrong—if so, don't hesitate to let me know—thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Shadowwarrior8 please see above—I went to revert my edit and saw you had already done it. But what RS claims that there was a "U.S. military study" in Rudakubana's possession—as our article now twice asserts? Certainly neither of the sources cited inline for that claim… Ekpyros (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The outlets which are spreading the fake news noise that Rudakubana possessed an actual al-Qaeda document are some UK-based conservative outlets and thinktanks.

The pdf document which was allegedly found in Rudakubana's computer according to Merseyside Police was "Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al Qaeda Training Manual". This is an edited and translated document published by the US airforce.

Meseyside police alleged on Tuesday that Rudakubana, who was born in Cardiff, had possessed a document entitled Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al Qaeda Training Manual. 1

It was already clarified in several news reports before that it was not an actual Al-Qaeda document. 2 3 Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm not going near that URL with a barge pole, and I would request a better description of it from someone in a country without the UK's laws (speaking of which, if this document is illegal to download in the UK, it's more than a bit suspect to directly link it in this article). But my main question would be, what strong evidence is there that this is the actual document being possessed? What reference supplies this link to this document? I'd be surprised if this wasn't a synthesis of original research. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that it is illegal to download that document in the UK. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The guy in the article is literally being prosecuted for it. I should explain that the section of the Terrorism Act being used makes it illegal to possess such a document, for any reason, "without reasonable excuse". Downloading is possession. And reasonable excuse is very limited in scope. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

He is prosecuted in the UK not because he possessed it, but because he did some attacks which were likely motivated by his reading of that book. Furthermore, that document is freely accessible in the internet. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No, possession is simply illegal. See for example this police statement which says, "The matter for which Axel Rudakubana has been charged with under the Terrorism Act does not require motive to be established". There's a lot of stuff on the Internet that it's illegal to possess. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You missed the part where the merseyside police statement said:

"Possessing information, ... [pdf details] ... of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, contrary to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000."

So the charge was linked to his act. The possibility that information in the pdf file likely facilitated Rudakubana in perpetrating his attack was the reason why he was charged for possessing that pdf in the UK. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" is a feature of the information, not of the person or their acts or motivation. Take for example this case of a perfume seller cycling along the East India Dock Road. There's numerous examples of people jailed for possession and committing no other crime. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, I'll provide a link to the Section 58 of the Terrorism Act, which is where this precise wording (and hence the crime) comes from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58. I've removed the link to the alleged document. If you want it restored (which I'll oppose) I'd recommend a new talk page section with a request for comments. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It does not have to be linked to an act, it just has to be something that could be potentially used in an attack. If either you or I merely possessed that same document with no good reason, we could be charged for the exact same crime. It does not matter whether you are thinking about, planning or have executed a terrorist attack, just possessing that document is a crime in itself. Police have maintained, still, that the attack is not being investigated as terrorism. Macxcxz (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if the above is the specific pdf in Rudakubana's possession, I would hesitate to describe it as a "study"—it's a translation with an author's commentary—and to describe it as "U.S. military" seems incorrect, considering it clearly states that: "The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, or the USAF Counterproliferation Center". Ekpyros (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Update

First police and media said that the attacker was Muslim was misinformation,

Now they are saying he had Al Qaeda material with him.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/29/southport-suspect-charged-with-terror-offence-and-producing-ricin

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05zpdq0lzgo

Misinformation was not misinformation. Sistersofchappel (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed above at #Not misinformation after all and #Rudakubana's copy of Al-Qaeda terror manual. There is no evidence (either now or at the time of the claims) that Rudakubana is Muslim, and he did not have Al Qaeda material with him (it was a) found at his home, and b) wasn't Al Qaeda material but a study thereof). MIDI (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Order of section on perpetrator

Since Rudakubana pleaded guilty, the media have come out with a lot of information about his past, in particular his obsession with violence, referrals to Prevent, etc. They were not allowed to previously publish the information in case it jeopardised a fair trial. Question is - should this new info be fed into the section to keep the order chronological (as Macxcxz is doing)? Or should it go at the end of the section as "new info emerging" as I was doing. At the moment it is a mix, which looks a bit odd. I do not have a strong preference but would appreciate anyone's views. Southdevonian (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I do think, eventually, this section should either be significantly modified or entirely rewritten to be in a chronological order, as that is the norm for most articles/sections on criminals. However, as new information is coming out, and no doubt more will come out now that an inquiry into the attacks has been announced, I do not think this is as much of a priority right now.

The section I re-ordered was just peeving me because the paragraph went from talking about him being excluded from his school in 2019 to an unrelated acting gig he did in 2018. Overall, I think it is worth waiting to see how much comes out over the next few days, then maybe considering restructuring.

One apparent issue is that the perpetrator section does almost read more like a news article than a biography, so that is something that also needs to be simultaneously addressed. To avoid this continuing further, I would suggest combining new information into currently existing sections where possible. Putting new information at the bottom is not really consistent with a biographical section, it should ideally be chronological. Macxcxz (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with putting this in the chronological because any biography would be framed this way, rather than the date at which the information became known. Slight tangent, but I doubt how much we need to say now that a neighbour found him "quiet", as that's a non-expert anecdote. He obviously wasn't quiet when he was tresspassing and hitting people with a hockey stick, or needing a police escort for his home tutoring. As said earlier, only details could come out that couldn't prejudice a trial, so that's why we got musical theatre and Doctor Who rather than obsession with genocide, a knife plot and a hockey stick attack Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Macxcxz and Unknown Temptation for your input. I agree that the section needs a re-write, taking out the neighbour's comment, etc. Southdevonian (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Mugshot

Has the mugshot image of Axel Rudakubana been officially released by Merseyside Police, e.g. on a BBC Merseyside Facebook page here? If so, what is its copyright status? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you could make a case that the CPS can publish a photo,[3], as was done with any recent-looking image in c:Category:Mug_shots_of_people_of_the_United_Kingdom. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of mugshots is with the police force, Merseyside in this case.

I assume Merseyside follow the College of Policing’s Media Relations Authorised Professional Practice (APP), [4]

Specifically in respect of images, the police, as the legal copyright owner, are responsible for releasing an offender’s custody photograph...

I doubt it meets the fair use threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia Timtjtim (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Understood, but is it clear what kind of copyright statement, if any, has been attached to that image by Merseyside Police? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You would need to ask the Merseyside Police. They have contact forums you can use. Macxcxz (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have emailed Merseyside Police. @JayCubby, what source would you use? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Just received this email reply from Merseyside Police (details available on request): "Thank you for the contact. We do not copyright the pictures - but the force would suggest you take your own legal advice in terms of your planned use of the picture." That's it. So, as the image is free of copyright, I suggest it can be uploaded at Commons. I don't see that "fair use" even applies. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The statement "We do not copyright the pictures" is very wooly. Pictures automatically attract copyright. Unless they've specifically dedicated the image to the public domain, Merseyside Police still hold the copyright I'm afraid. Timtjtim (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was expecting them to have made a copyright decision. So who does own the copyright, and how? So any uploader here would specifically need to ask for their permission? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Merseyside Police still own the copyright, even if they choose not to enforce it. They could chose to licence the image under a creative commons or compatible licence.

We cannot use it under WP:NFCCP:

1 - fail, 2 - pass, I don't think police images have a commercial market, 3 - fine, assuming we only use it on this page, and at low resolution, 4 - pass, 5 - pass, 6 - pass, 7 - pass, 8 - debatable, but more significant than the composite of the victims IMO, 9 - fine, 10 - fine. Timtjtim (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they could "choose to licence the image under a creative commons or compatible licence", as part of the upload process here. But someone would need to ask them. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

p.s. re "No free equivalent", you're saying there is some free equivalent somewhere? Not sure where that might be. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose he's alive - a free to use image of him could, at some point, be created. Timtjtim (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, lifers don't generally get to have their photographs taken, once imprisoned, for whatever purpose. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian shows an example of use of the mugshot. It is captioned: "Photograph: Merseyside police/PA Media". I assume that this is simply to acknowledge the origin of the image and does not imply that PA Media has any copyright, i.e. Merseyside Police have made the image available to PA Media, who then have distributed it to the press. Is that correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe PA is the distributor in this case, see https://pa.media/newswire/ Timtjtim (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It might be worth asking for confirmation of the copyright aspect at WP:CQ? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there is any guidance of the use of mugshots or photos of the perpetrator for articles like this. I notice none are included on the pages for Dunblane massacre or Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I know that there are guidelines for journalists not to centre reporting on the perpetrator of these sorts of crimes too much as often this type of infamy is a motivation for them, but does Wikipedia have any guidelines or policy? Orange sticker (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Good question. Looking at the more recent murders at Category:English people convicted of murder, I see there is an image of Roy Whiting at Murder of Sarah Payne, one of Jeremy Bamber, one of Anne Perry, and one of Colin Pitchfork. Probably many more? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

But note https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Everard, for example, doesn't Timtjtim (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I wonder how that decision was made, as I can see no discussion on the Talk page/ archive there. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

My vote would be to not include either picture, though I haven't looked for any specific guidance. Southdevonian (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, on no other grounds than taste, really. Orange sticker (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Does that just mean your own personal "understanding" is not improved? Or are you making a wider determination on behalf of all possible readers? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2025

Change "The company that cast him also deleted..." to "The company that cast him, Ology Kids Casting, also deleted...". 2001:569:BFF7:2300:9D6F:11CB:B273:682 (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Have added the name, as it appears in the source. But not sure how much it adds to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Images

Does the image of the three victims satisfy WP:NFCC#8? I don't feel particularly strongly about whether the images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" (erring on the side of that they don't do so significantly), but I don't think images' omission would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article topic. Courtesy pinging @JayCubby: as uploader. Thanks, MIDI (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@MIDI, thanks for the ping. We did it for Murder of Laken Riley, so I included the pictures by the same reasoning. JayCubby 13:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to note another recent example, the victim is pictured at Murder of Sarah Everard. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree it's borderline. I assess that all other NFCC have been met.

Right now I'm leaning to keep because of the nature of the attack - a premeditated murder specifically of young girls, and his comments to the police - [5], While under arrest at the police station after the incident, Rudakubana was heard to say: "It’s a good thing those children are dead… I’m so glad… so happy.", so including the image does aid in understanding that particularly cruel aspect of the attack?

The difference with the examples above are they are about the murder of a single person, as opposed to the triple murder / mass attempted murder, so IMO it's not as important to have - i.e. is this photo is not about the entire subject, it's about 3 of the 13 victims...?

Another note, not sure if it changes anything: this is not the original composite from Merseyside Police [6], it's been cropped and re-ordered, I assume by The Guardian? Timtjtim (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The caption says "Composite: Merseyside police"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it's been cropped slightly, as news outlets seem to be unwilling to leave images alone. However, the composite being supposedly assembled by the Merseyside police is reassuring. As best I remember, basic crops aren't considered copyrightable works in their own right (at least in the U.S.). Per Special:Prefixindex/Murder of, we seem to have a de facto precedent for putting pictures of the deceased subject. @Timtjtim On the 3 of the 13 victims, the other 10 are injuries of the event, which are not the object of discussion. While it's awful to stab and injure someone, it's worse to kill someone, and news outlets are not nearly as interested in the injuries (I doubt I'll find pictures of everyone who has been injured here). JayCubby 14:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

"which are not the object of discussion" - I don't quite know what you mean here?

Six-year-old Bebe King and seven-year-old Elsie Dot Stancombe died at the scene, and nine-year-old Alice da Silva Aguiar died in hospital the following day. Nine children and two adults were treated for injuries by NWAS. Six of the nine children and both adults – Lucas and Hayes – were in a critical condition following the stabbings

They absolutely are a part of the subject of the article.

"I doubt I'll find pictures of everyone who has been injured here" - correct, the injured children are subject to anonymity orders. There's images of both adult victims, Lucas and Hayes: [7], [8]

"Per Special:Prefixindex/Murder of, we seem to have a de facto precedent for putting pictures of the deceased subject" - do you have any examples of events more similar to this situation, i.e. mass stabbings, with both deceased and injured victims + the standard for including images there? Timtjtim (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

And, just to note, the indication of origin on those is "Instagram/Lucas" and "Hayes" respectively. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The image of the three victims was deleted. Does anyone know why? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, they were deleted per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 24#File:Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King, and Alice Dasilva Aguiar.jpg JayCubby 14:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Yes, now I see that close from last night. Even though there wasn't a single Delete vote? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

There weren't explicit delete votes, but valid arguments against keeping were made, such as how there's now a free image available (I think). JayCubby 14:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, ok. So a free image is now available. Fine. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps Macxcxz would care to re-add the OGL version that they found. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Details

On the BBC report of the sentencing it said that the media had been asked not to publish details of injuries. An editor added a detail from a US newsite. I vote we go with the British media and do not include details. Southdevonian (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I vote that we do include details because no one asked us at wikipedia not to add such things. Plus, I do not appreciate my edits constantly being reverted. BadMombo1660 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether we see this platform as "media"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking from a legal point of view but from the point of view of respect for the wishes of the families: "The families of the children have asked us not to report the graphic nature of their injuries". [9] Southdevonian (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

"Plus, I do not appreciate my edits constantly being reverted" - as far as I can see, only one of your edits was reverted, and this talk page discussion was started immediately. There's no need to incorrectly claim your edits were "constantly being reverted".

I'd be interested to know if there's a Wikipedia policy about this sort of thing.

I'll remind everyone of WP:NOTNEWS Timtjtim (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The sentencing remarks, broadcast originally on live television and as YouTube live streams, and available as video on demand include those details, so the media are not following that request evidently. Timtjtim (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's the BBC comment saying the families had made that request [10] Timtjtim (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The BBC have now published it, I don't think there's a good reason to leave out now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gweeq1344o Timtjtim (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Taxi dashcam footage

I have added this in External links. Does anyone know the copyright status of that footage? Is it the same as this footage? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a series of CCTV clips edited together, including with zooms / pans, plus commentary. It also includes the mugshot.

I think you can extract still images from the montage (excluding the mugshot), but I suspect the video itself is its own derivative work. Timtjtim (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's a version, of just the taxi footage, without commentary. Again, the copyright status, or even the source, is wholly unclear. I'm asking if this would also covered by the statement "This work is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information produced by an automated system, such as a fixed CCTV or traffic enforcement camera, without human input;" Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry yes I wasn't clear - yes, I believe unedited dash cam footage of the interior of a car comes under that category, so both the video and still images taken from it are ineligible for copyright.

I don't think the addition of the blur / censoring of the driver's identity is creative enough to form a new work.

At some point we do get into murky territory about what counts as human input.

I would say that dash cam footage of the road, i.e. out the front of the car, would be copyrighted as a human is moving the camera via controlling the car. Timtjtim (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, many thanks. So in theory the dash cam footage could be uploaded and added to the article. In the (continued) absence of the mugshot, this might be useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

However, reading https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices the UK law seems to be that copyright is held by the property owner, i.e. the statement "Most jurisdictions do not have clear legal precedent on the copyright status of such works" does not apply to the UK? Timtjtim (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So that would be the taxi driver in this case? Or the taxi licensing authority? Again this would require requesting release, with appropriate copyright marking, from the owner. I'm guessing, however, that all this material has been gathered my Merseyside Police who have then released it following the sentencing. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the taxi driver would have to licence it under a compatible licence if my understanding is correct. I don't know what other pages on Wikipedia have done re: UK CCTV, if there's someone with more legal experience than me to weigh in. Timtjtim (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Grammar

Just saying there's a fault at act of terrorism both in the sources and the fact sheet. It says "act terrorism" which grammatically incorrect. The proper way would be "act of terrorism" 2A02:A03F:A132:CF00:A46A:115D:1283:D7E3 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I've corrected that, thanks. No doubt something to do with live reporting. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Classification as "mass murder"

Given that there is no legal definition for mass murder in the United Kingdom, to define this attack as mass murder, reliable sources must call it as such. I found sources which do and attempted to put them in the article, however I did not see that this was previously done by another editor and considered a controversial decision, so it was reverted. I will make a discussion here so it can be agreed upon. That previous editor put "spree killing" in their edit though, which I don't agree with, as that is not really a term used by any legitimate sources except in one article by the Evening Standard (which appears to have no consensus on its reliability on Wikipedia). Here's a number of sources that use "mass murder" or "mass killing" in varying forms when referring to Rudakubana and/or the attack:

[11]Teen who killed three girls at dance class in Southport, UK jailed for at least 52 years | BBC News (via Youtube)

Includes the following quote from Chief Constable Serena Kennedy of Merseyside Police: "It's clear that Rudakubana went to Hart Street intent on not just committing murder [...] he wanted to commit mass murder [...] and that's what he succeeded in doing"

[12]'Evil' Southport killer jailed for minimum 52 years (BBC News)

"Axel Rudakubana would have been sentenced to a whole life prison term had he been 18 at the time of the mass killing, the judge said" (bold text by me)

[13]Teen who killed 3 girls at Taylor Swift-themed dance class in England sentenced to over 50 years (AP News)

Includes the following quote from the judge in Rudakubana's trial: “(Rudakubana) wanted to try and carry out mass murder of innocent, happy young girls.”

Includes the following quote from prosecutor Deanna Heer: "his purpose was the commission of mass murder, not for a particular end, but as an end in itself."

[14]Teenager jailed for killing three children at a dance class and trying to kill ten others (The Crown Prosecution Service)

"When searching his home address, it became clear that the incident at The Hart Space was no random act of violence but a planned and premeditated attempt to commit indiscriminate mass murder."

[15]R -v- Axel Rudakubana - (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary)

Includes same quote from judge as before, and also: "In his home the police discovered clear evidence of a settled intention to carry out mass killing.", I am satisfied that for some time he had planned to kill as many people as he could, as the prosecution have called it “a mass killing”.

I think that this is more than enough to classify the event as a mass murder/mass killing (same meaning in this context), especially since the judge called it as such in his sentencing remarks. As for how this should be implemented into the article, I put it in the "attack type" part of the infobox, but this looks awkward, so if anyone can suggest an alternative way to put this information in the article, that would be appreciated. If you're wondering why I think this is important to include, it is simply so it can be put into more relevant categories to improve discoverability of the article. Macxcxz (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you proposing to add both terms, "mass killing" and "mass murder", into the infobox, or just somewhere in the main text? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest mass murder, as the two terms could be used interchangeably for someone convicted of such crimes but 'murder' more appropriately conveys that he was convicted. This discussion is mainly concerning whether this information should be included at all rather than where, but I would think putting it in the main text would be better, though I struggle to find a place to put it that doesn't look awkward. I also think putting it in the attack type section of the infobox just looks messy. What do you think? Macxcxz (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that the quote from the judge would be WP:DUE in the "Post attack" section, as part of the detail on sentencing. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll have to wait for others to chime in to see whether this information should be included, but that sounds like a good way of implementing it. I assume this means you would be in support of including the information? Macxcxz (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think such an addition would allow for additional Categories, if required. At the end of the day, he murdered three children. Much of the associated terror came from the ferocity of the attack and the number of others terribly injured. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is a video and here is the transcript of the judge's sentencing, and I don't see him calling it a mass murder, although he does say (with my emphasis): the police discovered clear evidence of a settled intention to carry out mass killing, I am satisfied that for some time he had planned to kill as many people as he could, as the prosecution have called it “a mass killing” and He wanted to try and carry out mass murder of innocent, happy young girls. All we can deduce from that is that although it may have been his intention to commit mass murder, it was not the actual outcome, despite how some of the mainstream media may have relayed what the judge said. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

As Macxcxcz said, "there is no legal definition for mass murder in the United Kingdom". So I guess one would not expect a judge to use that phrase. If there is widespread use of the phrase "mass murder" in the press, would that be sufficient reason to use it here, regardless of the actual words used by the judge? In this particular case, what is the distinction you would make between "murder" and "killing"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

If there is a consensus amongst quality British mainstream sources that it was (in their own voice) a mass murder, then I don't see why we shouldn't add that. I say "British" because this article has strong UK ties, and I know the term is used more loosely in sources from other parts of the world. Also, there is a difference between 'intention' and actual 'outcome' - clearly to assert that it was one, we would need the support to be for it as the actual outcome rather than as the intended outcome. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I certainly agree about British. Our understanding of what was the "actual outcome" seems to rest, at least partly, on what the judge said (or indeed was allowed to say)? I'm still unclear on the distinction you are making between "murder" and "killing" here. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Did I make a distinction? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

"I don't see him calling it a mass murder... it was not the actual outcome." Was it just the judge, then.? I was assuming that you thought "mass killing" was appropriate, but "mass murder" was not. Perhaps I've misunderstood you. Perhaps it's just a naming issue, and you don't see any real distinction between the two. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

All I did was to quote the three times the judge said "mass", to highlight that he'd never called the outcome a mass murder (or mass killing) in his voice, despite what some of the mainstream media said (or were interpreted to have said). So neither should we say that he said it. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I see. Yes, I agree, he did not categorically say it was "mass killing" or "mass murder". It's not clear to me if that was because he wasn't allowed to, dealing only in what's on the statute book, (unlike the prosecution) or because there were only three killed. But neither did he explicitly deny that it was. Perhaps to use those phrases we would have to attribute them to the press, or even to individual commentators. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Good point by DeFacto. Even the Category:Mass murder gives the FBI definition of four or more deaths. But why does an editor (Macxcxz) who has not made signficant contributions to the article even want to put it into the category of mass murder? I notice that their contributions to Wikipedia are almost exclusively on violence, murder, etc.

Any reason why the trial section is a subsection of the section on the attacker, rather than a main section? Southdevonian (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

If editors are editing in good faith, it is wholly their concern which subjects they wish to edit on, and when they choose to edit? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what the FBI says about mass murder in relation to this discussion as the FBI has no legal authority in England, nor most of the world.

I have already stated why I want to put it in that category, so please refer to that, and please do not pointlessly insinuate things about people you do not know. Macxcxz (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the judge's words. In regard to the following quotes:

"the police discovered clear evidence of a settled intention to carry out mass killing"

"He wanted to try and carry out mass murder of innocent, happy young girls"

He is not saying that the act was in fact not a mass killing/murder, he is discussing what Rudakubana's intentions were. Rudakubana wanted to commit a mass killing, though of course there would be no knowing the outcome of his actions until after the fact. He is discussing the premeditation of Rudakubana's actions.

In regard to the other quote:

"I am satisfied that for some time he had planned to kill as many people as he could, as the prosecution have called it “a mass killing""

I interpreted this sentence as meaning "I am satisfied that he had planned to kill as many people as he could (the judge previously said that he believes Rudakubana indeed killed as many people as he could), and that it was, as the proescution have called it, "a mass killing.""

I believe that, for the sentence to be written so as to fit your interpretation, the judge would have had to have said "I am satisfied that for some time he had planned to kill as many people as he could in, as the prosecution have called it, (comma) “a mass killing"". Macxcxz (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you could interpret the judge's words that way. That seems reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't interpret the judges words, I commented upon them as they were being used to support saying this incident was a mass murder. I showed he never said that, as you seem to now agree. Whether the culprit had planned a mass murder is not the question we need to answer here. To support the addition of "mass murder" as the type of attack and Category:21st-century mass murder in England, we need to be able to support that a mass murder has occurred, which we have not done. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

What's your definition of "mass murder"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

As I said above, an incident with a "consensus amongst quality British mainstream sources that it was (in their own voice) a mass murder". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

In my remarks on the third quote of the judge, I am saying that he is in fact calling the event a "mass killing", and it does support saying this incident was a mass murder. Macxcxz (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

That ('"I am satisfied that for some time he had planned to kill as many people as he could, as the prosecution have called it “a mass killing"') clearly means he was satisfied that for some time he had planned 'a mass killing'. He is substituting "to kill as many people as he could" with the phrase that the prosecution used, "a mass killing". That does not support saying the incident was a mass murder, as it clearly wasn't. We can't say that in Wiki's voice as it would be equivalent to saying that the attempted murders (which were clearly intended to be murders) were murders. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It clearly wasn't....because there's no "consensus amongst quality British mainstream sources"? How many publications form these "British mainstream sources"? Perhaps you could list them? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Good question, you could try the reference desk? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Be my guest. I'll let you have first go! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Stabbings?

Why is the article titled stabbings (plural) if there was a single stabbing incident? Yodabyte (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Both "Southport stabbings" and "Southport stabbing" have been used regularly in reliable sources. Perhaps "stabbings" better illustrates that multiple people were stabbed, but I don't necessarily think either name would be unsuitable. It's fine as is. Macxcxz (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)