Talk:Shooting of Chris Kaba

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2023

There is offensive racist language throughout this page. 2A00:23C6:E8C3:E01:DD3:4A38:B9BC:DC1B (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Photos of the Audi do not appear to show damange to the front of car which would have occurred if it was used to ram police cars as reported by the article. Respect and responsibility (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

His car ended up wedged between a police car and the white Tesla pictured in this article: https://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/21869218.chris-kabas-family-call-see-video-footage-final-moments/

Its pretty evident from that damage and the arial photos of the scene that he tried to ram his way through the roadblock, as has been widely reported.

-Joey- (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The po;ice have also released video footage that clearly shows that Chris Kaba is trying to use the car to ram his way out of the police block. TheEagleGuy (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk – police reaction to charge of murder

@Necrothesp: I have read it to the end – twice – and I can’t find anything saying that the police officers’ refusal to carry firearms was because of concerns that they too would be prosecuted if they opened fire. Please explain your edit. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Commenting on the review, Met Police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley suggested firearms officers were concerned that they would face years of legal proceedings, "even if they stick to the tactics and training they have been given". They didn't just turn in their tickets for the hell of it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a comment by Mark Rowley, not by the police officers who are/were refusing to carry firearms. And he isn’t even saying that is the view of those officers – he is ‘suggesting’ it i.e. guessing. The amended wording by DeFacto is acceptable. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I accept they all turned in their tickets for a laugh! It wasn't at all because they were worried about prosecution and the Commissioner was merely voicing their fears. Good grief! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point – Wikipedia should only record what is said in reliable sources. And the source does not say that the police officers’ refusal to carry firearms was because of concerns that they too would be prosecuted if they opened fire. You may think that is a reasonable inference, but Wikipedia should not be stating what you (or I) have inferred from the circumstances. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I have not missed the point. Wikipedia editors are expected to be able to use common sense, not just parrot sources. If that were the case, we'd just be a link farm. But we're not. We actually write articles in our own words. "Many are worried about how the decision impacts on them, on their colleagues and on their families," a spokesperson said. Anyone with a grain of sense would know what that means. It doesn't need to be spelled out in painful detail to be valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If I can interject on this. I think it could be included with something along the lines of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Mark Rowley has stated...and then quote from the article.

I do think it's wise to be cautious about the motive as I doubt Rowley has spoken to every officer.

I can also understand not including it as it's ascribing motive to a relatively large number of officers and it might be wise to see what other sources, independent of his statement say? Knitsey (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Necrothesp: Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. See WP:OR Sweet6970 (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

A principal which is breached by around 98.4% of all wikipedia articles. 2001:8B0:A61C:C35A:9D4D:692E:29A4:D6B8 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess this has been resolved, but one thing I should point out is if something is super obvious then there is no reason for us to spell it out either since it's surely super obvious to the readers. The only reason why there is any great need for us to spell something out is if we're concerned readers won't understand without doing so, but in that case, we need to ask whether we're actually reading too much into a source. In other words, if it's super obvious then readers will understand from us saying "to do so over concerns about the implication of the decision to prosecute" that we mean they are concerned they too may be prosecuted, so there's no actual reason we need to point it out. What we say is sufficient to get the point across to readers. And if it isn't, than why is it okay for us to read that in to source when it's doesn't clearly and automatically follow in any reader's mind? Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Necrothesp good . well done Travelrisk (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Better references for the statements about witnesses

Hi, I'm not super-conversant with Wiki editing etc so please forgive me if I am missing something basic. With that said there are three references to "Witnesses" yet the only external reference cited is behind a paywall (Police shoot dead drill rapper...The Daily Telegraph 7th Sept 2022).

There is a free to access article in the Standard titled "Streatham shooting: Chris Kaba dies after being shot by police following pursuit" published also on the 7th September 2002 which includes several excerpts of witness statements. Perhaps this would make a better reference and the excerpts could be quoted (as per wiki policy). 81.31.72.141 (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't see why it could not be used as well. Do you have a link? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Martyn Blake

Notwithstanding the discussion back in April (see "Naming of police officer" above) should Blake now be named in this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. I think the previous analysis stands, and I don't see how a not guilty verdict materially changes things. Thus, I think the previous consensus - that he should not be named - stands.

Further, whilst you are perfectly entitled to make the argument that the police officer should now be named, I consider that we should all respect the previous consensus and not name him in this discussion unless and until that consensus is reversed. 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:C834:1E43:EC95:8ADF (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that he is not guilty does "materially change things". But no strong view. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The previous analysis stands moreso now than before. EPEAviator (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree I feel like the name of the officer is now a public figure under WP:PUBLICFIGURES and therefore is fine to be named under WP:BLPCRIME. Nearly all news articles reference the officer by their actual name and not pseudonym, particularly in the wake of the conviction, and have done so since the name has been made public. It's going to make accurate referencing very difficult otherwise as the pseudonym is also hardly referenced any more. HalfLeftish (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I do agree though that consensus should be reached before any further edits are made, particularly as there seems to be a significant amount of vandalism at the moment. HalfLeftish (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree I struggle to understand why the officer is not named now that restrictions have been lifted. The 'not guilty' verdict just makes the killing lawful - it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Blake killed Kaba, we should say as much? -OXYLYPSE (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. Killing is when it is done DELIBERATELY! This brave officer was protecting himself and his colleagues.

The correct word is "shot to death in self defense" 206.84.250.149 (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I think killing may be intentional, unintentional or accidental. As far as I know, the phrase "shot to death in self defence" is not recognised as "correct" anywhere at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The definition of killing directly from Oxford..

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

killing

noun

an act of causing death, especially deliberately.

"the community was shocked by the brutal killings"

I don't understand why you Wiki zealots always have to beat around the bush. This was an act of self defense.

I'd say "justifiable homicide" is more appropriate, or is that too "soft" for the Wiki-ites? 206.84.250.149 (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You may wish to see my proposal to rename the article to "Killing of" as per similar articles. Without casting aspersions on the officers intentions, it is a reasonable conclusion that shooting someone is likely to kill them. The word that changes the sentence in your example is "brutal", not "killings". OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for posting that. "An act of causing death" seems to fit quite nicely. And covers all three possibilities I mentioned. No-one's a "zealot" here, thanks. There are just differing views over language use. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• I support naming at this stage, but I think it is unnecessary to add the names to headings if more succinct headings will work. I'll try an edit on that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I support naming at t his stage, per PUBLICFIGURE and because we can clearly say what the verdict is so cautions under BLPCRIME are not relevant. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, the story isn't over yet. He may still lose his job? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

In my view, those who are currently supporting naming the officer are overlooking, or misunderstanding, the reasons why the previous discussion decided not to name him. Yes, his name is in the public domain, but that in itself does not make him a public figure or give his identity encylopaedic value. Further, whilst a guilty verdict would plainly have changed that, a not guilty verdict does not. Put another way, a not guilty verdict would change things only if the reason we hadn't previously named him was so as not to interfere with the ongoing court proceedings. That was not the reason.

Accordingly, I think the points made by HJ Mitchell at 21:33 on 16 March 2024 and Sirfurboy at 17:30 on 7 April 2024 remain valid. I particularly agree with HJ Mitchell's analysis that: "If the officer becomes a public figure in relation to this shooting, then absolutely name him. But if he's acquitted and disappears into obscurity, he should be allowed to remain obscure." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:C834:1E43:EC95:8ADF (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Public figures do not exist in a vacuum. If we apply this logic, we would need to remove almost every other name in the article including Brandon Malutshi, Shemiah Bell and Marcus Pottinger. OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

With respect, those are false analogies. The identities of the three individuals you mention all have obvious encyclopedic value. Malutshi was the victim of a widely reported and notable crime. Bell and Pottinger were convicted of that crime. None of these factors apply to the officer here. 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:C834:1E43:EC95:8ADF (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how the names of all the people involved, including Blake, do not have "obvious encyclopaedic value", If it was not for Blake there would be no article here. Someone's name is perhaps the most fundamental part of their identity. There is no longer any legal reason why Blake cannot be named, as he has been in media outlets across the world, and including by the Metropolitan Police Federation. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I should say at the outset that I have no intention of bludgeoning this discussion by automatically responding to every comment that disagrees with me ad infinitum. However, since I feel I can still add respectful value to this discussion without simply repeating myself, I shall do so.

Martinevans, I think there are two flaws in your analysis. I shall address each in turn:

"If it was not for Blake there would be no article here" - I agree, but your conclusion that the officer should therefore be named is a non-sequitur. The encyclopaedic point is that Kaba was shot and killed by an officer, and that a trial resulted at which the officer was acquitted. The identity of the officer adds nothing unless and until it is determined that he actually acted unlawfully or wrongly in some way (or if he otherwise makes himself into a public figure, by giving media interviews on the story for example).

"There is no longer any legal reason why Blake cannot be named..." - I agree, but, with respect, this is a straw man. I am not arguing that there are legal reasons why he cannot be named. I don't think that has ever been the argument. Similarly, as is well established, and as I said above, the argument that someone automatically is a public figure merely because their idenity is in the public domain is a non-sequitur. 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:C834:1E43:EC95:8ADF (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous IP2A01, I'm sure you are not bludgeoning, thanks. Yes, Blake was part of a group who were jointly responsible for apprehending Kaba. But Blake fired the single shot. I'd see his identity, and thus his name, as central to the narrative. My point is that he has been named across the world. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 It's not obvious to me. What value does "Martyn Blake" add that "Joe Bloggs" or "NX121" or "a police officer" doesn't? We don't include any detail on Blake (nor should we, because there's nothing in reliable sources as far as I've seen) so all we have is a name. I've written several articles like this and it's perfectly possible to write an article that makes sense with only surnames, callsigns, or no names at all. Now, Tony Long wrote a book about his experiences so he's a public figure. He was also connected to multiple notable incidents, whereas I gather this is the only time Blake has discharged his weapon outside of training. Of course there are no legal restrictions on naming him, it's an editorial decision. But you were the officer, would you want this to be the top Google hit for your name, even in ten years' time? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we ought to add some detail. So I've added his rank of Sgt.. But I don't think any other details are WP:DUE. I don't think my personal feelings, in 10 years times, really matter here. But your references, to other similar articles, is very useful. As I said to start with, I have "no strong view", but logic suggests to me that his name is very relevant, even central, in fact. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Whether we name him or not is definitely an editorial judgement call and a non obvious one at that. Above I wrote that I support naming him at this stage, but that the name in the headings needed to go (and I removed them). My judgement on that is that secondary sources of this event are likely to name him when recounting the trial and acquittal and the criminal record that later came to light. It is, however, a presumption of what secondary sources are likely to say, and HJ Mitchell makes a case for writing the text in another way that either does not need to name him or uses only a surname. I would see no issue with a surname only text. What we don't have, of course, is secondary sources. Once again this page is being written from news reports (as Wikipedians are wont to do). Understandable as this may be, we need to be aware of the shortcomings of attempting to write a tertiary source without available secondary sourcing. That might be a suitable caution against following news reporting too closely. On top of that, I think there is at least a question as to whether the article scope should just be the shooting anymore, or whether it is Kaba more widely. Again, hard to answer that without secondary sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I note that his name does not currently appear in the lead section, but does appear in the info box. I'm not sure any of the arguments advanced so far are amenable to a compromise situation. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually I took him out of the infobox already. He was listed as a "suspect". That is not correct, and I am not sure why his name should be in the infobox. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

> "But [if] you were the officer, would you want this to be the top Google hit for your name, even in ten years' time?"

Are you suggesting that in 10 years time the other reliable sources that reported on this story will disappear, leaving Wikipedia as the only place that names him? I find that highly unlikely, and if true, all the more reason that he should be named here. OXYLYPSE (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@OXYLYPSE it's highly likely, almost certain. Not that the sources will just disappear but they'll become a lot harder to find—try finding news reports now of events from 2014 based on the names of people involved. They're there but, unless you know exactly what you're looking for, they're not on the first page of Google hits. Wikipedia will be the top Google hit for "Chris Kaba" probably forever unless another Chris Kaba becomes better-known, and probably for "Martyn Blake" if we retain the name in the article. I note that our article Killing of Azelle Rodney is the first result for "Tony Long" nearly a decade after that trial and nearly two since the shooting; even "David Sherwood police" returns Shooting of James Ashley as the top result and that was 26 years ago and the officer isn't even mentioned in the lead. Wikipedia has a power and reach that we as Wikipedians underestimate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You make a fair point. I hadn't really thought about it this way, and don't really know how I feel now.. OXYLYPSE (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

If, as result of this case, serving armed UK police officers are granted immunity from normal prosecution, and instead could face some kind of "police court martial", for killing suspects, would that alter the significance that is attached to Blake's name? Sorry to present such a hypothetical, but some people think that such an outcome is likely to happen, in much less than 10 years, as a means of avoiding large scale loss of armed officers from the service. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Speaking entirely for myself, I don't think it makes any difference to the Wikipedia analysis at all whether police officers in this situation are dealt with by the courts or a court martial. The analysis post-result is exactly the same: whether the police officer's identity is adequately sourced and notable in itself.

Pre-result, we would have to consider the danger of interfering with the court martial process, but we already have to do that for court processes. 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:C834:1E43:EC95:8ADF (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The question was less to do with "the Wikipedia analysis" and more to do with the possible significance of Blake's name at what might prove a turning point in police officer disciplinary procedures. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Page move to "Killing of Chris Kaba"

I propose the page is renamed/moved from "Shooting of" to "Killing of". See Killing of Mark Duggan which originally also started as "Death" then "Shooting". OXYLYPSE (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. Clearer and less ambiguous, and no less concise. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Not convinced. The title as it is and as you propose would both be based on BLP1E. Although clearly not living, the point being that the subject is known only for the event - their killing. But the crimes Kaba has now been implicated in also received national attention, I believe. If there are secondary source written on Kaba at all, they will not be restricted to just the shooting/killing. In which case the correct move might simply be to Chris Kaba. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Shwmai! Respectively, this is circular logic. The other crimes have only been widely reported in this manner because of the BLP1E. The subject does not quality for their own article in my view. Kaba's notability, unfortunately, comes from their death. OXYLYPSE (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with OXYLYPSE. There is absolutely no way in which an article on Kaba would have met notability threshold without the reporting in the wake of the death and trial. We cite no sources published before September 2022. The article should remain about his killing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  What secondary sources do we have asserting notability of any of this? For primary sources regarding the other criminality, we have [1], [2], [3] etc. I think we are looking at this article through a narrow lens focussed on the current events. The question is what the encyclopaedic subject will be (if any) in 10 years time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia doesn't tend to create articles about "relatively minor" crimes? Kaba is not mentioned in any of those three sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia shouldn't create articles about anything that is not covered in secondary sources. We are left guessing what secondary sources will say about Kaba. I have already said that it is my belief that any future secondary treatment of Kaba will not be limited to his own killing, now that we know he was the shooter in a killing that itself achieved national attention. Consider Derek Bentley. One might have argued, back in the day, that he was only notable for having been hanged in the infamous "let him have it" case. And that is almost certainly why his name came to my mind. But Secondary sources don't just cover the case. For instance Berry-Dee & Odell's (1991) book, Dad, Help Me Please: The Story of Derek Bentley. discusses much more than just his hanging. The same will be true of Kaba if anything is written at all (and I expect it will be). What secondary sources do we have now? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure exactly what you mean by "secondary sources" here. Do you just mean "sources about Kaba and not just his death"? I was assuming newspaper reports erre the primary sources here and secondary sources would be something like a documentary or book about Kaba (or Blake). Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  That is correct. Documentaries and books would be appropriate secondary sources. What the documentary or book covers would be evidence for the article scope. The article as it stands has 47 references, and they are all primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that's at all unusual, though. Looking at Death of Nicola Bulley, for example, it's only in the past few weeks we've had a TV documentary about her. A book seems very unlikely. If that case was labelled "missing white woman syndrome" will this one get labelled "killed black man syndrome"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not unusual, but you see the problem? You cannot write a tertiary encyclopaedic article without secondary sources. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, so we get these articles, but we do not know their scope until there are secondary treatments. An arrangement of primary news sources may be a best effort at something we presume will be notable in the future, but it also involves editor synthesis of those sources. A secondary source, not a tertiary one. With respect to the article name and scope, it is only our current synthesis of the sources that tells us the article is only about the shooting. A different synthesis might, in fact, be about Kaba in the round. Note that we have primary sources that would contribute to that. But Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and as usual, this current affairs based and sourced article is really here too soon. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  So you'd better suggest WP:AfD and come back only if and when there are (any) secondary sources? (Perhaps wait 10 years and see if HJ Mitchell was right...) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Contemporary reporting is primary but some of the deeper analysis I've seen (eg from The Guardian) is definitely secondary. We're overdue another book about armed policing in the UK (there are several already) and Kaba will certainly feature in future works. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  So any views on the rename proposal? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  I feel the scope should focus on the shooting. That, above his music or his criminality, is the reason the article exists and is likely to be the focus of academic literature and police histories etc to come. Beyond that, I'm ambivalent. There's no consistency among similar articles. We have "death", "shooting", and "killing". I slightly favour "death of" and letting the article do the explaining but not enough to fight for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  If I thought AfD were indicated, I'd have nominated it by now. As per HJ Mitchell, I am reasonably certain Kaba will appear in books and other secondary treatments in the future. Deleting the article is not a clear net benefit if our settled expectation is that an article will be indicated one day. This one seems clearer than many. I expect Kaba will find his way into sources in time (and maybe not a lot of time). An attempt to take this to AfD will, I expect, see a consensus form to keep the article. Some will keep it because they think news reporting makes a subject notable. I disagree with them, but they will make the argument and much time will be spent on it. Others will find a presumption of notability much as I set out here. The end result will be no consensus or keep. But yes, I am interested to hear HJ Mitchell's views on the article name. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is a notable court case that saw the prosecution and acquittal of the police officer who fired, as well as wider discussion around policing within London. Notability is easily demonstrated by the wide-variety of RS that have documented both the lead-up to the trial as well as its conclusions. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it has had significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Police shootings are incredibly rare in the UK (List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom). --Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 15:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --2.137.124.37 (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC) The article is news and factually accurate.

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance, because it's mainstream news that has been widely covered in the UK press since it happened, over two years ago. It has also prompted wider questions about armed policing in the UK. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I contest the speedy deletion and have removed the notice per procedure - any person but the creator may do this. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This page needs locking

Someone is making racist edits calling him a monkey and the n-word and has edited one of the pictures to that of a gorilla. Jamesifer (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There is already an active request. OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

At last someone has seen common sense and included the name of the police officer

His name is on every front page in the UK press. His name is mentioned at least three times in every TV/radio news bulletin in the UK in the last 24 hours. And Wikipedia is having a hissy fit about whether someone who has been cleared should be named. I could find dozens of examples where the 'cleared defendant' has been named here (we could start with Jeremy Thorpe and that dog). There are times when Wikipedia should be a little less hide-bound and a bit more real-world Cannonmc (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you see the discussion thread "Martyn Blake" above? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I did...after I posted. I hadn't managed to get past the interminable "Naming of police officer" and following.

My comments about Wikipedia still stand. Bogged down in the process rather than the reader Cannonmc (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Surely you mean "numerous editors enthusiastically engaging in a discussion on how to best serve the reader"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Well said! 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:C834:1E43:EC95:8ADF (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cannonmc This is how consensuses work on here, no? EPEAviator (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cannonmc how does the name enhance the reader's understanding? What understanding is gained from "Martyn Blake" as opposed to "Joe Bloggs" or "NX121"? Will that be the case in five years' time, or ten, or twenty? Because this article will still be around then, long after those headlines have been forgotten. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

NPOV discussion relating to Prosecution of firearms officer section

Added a tag after reading through the Prosecution of firearms officer section for neutrality, as I figured it warranted a discussion particularly before any changes are made. The specific statements I dispute are

> At the time of the shooting a photo of Kaba was widely circulated in the press showing a young, smiling expectant father. Kaba was, however, subject to a Domestic Violence Protection Order preventing him from contacting the mother-to-be.

I do feel this could be worded more neutrally as it implies a level of morality or manipulation by the media. As an example, I'd suggest something like:

> Kaba was also an expectant father at the time of the shooting, but was subjected to a Domestic Violence Protection Order preventing him from contacting the mother-to-be.

I'm also not even sure if it should be in this section and should perhaps deleted, as this subsection is about the main prosecution events, but this statement refers to something reported on before the trial. If it should still be somewhere on the page, it should perhaps be moved up a bit. HalfLeftish (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I reworded that last night. It originally read

.

> At the time of the shooting a stock photo of Kaba was widely circulated in the press showing a young, smiling man who was about to be the father of a child. In fact he had received a Domestic Violence Protection Order preventing him from contacting the mother-to-be.

.

I agree it should probably be within the reaction section.

I think a mention of the "father to be" photo circulating should be kept in some form - it was widely reported by reliable sources in this way. We cannot "protect" the media because they didn't properly fact check the story, nor do we say they are manipulative. We state two related facts next to each other and allow the reader to find their own interpretation. OXYLYPSE (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think my issue with it isn't the fact that it is leading the reader to an interpretation rather than just stating the facts of the case. The phrasing at the moment suggests that a DVPO order means that him being an expectant father is false in some way when it isn't - it just provides additional context to his family life that is important information. I don't think this is at all intentional, I just think it's because it's been phrased in a more complex manner than is perhaps needed. It could be considered more of a Tone issue than a Neutrality issue I guess?

I'm gonna be attaching another reference on to the statement (none of the ones there right now reference the DVPO), but the reference I'm putting on from LBC (https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/chris-kaba-nightclub-shooting/) has pretty good wording in my opinion:

> He was a father-to-be before his death, but he also had a domestic violence protection order against him relating to the mother of his unborn child.

This links the two statements together, but does so in simpler terms that doesn't particularly lead the reader in any direction. I think it's just worth considering a simplification that's all. HalfLeftish (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

August 2020

SkyNews here says Kaba "... was handed a five-month prison sentence for failing to stop and possession of a knife, which was discarded from a vehicle." But I suspect that wasn't intended to be "failing to stop after an accident." However, the timeline in Metro here says he "... received an extra five months in custody in August of that year after he was stopped by police for driving without insurance. When officers searched the vehicle, a knife was found." Which is correct? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph here also says: "Not long after his release, he was returned to jail after a knife was discovered in his car when he was stopped by police for driving without insurance." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

October

After having reviewed my previous edits concerning the speedy deletion request, and other editors concerns I have determined that I made an error when placing the A7 tag, even though it was in good faith. Therefore, I will not be requesting deletionagain.TucsonDavid (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@TucsonDavid So you proposed it for deletion under A7 twice. The second time even despite the numerous comments on the talk after your first tag? I would expect better judgement from an experienced editor, new editors have been blocked for less. OXYLYPSE (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they have and that is usually done when the edit was done in bad faith, and mine wasn’t. And I did not see the comments on the talk from the first tag except for the one saying he removed it just because he did didn’t like it. If I had seen there was consensus, I would’ve never re-tagged it. In fact I went to remove it the second time, but it was already gone. Like I said my edit was never done in bad faith. That’s not the way I work. Have a good day. TucsonDavid (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@TucsonDavid Sorry for the ping, but I'm genuinely curious how you thought this qualified for A7? Why did you want this deleted? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"Seeking recrimination"

It's a minor point, but I am not sure what this means. "Seeking retribution"? I'd change it to that, but it would be a bit strong. Theeurocrat (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)