Talk:Murder of David Amess

Name

I suggest we should avoid renaming this article as "murder" because of legal issues, "killing" or "death" would be ok. PatGallacher (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There's been a move to "Assassination" then back to "Stabbing". Fences&Windows 14:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"Murder" and "Assassination" are inappropriate for legal reasons, and assassination isn't generally used in UK articles anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I would support "Killing of David Amess", and "Murder" only if someone is charged with murder. And assassination never, as it's an Americanism not used in any UK sources to describe this event. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)]

(edit conflict)I will also note that Murder of Jo Cox was not given the name "Murder" until November 2016, after someone was convicted of murder. The same should apply here. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep it at "stabbing" for now. It's accurate and seems to be how the media are describing the event. Readro (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. I'd call it murder in conversation, but the sources all say stabbing, which is only deficient in that it's not immediately obvious whether fatal or not. ∰Bellezzilla Solo✡ Discuss 14:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Stabbing or death are both fine. While we have a tendency to rush things, IMO enough sources have confirmed that Amess is the person who died that it's fine. Still this doesn't mean there is a rush and it's fine to keep the article at stabbing for now. IMO the circumstances means that even killing is fine. Murder is clearly not acceptable at this time, potentially a long way off. Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

We have well established practice in this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths)! -- KTC (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with previous comment, having just amended caption of picture in the infobox from 'Targeted' to 'Killed'. I would wait at least on what the police establish before refining the description further.Cloptonson (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Assassination should only be used if the killing was an execution. Basically, anything besides a single guy (Not group), stabbing him would be an assassination just based on definitions. But from they way it sounds, this was a single guy who stabbed him. Unless the attacker releases statements saying it was paid for by someone, then this is a killing. But if money comes into play, we should automatically change it to assassination. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

When more information is given, this can be renamed to Murder. For now, keep it to Stabbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegeographicalterm (talk • contribs) 15:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved per general consensus. "Murder" is not appropriate until someone is convicted of murder. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Stabbing of David Amess → Killing of David Amess – Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) KTC (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as an established naming convention. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:DEATHS. Readro (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support as Amess has died. Kellis7 14:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support because it's the usual title format. Jim Michael (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per naming conventions. MIDI (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment another option to consider would Murder of David Amess, similar to Murder of Jo Cox. Keivan.f^Talk 15:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That can't work right now per WP:BLPCRIME. Love of Corey (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, strongly oppose this per WP:BLPCRIME. Murder of Jo Cox was only given that name after a conviction was made. That should be the case here too. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support given the circumstances of the murder of Jo Cox article before the perpetrator was convicted. Love of Corey (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DEATHS and move to speedily enact, this is a matter of established naming convention. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline of events

The article is currently a bit short; this is understandable as it is being written.

IMO the timeline of events should be cleared a bit more as well as the location of the attack and the attacker. Some media report it was a 25 years old attacker; the article should include more information as soon as events are confirmed. For example, right now some news media do not publish that he died, but others already confirmed that he died, so there needs to be more accuracy in general. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:0:0:0:4 (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit: to explain this, right now the article says "Police were alerted to the attack shortly after 12:05 PM.". This is ok, but it misses other information, such as when the attack happened, when David arrived there etc... It's a bit confusing without that information yet. It's also a bit weird that the time states 12:05 PM, because right now it is 16:25 here in central europe, so in the UK I guess 15:25, but that means we already have a 3 hours delay? So clearly that isn't the most-current information right now when the "police was called" is already ~3 hours old ... 2A02:8388:1604:F600:0:0:0:4 (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be natural to infer that the time given is UK time. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Never mind. Time is given as BST in infobox. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Given it's mentioned in the infobox, I don't think it needs to be said in the body. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit again: I see others already added some information, such as the age of the attacked. I guess we now need to know what can be confirmed, to avoid rumoor mongering. Lots of details are still missing. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:0:0:0:4 (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Somali suspect

@Gianluigi02 has removed mention of Somali national origin as only The Times covers it. It should be noted that the The Telegraph and The Independent also report it.[1][2] This is clearly significant background info at this time, but as it's not confirmed in any of these sources it makes sense to attribute it rather than assert in Wikivoice. Best wishes, Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The goalposts have changed and the nationality of the attacker now apparently cannot be named because it is "irrelevant for now". If nationality is irrelevant, then the age and sex of the perpetrator are irrelevant as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:6021:AD80:7C11:74A8:FDB3:7AB9 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The police have not confirmed the suspect’s nationality, so it is not a significant (or certain) detail. SPAs also trying to add the nationality to lead, infobox, and every body section, is clearly some kind of agenda editing, so it is safer to either select a specific phrasing for the investigation section only, or to exclude since we don’t even know if it is true. Police were quick and forthcoming with sex and age, so these details are taken as the suspect’s identity for the article at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. We should wait for official confirmation by authorities. Love of Corey (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position on this but at least one of the editors above should bear in mind WP:3RR.Tammbeck^talk 19:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The IP is angling for another block after recently coming out of one and now using multiple IPs to edit war. Kingsif (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"The police have not confirmed the suspect’s nationality, so it is not a significant (or certain) detail." Okay. It is significant, insofar that it's reasonably relevant, but it's true that it is not certain. While multiple highly reputed newspaper articles stating that as fact would normally be considered grounds on Wikipedia to state as fact, waiting for official confirmation seems reasonable. 2A02:8084:6021:AD80:7C11:74A8:FDB3:7AB9 (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If the police don’t consider the nationality relevant enough to state, it is an editor’s prerogative on if it is relevant, something often known as WP:OR. Sources, yes even RS, publishing unconfirmed facts are frequently questioned, discussed, removed, on Wikipedia. They want new news since there aren’t many updates, not every part of the investigation is notable, or we’d be adding everything the priest said in the multiple reliable articles interviewing him about how devout Amess was. Kingsif (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The journalists seem confident but they are using off the record sourcing. If the suspect is Somali I'm sure we will find out soon enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, and if the suspect is charged we’ll find out name, etc., in due course. We must also adhere to BLPCRIME, of course. Kingsif (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

BBC has it now: A government source told the BBC the man arrested is a British national who, according to initial inquiries, is of Somali heritage.[3] Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If he'd saved Amess he would have been British from the start. As a potential murderer, he'll be described (by some media) as Somali. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Mail and perhaps the Torygraph. You can't really say it about The BBC, The Independent and (to a lesser extent) The Times. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That source is in the article already, I assume it has been updated. Do we say "British and may have Somali heritage", because that is the certainty level of the BBC. Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, BBC News at Ten just now used the phrase "a British citizen of apparently Somali origin". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I’ll unhide the text with this phrasing. Let discussion continue on phrasing and inclusion. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Every other news outlet has told that he was of Somali origin. BBC , Telegraph , etc… Abheygpt1 (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know what’s wrong in telling his origin. He is a British naturalised Somali immigrant. Some news outlets were even saying that he came to UK along with his parents 20 years ago in a dingy. Unlike the public , we people should be neutral, neither left leaning nor right. Abheygpt1 (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"Belfairs Methodist Church" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Belfairs Methodist Church. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 15#Belfairs Methodist Church until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. JeffUK (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"Died shortly after, aged 69"

This claim seems to be inaccurate and is not well supported by the current sources. As reported here: "paramedics worked to save him on the floor of the Essex church for more than an hour. But police confirmed Amess' death at around 3pm." BBC News at Ten tonight also reported the police confirmation at about 3pm. Also not sure about tagging on "aged 69" there. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The BBC live feed text source also has time of death at just after 3pm - if that source is in the article, use it. You know, not a Nigerian(?) website... We can also assume that the paramedics were indeed trying to save his life from when the emergency services arrived until he died, it’s not anything that needs to be explained. I’m not sure if this sentence is the place for the age, but I would say the age at death should be mentioned somewhere, if you want to better incorporate it. Kingsif (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, certainly his age should be mentioned somewhere. But it seems quite lazily and disrespectfully tagged on there. That source was the first that came to hand, I'm afraid. I personally have nothing against Nigerian(?) websites. We don't need to include the word "desperately" (desperate seems to be one of their favourite words in that article). Yes, I understand that paramedics usually do try to save his lives. That's their job. But over an hour seems notable. The word "shortly" is conveniently vague, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Saying how long paramedics did their job can be hyperbole, and you seem to suggest it should be hyperbolic by saying over an hour is a long time. Surely they keep doing their job - trying to keep people alive - until a person dies, however long it takes? The article says what time the emergency services were called, and if it includes what time he died, well, there’s no need to then do the math for the reader unless you really want to highlight the length of time. Doing that is emphasising it, which is hyperbolic. The article should say nothing more than, you know, there were paramedics. Which it already does. Kingsif (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that giving slightly more detail is necessarily really "hyperbolic" I guess it's just a question of how much detail is appropriate. We don't say when the paramedics arrived. So perhaps we don't actually know if "over an hour" is fair. If they arrived shorty after 12.05, and he died after 3.00, then it seems they were trying to save him for about three hours? But I suspect there was a delay before the police announcement, while they contacted family to inform them first. The timeline at Murder of Jo Cox is much shorter of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I was looking for a prose source for 3pm and found this. With the other timeline details there, I made this edit. What do you think? Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Kingsif, that looks like a big improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Starmer tribute

I am not sure why Starmer's tribute was removed [4]. The intial edit summary states: "adding one invites adding all. this kind of waffle is a perennial issue with current events, and is strongly discouraged. why Starmer and not literally any other political leader." I do not understand this 'Slippery slope' argument I am not advocating the leader of UKIP, Reform UK, Lib Dems, SNP, etc. Starmer is leader of the opposition and the leader of the second largest party in parliament and is frequently mentioned in reports about the killing [5][6][7][8][9][10]. Any other political leader's tributes can be judged on their own merits.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I will assume you are not being deliberately obtuse but responding feels like feeding a troll, I must say. 1. This is an encyclopaedia. Meaningful details are included. Any given politician with Twitter saying they are sad is not encyclopaedic content. WP:Indiscriminate comes to mind. That should be the end of the discussion, and really obvious, but since you want to make it specific let’s also point out: 2. The response section already contains a sentence along the lines of “various politicians across the spectrum expressed condolences...” - presuming you bothered to read what you were editing, you knew you were specifically highlighting one politician and naming their party when they have already been covered in general. This emphasizes either their relevance or the importance of their statement. Is Starmer more relevant to this specific event than, e.g. a politician from Essex? Do his words matter more than those of e.g., the Royal Family. 3. Speaking of, the Prime Minister, international leaders, the Royal Family, all made statements and when adding Starmer you felt that those politicians with actual power shouldn’t be mentioned?
All those public figure responses are the same. X, who is Y, said it is bad. They’re all the same, so we don’t need to name. You keep pointing out you only want to include Starmer, so it’s not going to be too busy, and reject the idea that this would lead to someone else deciding to then add a different person saying the same thing. But they would, for the same reason you want to add Starmer, whatever that is, when it’s better with no names. If "[random person] says [same thing as everyone else]" was to be added, it should be an important and relevant person, Starmer is neither in this context. Also significant would, of course, be someone actually saying something different. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how it's inviting an avalanche of irrelevant 'waffle' to include the tribute of the Leader of the Opposition in the context of this being an event of exceptionally rare occurrence and terrible sadness, regarding an MP who was widely appreciated and respected on both sides of the aisle according to RS. I would say it's highly appropriate, and with RS frequently quoting Starmer, it should be included. Characterizing Starmer as a 'random person' when an MP has been murdered is most baffling. I would also remind you that casting aspersions about editors behavior without specific evidence, and not WP:AGF is against policy and works against creating a collegial editing environment. RandomGnome (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Starmer tribute is significant as it's the leader of the opposition. It will always be significant, in 10 years or a 100 years, that the lead of the opposition said X about this killing. Solipsism 101 (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Assassination now -Terrorost attack

Article has now crossed the time to rename to assassination due to this (CNN). Elijahandskip (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I personally think that calling it "assassination" is likely appropriate, though Wikipedia naming conventions would typically prefer a conviction before doing that, and in any event the standard is to call it "murder" rather than assassination. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Create Category or List for Attacks on British MPs?

Right now there doesnt seem to be a good way to find them except through incomplete See Also sections, and I think it should be organized in some way. jonas (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jonas1015119, I'm not opposed to a category being made - feel free to get one started if you wish ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 02:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ed6767: Are there enough events that fit into this category to create it? Eliegot (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eliegot, I'd think so. There's been quite a few over history. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 03:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, I can help out if you need. Eliegot (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I created Cat:Attacks on British politicians yesterday. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2021

Killing of David Amess → Assassination of David Amess – I feel it is now appropriate to refer to this as an assassination. DeaconShotFire (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reliable sources in the UK do not refer to this as an assassination. WWGB (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WWGB's argument and WP:BLPCRIME. Love of Corey (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support being a terrorist attack means it was a planned death and execution of a political figure. The definition of Assassination basically. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Assassination is an act of murder, but no-one has been convicted of murder here. WWGB (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

    Assassination is the act of killing a public figure. As @Ad Orientem said below, a conviction for murder is not necessary, such as in the case of Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Perhaps you've heard of it? DeaconShotFire (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Merriam-Webster says to assassinate someone is "to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons". This fits it as he is a political figure. Eliegot (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - not until somebody is found guilty of murder and the details become clear, see similar discussions that happened in the archives at Talk:Murder of George Floyd before murder was charged. Also, along these lines why isn't Murder of Jo Cox an "assassination" as that was also politically charged? ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 03:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A conviction is not required for a crime to be labeled as murder. That determination is generally made by a coroner on a death certificate under the heading "manner of death." Police also usually have legal authority to treat a death as a presumptive crime pending the formal autopsy. Lots of people are murdered and no one is convicted. President Kennedy was assassinated, yet no one has ever been convicted (for obvious reasons). As for Jo Cox, her death should absolutely be labeled as an assassination. But it is not relevant to this discussion. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

That's simply incorrect. In the vast majority of anglophone countries with a common law system, coroners do not rule something as a murder in the absence of an existing conviction. (I'm restricting it to such countries since equivalent terms to murder and homicide don't always function the same way in other languages especially when you consider more diverse legal systems. And countries with differing legal systems can have different roles of courts etc.) They may rule the manner of death as homicide, or at worst unlawful killing. Murder is something left for the courts to decide. Here's the autopsy report for JFK [11] Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support It clearly meets the generally accepted definition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support Although "assassination" hasn't been used by the press, and murder hasn't been charged as of yet, this is an intentional killing of a political figure. Sounds like assassination to me. Lucksash (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now until a clear political motive has been established and because RS are not using this term generally. Either way I would support 'Murder' without waiting for a conviction because no RS is seriously suggesting that Amess was not murdered, despite the guilt of the accused needing to be established in a court of law. RandomGnome (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"Homicide" is a completely separate word from "murder". You can kill someone without it being called a murder, and we can't reasonably expect the off-chance of such a scenario NOT happening here. Love of Corey (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks cannot be homicides. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but the decision of a court of law can and will overrule anything else, so we need to err on the side of caution in BLP cases. Love of Corey (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: sorry but your statement makes no sense. A large number of people die by homicide in terrorist attacks every year. While the perpetrators of terrorist attacks do sometimes die by suicide, accident or homicide (generally a lawful killing although sometimes it might be from another perpetrator); there is almost no other manner of death that can arise in a terrorist attack for victims other than homicide. To be clear, outside of some weird borderline cases of felony murder etc where there might be legitimate arguments, every murder is a homicide. Please do not confuse homicide with other terms like manslaughter. Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I think murder is a better word than killing until a clear political motive has been established. For example, the Murder of Jo Cox is still labelled a murder, despite it very clearly being an assassination. DarkHorse234 (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. It would be WP:OR for us to determine this is an assassination without reliable sources referring to it as such. I feel this is a further example of the issues with our current naming practice when it comes to "Death of", "Killing of", "Murder of" etc articles, and why I believe all such articles should be at "Death of" unless reliable sources commonly refer to it with a different descriptor (in this case, the common descriptor appears to be the current one of "killed"). I would also move for this to be speedy-closed, given how prominent the article is at the moment. BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Murder of" and "Assassination of" are off the table at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose as violation of WP:BLPCRIME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Nobody has been convicted yet, so murder and assassination would be inappropriate terms. Also, literally no sources call it an assassination. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also, the OP of this RM has been blocked for disruptive editing, and we had a RM on the name about 15 hours ago with a clear consensus. Absolutely jumping the gun to have another RM straight away, and that's before the BLPCRIME violations with the proposal. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I do understand your point and I'm definitely willing to defer to your experience, but could you clarify why we're unable to use 'Murder' when RS are widely reporting it as such? It can surely be established fact according to RS (but not yet the court because no proceedings have occurred) that Amess was murdered while simultaneously not violating the BLP of the accused/chief suspect. Thanks. RandomGnome (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

RS do not have a WP:BLP policy. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

To add to that you cannot have a murder without a murderer so the claim that you can call something a murder without violating BLPCRIME makes no sense especially in a case like this where there is only one possible suspect. Several discussions have supported the view that unlike some other stuff, murder is something we should not use when no one has been convicted of murder and there is a living person accused of the killing. A significant example is Killing of Rachel Nickell where despite sources calling it a murder for a long time, long before and now long after the conviction or suspect arising, we do not do so (as supported by an RM) since in the end there was only a conviction for manslaughter. Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose "assassination" is more of a US-term. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, I've never heard that assassination is exclusively a US term. According to assassination one of the earliest documented uses was by Shakespeare in Macbeth. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course it's used in British English as well, see Assassination of Spencer Perceval. Lexico.com says Murder (an important person) for political or religious reasons.,[12] perhaps being a backbencher does not meet this threshold whereas Perceval obviously did. The more obvious distinction is the term is used less often in UK media than in US, consider List of assassinated American politicians. Solipsism 101 (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Billy-boy may have coined the term, but I don't feel it's common usage (vs. murder) for someone in the UK. I'm not saying it's exclusively a US-term, but more US-centric than UK-centric. Compare the assassination of JFK vs. the murder of JFK and the same terms for Jo Cox. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – RS aren't using the term. Also, the precedent and common name for the killing of Jo Cox is "murder", and it seems very likely to become the same case here. Regardless, I think it's too early to move the page away from "killing", we should wait until the majority of sources move on from it (not the case yet, note how the Guardian this morning uses "suspicion of murder" in contrast to the "murder of Jo Cox"). This shift will almost certainly happen sooner rather than later. Jr8825 • Talk 08:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose until someone is convicted of murder- at which point we can see if this is termed an assassination by RS. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose It is too soon. Facts are still being established. Killed is accurate and plain language. EuroAgurbash (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a precedent of naming these sort of articles "Killing of..." until a conviction is made. "Assassination" carries implications of a specific motive, which (other than categorisation of this as a terrorist act) we don't have. "Murder" is a specific term, and if (for instance, in a general sense and not just referring to this article) the accused is convicted of manslaughter not murder, then "Murder of..." is not accurate. Right now, "Killing of..." is accurate, verifiable, and tallies with established convention. MIDI (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: RSs do not refer to it as assassination, that seems more of a US term. Murder of Jo Cox naming is useful. Solipsism 101 (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• I consider it too early to term this assassination. Police is yet to release the name and motive of the perpetrator. Abheygpt1 (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Merge These arguments about death/killing/murder/whatever are silly. We have an article with the obvious title and that's David Amess. That's where most of the readers are going (about 10:1) and that's because it has a stable, sensible and short title. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. He was murdered by what appears to be a religious extremist lunatic, so assassination doesn't really fit as they tend to be politically motivated. 'Murder of David Amess' would suffice. StickyWicket (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't even know if the suspect has been charged yet. The incident appears to have been a murder. But in English law murder is decided by a judicial process. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• p.s. also Oppose a merge. Murder of Jo Cox is quite a comparable case but, as can be seen at Talk:Murder of Jo Cox/Archive 2, merge was not really suggested there as an option. I think it's too notable in its own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This is not a normal crime with robbery, revenge as a motive. ZebraaaLounge (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Assasination (as used in Britain) is only mainly used for very high-profile incidents. Unless that there is a overarching scheme (which as of now, there is none), I don't think it would be appropriate to use the term 'assasination'. - 49.144.214.48 (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support Although "assassination" hasn't been used by the press we don't take dictation from the press. WP calls assassination "the act of murdering a prominent or important person" and Amess is listed in List of Assassinated British MPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.200.23.238 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

— 1.200.23.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . WWGB (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Until a conviction is made it is up to a court to declare the intention of the killer. Unforgotten10 (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Merge with David Amess as per Andrew Davidson's suggestion. JayBeckerNCL (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - If someone is found guilty we should change the title to, 'Murder of David Amess' to harmonise with, Murder of Jo Cox.

• Oppose, per COMMONNAME, press is stating stabbing or killing. IP "we don't take dictation from the press"... that's literally the opposite of RS. No merge as per Andrew Davidson's suggestion. This is an independently notable topic, Sir David wasn't a BLP1E, and once this is over, the content here would come to dominate the biographic page. I think that would be inappropriate. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Title.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Shouldn't this article be titled Murder of Sir David Amess? - (2406:E003:E13:E101:59DB:3764:D7A6:7268 (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC))

• See above discussion. Also, no, per WP:BLPCRIME, until such a time as someone is convicted. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this attack be termed as Islamic Terror Attack ?

Police has arrested a Muslim guy who hails from Somalia. They say that it was an act of terrorism. Should this attack be labelled as Islamic Terror Attack ? Abheygpt1 (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

How do we which which faith he professes? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not think they are certain of the exact motif yet, it looks to be mostly speculation at this point. We should wait for the police to confirm that it was an islamic terrorist attack first. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2021

At the end of para 1 of Background section. “Amess was also a strong advocate of the Iranian opposition group, Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). The day before his killing he had an article published calling for the arrest of the nascent Iranian President, Ebrahim Raisi, should he attend the COP 26 conference in Glasgow, Scotland, on 31st October 2021; for his role in the 1988 massacre of dissidents in Iranian prisons, many of whom were MEK members.(https://townhall.com/columnists/davidamess/2021/10/14/reverse-a-pattern-of-appeasement-by-arresting-irans-genocidal-president-n2597370). At the time of his death, he was co-chairman of the British Committee for Iran Freedom.(http://iran-freedom.org/index.php/587-bcfif-statement-following-the-passing-of-its-co-chairman,-sir-david-amess-mp,-after-being-stabbed-in-a-constituency-meeting-in-leigh-on-sea) 82.69.41.97 (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the addition of the above material? Is Arness actually mentioned in the first source? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)