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)

Naming of police officer

According to Wikipedia policy (see WP:BLPCRIME) we must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. As no conviction has been secured, have we seriously considered that? I reverted the bold edit in which it was added, but that, has been reverted, contrary to WP:BRD, with no attempt made to gain a consensus here. Are there any sound and policy-based reasons for actually including it? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The precedent seems to be set by US examples I’ve read that once news names the accused then it also should appear on the article. “Charged” with mention of when the trial is is also pretty clearly not “convicted”. But this is not an area I have much experience editing, as opposed to fixing per WP:ALLEGED.

I think the editor who mentioned you on your talk page has got how the whole optionality thing works mixed up, seemingly believing they can make a bold edit and go unchallenged by simple majority… discussion must come before a consensus is magicked from thin air… EPEAviator (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPNAME, which related to this (and suggests only time will tell whether the officer should be named). EPEAviator (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:BLPNAME which discourages naming the police officer in our article. He has been charged, and the court has allowed him to be named, and his name has been widely reported in the media. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@EPEAviator, WP:BLPNAME isn't so relevant here. But as this person has not been convicted of any crime, we clearly, per the WP:BLPCRIME section of the WP:BLP policy, should not be naming him in our article as being charged with a crime for no reason other than because the news media names him. If we are to name him, we need to be able to explain what significant value naming him brings to the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970 (replying to both in one).

More to Sweet6970 first...

I was only proposing WP:BLPNAME is more relevant than WP:BLPCRIME, the first reply mostly sets out my belief on what is the precedent of what to do. I am quite open I don't have much experience in this specific area (my involvement in these articles usually comes post-conviction/acquittal, when biased editors [mostly IPs] come in trying to paint the police officer/injured or dead person in a very good/bad light based on their bias, and this tends to involve adding vague, negating "reportedly"s or "allegedly"s, etc., rather than "stated by x to be", as WP:ALLEGED leans towards), but I am keen to participate and be of help. I have engaged here because WP:ALLEGED supports clarifying that Blake is accused of a crime, but not convicted, and I was saying I think the wording makes this quite clear.

My point was that WP:BLPNAME suggests that the use of the accused's name in future academic discourse seems to be more important in the long term than the publication of his name in the media currently. I personally doubt his name will be as important as his role whether convicted or not, but this will only be tested by time and what the discourse is once all the information is presented and publicised in this case. I was not changing from my position that the US example's precedent seems to be publication upon naming.

The relevant setion of WP:BLPNAME:

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

(As not previously discussed...) Discussion of this on the Talk page is valid caution. We should be cautious.

Now more for DeFacto...

There is significant value in the police officer being named. This is not an article about Kaba, nor Blake, nor really should it be about any potential problems at the Met... it is about this incident. A fairly significant part of this event (which now I write this I realise should probably be more visibly stated in the article) is the threats against the accused, and the debate over his naming. It is an important discussion point of the event, and has been for some time. I generally dislike reading heavy discussion of the meaning of WP:BLP...s, rather than just suggesting WP:BLP...s that may be relevant, as they tend to not have very useful wording (as in they are unclear) and few concrete examples. I prefer to simply introduce the WP:BLP... and go from there (as I believe I have done with WP:BLPNAME). I believe you are using WP:BLPCRIME here, even though this is not a biography of Martin Blake, and the wording makes very clear he is accused and going to trial (per WP:ALLEGED, which I feel is more applicable here: although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear). It is my reading of WP:BLPCRIME that this is when someone may be notable for some other reason (it makes no mention of people connected to a single event), and you include information about a criminal non-conviction whilst they are not a public figure, meanwhile WP:BLPNAME seems to explicitly discuss mentioning figures connected with a single event.

For everyone: my position is that mention of the officer's naming must occur, and mention of their name specifically seems to have precedent to occur. EPEAviator (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

100% agree with everything you've said. Furthermore, just for my opinion, the officer naming is a big part of this case, because of the protests by the police & members of the police federation, and the impact that the naming of the officer has had (eg impact to police AFO recruitment, etc). This is also one of the first cases where an officer involved in shooting a suspect has been named.

I'm not sure why @DeFacto keeps reverting / removing his name, when so many people have tried adding it (per page history) and people within this talk page have agreed his name should be added. T9537 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I think maybe it's worth writing up a section about the police reaction, the officer naming, how it's different and unusual etc. That's been a massive part of this case and triggered firearms officers handing in their firearms tickets, and while it's not a direct part of the shooting, it's part of the bigger picture surrounding this incident. T9537 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@T9537, I reverted a bold edit per WP:BRD - that is how BRD works. B=the bold edit, R=the revert, then we do the 'D', which is the discussion happening here. If the discussion results in a consensus in favour of the bold edit then it can be restored, but it should not be restored before that happens. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@T9537, we can say that the officer has been named without the need to include his name in our article. The actual name adds nothing of any value. Or can you tell us, which no-one has done yet, what difference knowing the name makes to the understanding of the topic? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you should actually read up on WP:BRD. It clearly states reverting should only be used only when necessary, contrary to WP:BRD itself (the irony). You reverted my original change & provided no evidence or reason that the name shouldn't be included. 3 or 4 people have tried adding it, @EPEAviator explained clearly why it should be added, @Sweet6970 gives more reason for it to be added. That's 5 or 6 people against one. I for one (I can't speak on behalf of the others) believe addding the officers name adds value in many ways. It's shows how unique this case is, with it being unusual for an officer to be named. It goes into the challenges faced, by the police, CPS, courts and suspects family. Furthermore, Martyn was the officer that shot Chris Kaba. Adding the name adds value in that it informs people who actually shot Chris. I could go on and on but so far, the general consensus is that his name should be added. According to you, we should wait an infinite amount of time but so far every person commenting on this talk page has agreed the name should be added. I reckon, until anyone disagrees or gives reason to remove it, you just respect the opinions of myself and others, and leave his name in the article. T9537 (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how adding a name shows how unusual it is. It doesn't. You'd need to actually say that with sources. Ditto for it somehow "It goes into the challenges faced, by the police, CPS, courts and suspects family", no adding the name doesn't do that in any way. You need sourced content which explains how them being named does that. And in both cases that's all you need to do. Adding the name doesn't in any way shape or form actually demonstrate any of that so it serves no purpose in that regard. The other arguments have pretty much been rejected whenever this has come up. There is little value in knowing the name of a non-notable person accused of a crime. Perhaps there are unique reasons to include the name here, e.g. since the accused is a police officer or because the basics of the case are I'm sure undisputed (there's no dispute that the person shot Chris Kaba the dispute is whether it was a crime). But I'm far from convinced. Note that the norm in one country can also easily be different from the norm in another country based on what sources do etc. So what is done in US articles has very limited bearing with what we do here. Although it's definitely not true we always name people charged in US cases anyway. One thing is that is clear is that DeFacto has given reasons for their reversal, so the claim "no evidence or reason" is false, and could even amount to a WP:NPA. Also whatever WP:BRD says, WP:BLPUNDEL makes it clear that there needs to be consensus to restore material which has been disputed on good faith BLP grounds which definitely applies to any case when we're naming a person. While consensus is not unanimity, it does require reasonable discussion based on our polices and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

While I'm not saying this is a reason to exclude the name since I don't think it is, I'd argue that if anything not mentioning the name is more likely to make readers think about the uniqueness of this case. Readers from the UK might be surprised to see the name since it's unusual. But readers from the US, and elsewhere where naming the accused is more common might just see the name and not think much of it. It's when they don't see the name that they might be a bit surprised and read more carefully and find out that it's fairly common that such people are not named in the UK although they were here. Of course since plenty of our articles do not have names of accused even when they are in RS and in the US, in reality it's not so simple, and ultimately all this is based on stuff we cannot assume would actually be understood by any reader nor or in the future. Hence why as I said, if we want readers to actually know any of this, we need to tell them not assume they'd somehow understand just from seeing (or not seeing) the name. Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, i don't check my wiki account often.

Everything you've said is fair enough - but sources have already been given in the article about how and why it's unique that the officer has been named.

As for the challenges faced, again that has been sourced in the article. There's a BBC news article about officers handing in their firearms tickets in protest, for example.

Otherwise i agree with your point regarding consensus, my point is only one has objected to adding the name. There's 5 or 6 people, maybe more, wanting / saying his name should be added. To me, that's the consensus. T9537 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@T9537, WP:CONSENSUS is very clear about what 'consensus' means in Wikipedia: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

We have not yet achieved anything like that in support of the addition. If you still think the addition is essential, read that policy to see what else you can do to attempt to achieve a consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached"

Everyone bar you is in agreement it should be added. We're going round in circles and this isn't productive. If anyone else wishes to further add to the discussion, they should do and maybe this decision can be revisited, should the need arise. T9537 (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto Furthermore, your point regarding "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" is great - 4 people have provided sound and decent arguments as to why it should be included. Your original point was, have we actually considered the changes, etc. This talk page shows the consideration and editor's views on it.

You're the only one in disagreement with this - and i'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by saying a consensus hasn't been reached and trying to indefinitely prolong this addition / change. T9537 (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here, but I'm definitely not in agreement it should be added. As I said, from where I stand the name is useless to everything you keep saying it's useful. If you believe there's something special about the officer being named as reflects in sources then please add this to the article without the name. That is what matters, not the name. The fact it's in sources is completely irrelevant if you do not actually add these detail to the article. Again adding the name to the article does not in any way help the reader to understand that naming them is an unusual situation. You need to instead add these details about how it is unusual, based on these sources you say cover it. Note also that the handing in the permit thing is irrelevant to what we're discussing here. It happened well before they were named, before it was even clear they going to be named. There is therefore absolutely zero reason that readers are gong to think it happened because these officers had concerns over the person being named. It was earlier argued it was because of concerns over the person being charged, which is easily possible and at least makes sense; and is sort of what we imply at the moment although with debate over whether we are clear enough on it. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Brought here by request at BLPN. Agree completely with Nil Einne and DeFacto. This name should be omitted. If it is relevant that he has been named, just say that he has been named and why that is relevant. Also, reading this discussion, there seems to be some misunderstanding about onus. WP:BRD is a voluntary process for gaining consensus through discussion, but WP:ONUS is policy. The onus is on you to gain consensus before re-asserting challenged material and without such consensus, it stays out. Especially in a BLP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I tend to lean towards excluding the name but the question is well within editorial discretion. It's certainly relevant to say that the officer has been named, because that's unusual in the British system, but the name itself doesn't really add much at this point. I've written a few articles like this one (I'd like to get this one to FA standard once it's "history£ and not "current events") and grappled with this question a few times. In Shooting of James Ashley, I included the officer's name because the officer made himself a party to the case when the family sued the police but I didn't name the other officers involved because it wouldn't add to the reader's understanding and one of the things BLP is concerned with is that the top Google result for the name of a non-notable person should not be an event they were involved in ~25 years ago. I included the officer's name at Northolt siege because the officer is borderline notable and has spoken publicly about the event and written a book about his experiences with this and other incidents. At Shooting of Stephen Waldorf I included the surnames (only) of the officers who opened fire because they're widely named in the sources and it was very difficult to write a coherent narrative without naming them. At Death of Mark Saunders and Chandler's Ford shooting, I excluded the officers' names because they weren't widely named in the sources (if at all); of course, it helps that in those two incidents the people shot were armed and committing criminal offences, even if there were other considerations.

Which I guess is a long-winded way of saying don't include just because you can, but don't omit it if there are good reasons to include it. Personally, I'd leave the name out for now and see how events develop. 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell I am not commenting on whether to name the officer at this time, but I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to explain your reasonings behind similar cases and what steered you towards naming or not naming.

I think more often than not, a lot of editors see BLPCRIME as a full stop to naming while seemingly confusing 'should consider' with 'do not name UNLESS convicted', so it's nice to see some rationale explained on how it can go either way.

Awshort (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I have reversed the latest addition of the police officer’s name, as there is not currently consensus to add it. However, this is a bit pointless when it is in the title of the BBC source. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Correction – I thought I had reversed it, but it looks like someone else got there first. But my comment still stands – this is pointless when the name is otherwise shown on this page. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yep, I think I beat you to it. We are not trying to suppress the name. The personal data is in the public domain, and once released in the public domain, it cannot be unreleased again. But that was never the point. The question is whether an encyclopaedic article needs to follow the primary source (the news article) in naming him, or whether our article is sufficient, informative, and neutral in simply stating that he is named. Is the name encyclopaedic information? Whilst it is tempting to answer that with a "yes", because an encyclopaedia means "everything", we need to bear in mind that what we are writing is a tertiary sourced summary of secondary (not primary) sources. As long as we are serious about writing in encyclopaedic style, the question on naming lies in whether that information belongs in our summary of the events, or whether the reader's information need is met with the information that he has been named, with references that give the details (including the name), should the reader wish to delve deeper. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced allegation of criminality

@T9537: You have reinstated material making an allegation of criminality without a source. Your edit summary says: Rap group / criminal gang 67 - source provides mention of multiple members being criminals, arrests being made due to the group running county line drug operations, etc. Please read the source. but there is no source, either in this article or in the article on 67 (rap group) which justifies saying in wikivoice that this rap group is a criminal gang. See WP:BLPCRIME and wp:BLPREMOVE. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's clear a problem. I'm lazy to dig out diffs, but an earlier version said it was a police labelled criminal gang. Our article 67 (rap group) says something similar. I don't know much about the UK but is this some sort of formal process with I guess public lists of such gangs, or does it just mean police go around calling them criminal gangs in press releases etc? If there is some sort of formal process then IMO it might be worth adding back if it can be sufficiently sourced in relation to the shooting. (To be clear, I mean calling it a police labelled criminal gang, not one point blank.) I tried to search about this briefly without success but did find [1]. I think a wider issue is whether there has been any suggestion from sources that the police especially the officer charged were aware that Kaba was a member of the group, and that this and their perception of the group, might have influenced how they handled the situation. In that case, I can definitely see some justification for including mention of what the police consider 67 in some fashion along with mention of this influence. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There is some inf on this in the 67 (rap group) article, which has a link to Form 696, a procedure which has now been discontinued. There is a source in the 67 article which includes that the police have labelled 67 as a criminal gang [2]. But I don’t think that it is appropriate to include this in our article on the shooting of Chris Kaba, because it reads to me like an attempted justification for the shooting, whereas Wikipedia should not be commenting on what is an accusation of murder not yet tried in a court. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Au contraire, "police-labelled criminal gang" is quite relevant to the shooting. Afaik was being tailed in part because of his membership of six seven. However, it is very important to stress (per WP:ALLEGED) who labels it as a gang. That is the police, a officer of which eventually shot him... "criminal gang" is not a good statement, as I find no reports providing police evidence for it being a criminal gang, other than their report that it is. But "police-labelled criminal gang" makes quite clear to me the context of why his membership of 67 is mentioned in the lead. (My understanding is the controversy is over his shooting [an element of which was his membership of this group, which may not have help Kaba due to the police's view of the group], rather than his fame as a musical artist, or apprentice architect (!), which you will note I removed per the policy on people notable as individuals for one event.) EPEAviator (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think my "afaik" is wrong, he was being followed due to the Audi being registered as being involved in the shooting a bit before. It is not clear whether the people charged over the firearms incident (it may be worth now re-labelling this as "shooting", given we now know this is what it was) the day before were 1) 67 members/connected in any way and 2) known to the police at the time they persued the vehicle. My apologies. EPEAviator (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I should add that I am not so sure you can have one and not the other in this case, regardless. If his membership of 67 is irrelevant to the shooting, it should not be in the lead. If 67 is mentioned later, the police context should be mentioned as context to the group (and, if we are frank about the average reader, I expect these connotations sadly come simple from the word "drill" as is, so arguments about "justification" are sort of null upon mentioning).

I have some views about this whole justification thing, but they need some time to stew (in effect, the line between avoiding justification and providing full context seems very narrow, and perhaps fluid based on our personal beliefs about this incident and the world in general [we should examine and maybe even be open about these things whilst editing such contentious articles]). EPEAviator (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in so late - i barely check my wiki account.

@Sweet6970 I re-instated it because the source used and the wiki page says it's a police labelled criminal gang. Furthermore, the wiki page goes on to detail criminal allegations and convictions, including one whereby the group itself was caught running county drug lines. Therfore (and it feel it's difficult as frankly, it's a matter of opinion), with the number of sources and the groups own wiki page detailing the criminal activites by the gang, they're a criminal gang. The gang is formed of criminals, breaking the law and being accused and / or convicted of criminal behaviour.

@EPEAviator Completely agree, however my understanding is that the firearms incident the vehicle was involved in, involved members of the "67 gang". Hence i believe the context is relevant, as the incident that started this entire set of events, involved the gang and the original shooting / incident which led police to follow / tail / surveil, and the police knew this.

I think, in my opinion, it should mention they're a police labeled gang - and maybe include some context about how that's relevant (per what i've said above) and the context it gives to the Chris Kaba shooting. T9537 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 20:24 (UTC)

The Background section has a mention of the allegation that the group is a ‘gang’, and I think that is all that is due in this article, which is about the shooting of Kaba, not the rap group. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It did, but that was removed hence this discussion. @EPEAviator brought up the relevance, which i think is fair, hence i explained it in my above reply. T9537 (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope, nevermind i see what you mean - i'll leave it at that then. T9537 (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I still am not very convinced that a need to mention the group at all (given a click to the hyperlink gives lead to an article that mentions other criminality, its mention hardly avoids “justification”) in the lead is yet clear. There seem to be no sources yet indicating this is relevant to why he was shot, rather than being of biographical interest to Kaba. If it doesn’t include the whole “police-labelled gang” stuff as it wasn’t important to the shooting, then under this logic the same therefore goes for mentioning the group until we have a source. (I also want to stress the whole drill-gang average reader mental mixing point and avoiding seemed justification. Although I must add that, technically, stating a fact/claim somewhere should be the extent of this, we shouldn’t shy away from anything for fear of justification/condemnation pre-trial. [In effect, if we avoid notable things that might be seen as justifying the shooting, we are not assuming innocence; if we include these/avoid notable things that make it justified, we are in a way not assuming innocence for the victim… it is late (even for me) and there is probably a solution that unifies stating the facts and innocent until proven guilty that I just can’t see.]) EPEAviator (talk) 03:50, 16 March 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 [3], [4], [5] 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)