Talk:2018 Liège attack

Background -- stabbings connected?

The background section lists two stabbings in 2016 but there is no indication that this incident is related, beyond being a stabbing. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources make the connection. Stabbing attacks on police officers appear to have been unknown before the three in 2016; and the press has discussed these as a group, without asserting that the Joker (character) is behind all of them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources do not make the connection. One is behind a paywall so I can't verify, the other, the BBC story, states simply "Later in 2016 a man attacked two police officers with machetes while shouting "Allahu Akbar" before being shot dead.". It doesn't specify which stabbing, and more importantly, it doesn't give any indication that these two incidents are actually related. Sorry. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The section talks about the security level in the country which is a result of the incidents.

At the very least the Liege incident previously and the airport bombinsg would be attributed.Lihaas (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with those. This guy is a nut, not an Islamist. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The sort of Islamists who do this sort of thing are also sort of nuts. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A copycat crime can be a nut copying a terrorist as easily as it can be a terrorist copycatting a nut. Multiple WP:RS do make the comparison/connection, I added only a few.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I for one find the first sentence of the Background section, "The attack is one of a series of recent stabbing attacks...", potentially misleading. Per Wiktionary definition, 'series' means "a number of things that follow on one after the other or are connected one after the other". Even if these Belgian attacks merely 'follow on' and are not 'connected', referring to them as a series may nevertheless to some readers suggest the latter. Therefore, until an actual link is established, I would rephrase that sentence eg. as "The attack is one of a number of recent stabbing attacks..." (possibly also adding for good measure "...which may or may not be connected" or something to that effect). DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, probably alter the beginning of the sentence to just put context instead of series?Lihaas (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no apparent connection between the others, either. Just similar in their knives, cops and Belgium. If we start excluding events from the series, despite the chronology in reliable sources, we look like we're trying to construct a pattern specifically for Muslims or foreigners, and why else would we do that but to demonize? Religion and ethnicity are never so important as violent antisocial tendency in any series of public assaults and murders. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The first victim

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/liege-shooting-latest-belgium-dead-killed-police-officers-benjamin-herman-a8375181.html Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Previous death

The article says he was released th emorning before, then the section he kills someone other than a cell mate the night before. There is a clear disconnect.

"He had been released from prison earlier the same day[9]" then leads to the next paragraph of the same section "The night before, Herman also killed a man, a former prisoner he met in jail" )(which was in response to this "he didnt kill him in jail"). Which makes logical sense, IMO, because he would not have been released BUT there is a disconnect.Lihaas (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@WWGB: well that would make more sense then.

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Susperp

When should we move susperp to perp in the infobox? Clearly no interviewing him.Lihaas (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• I believe once we have confirmation from the state? Infobox guidelines should probably tell us about that. Lordtobi (✉) 15:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Absent a real trial, I think we just default to the court of public opinion. The papers and police found him guilty, and even on the slim chance they're wrong, he's dead and doesn't have a reputation to tarnish. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The rationale that he's dead and doesn't have a reputation to tarnish is incompatible with WP:BDP, specifically the part about contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. TompaDompa (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything contentious or questionable in the infobox? I'll take a bit of exception to saying he "targeted" a school when he (apparently) just entered one, but that aside, it seems to fit with what sources agree he did. Also where, when and how. Nobody's rushed to add a "why", which is good; that one is always the most questionable question after a killer dies with the answer. But so long as we don't hazard a guess, I think we have ample evidence to place the former Mr. Herman at the scene of his crimes. We certainly shouldn't implicate his surviving friends, family or acquaintances, and should be careful how we mention them (if at all). But the dead don't mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on this particular case, but on the general principle. The argument that the dead don't mind is irrelevant, because their living friends and relatives might – that is the very essence of WP:BDP. Living friends and relatives are covered by WP:BLP in their own right, so there's no need to invoke WP:BDP for material about them. TompaDompa (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Good points, generally. Thanks for clarifying, and I'll keep them in mind. That aside, do you feel anything about this case warrants a BLP extension? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Because I favour a strict interpretation and enforcement of WP:BLPCRIME, I would with WP:BDP and WP:BLPNAME in mind propose removing the name of the (suspected) perpetrator. The name itself adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. TompaDompa (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm also a bit of a stickler on that, generally. But here I see no such dubiousness and serious ramifications, so will disagree respectfully (meaning I won't revert you, if you want to go for it). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Name is widely published in reliable independent sources worldwide. Hence we are entitled to publish it. WWGB (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of drug prices in Belgium

I don't see the relevance of this info. There is no indication that drugs - or drug-related crime - played any part in this event, other than the perp having been in prison for 'dealing'. Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I am removing it until someone provides a justification. WWGB (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)