Talk:2025 Cambridgeshire train stabbing: Difference between revisions

This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale.

@DeFacto: – you have removed the entire background section, the images from the infobox, and about half of the reactions without discussion. Please discuss here as I think all of those things deserve to stay in the article. Thanks, JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 15:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The background that I removed was the irrelevant trivia about the railway line and the train details. The ‘reactions’ that I removed were only the irrelevant and predictable platitudes from politicians. What encyclopaedic value do either of these add to the subject of this article? — DeFacto (talk). 15:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reaction of the prime minister is pretty important, even if you think that it’s predictable. It is not NPOV to add personal judgement to how relevant someone’s reaction is based on what they’ve said. Chris Philp’s response is not any more worthy of inclusion than Keir Starmer’s just because it is less “predictable”.

In terms of the background information, it makes sense to explain the context of the attack in detail. If you want to argue about specific sentences then fine but removing an entire section is a bit over the top. For example, you removed the explanation of the role of the British Transport Police and why it wasn’t dealt with by regular offices from the local police force. You also removed the explanation of LNER, or the line itself, or which type of train it was. I think referencing WP:ONUS after removing that entire section is a bit ridiculous as otherwise I could just go the article for Kier Starmer, remove the “Early life and education” section, and then revert anyone trying to add it back until enough editors form a ‘consensus’ it ought to be there.

In terms of the images, a reader now has no idea what the train, or the station looks like. This is especially true because you removed the information about the train which was in the “Background” section. Now a reader knows nothing about the incident in terms of a visual image or understanding.

If you look at the Featured Article United Airlines Flight 93, which describes a different incident of an attack on a transport vessel, you can see that it describes the flight crew, plane information and capacity, and earlier events that day. No one would dare go and remove all of that information and claim ONUS when someone tries to add it back. I’m not going to revert your reversion of my reversion of your blanking, but I will take this to DRN if you outright refuse to add back any of these things. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 16:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, for the reactions, the ones I removed were the worthless platitudes. The considered and pertinent reactions I left in place.

For the ‘background’, the reasons why different police forces exist is irrelevant to the subject, as is the train model that it happened inside or whether the train was running to schedule or where its planned stops were.

MOS:IMAGEREL is self-explanatory, it says “Images must be significant and relevant in the topic’s context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject”. What value did the ones removed add? — DeFacto (talk). 16:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The planned stops are relevant because they are part of understanding the switch between fast and slow lines and what the train was being used for. The model matters because it impacts the level of movement possible between carriages.©Geni (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s the photos of the station and of a train that we are concerned with here, not the map (although that might be challenged later too). Where was the level of movement between the carriages discussed in any detail in this article and in what way does that image illustrate it? — DeFacto (talk). 21:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:DeFacto re minor details of the train not being relevant. Inclusion of the headcode (the rail equivalent of airline+flight no. in air travel, if I’ve got that right) is really not needed because in Britain trains are generally identified by the departure station and time. I’m guessing the headcode is used internally by some in the rail industry, but it’s just not used outside it.–A bit iffy (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots – background and response. Secretlondon (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Secretlondon, per this edit of yours, please see WP:ONUS. Mine was a valid WP:BRD “R” edit, yours went against WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. — DeFacto (talk). 16:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are being pedantic, and this reminds me of your single mindedness in stopping the attack on the synagogue being described as anti-semitic. You’ve been reverted twice on this, no? Secretlondon (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic? No. Attempting to improve the article? Yes. I’ve been reverted twice, yes – but so what? Are you suggesting that brute force counts for more than adhering to Wiki policies and guidelines? — DeFacto (talk). 18:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve been warned about WP:3RR before and given what you are counting as a revert you’re over.(talk) 20:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m looking at similar articles to this one, such as the 2015 Thalys train attack and the 2017 Portland train attack, and reactions of politicians and other groups are included. Therefore, I think it is best that reactions to this event remain in the article. Ben-fpyt (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben-fpyt, that content in those other articles might need to be removed, I don’t know. What I do know though is that whatever is in those articles is irrelevant to this discussion per WP:OTHERCONTENT. — DeFacto (talk). 16:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, however as previously mentioned, the reaction of certain induviduals (such as the PM) is relatively important. Ben-fpyt (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben-fpyt, platitudes are never important, they do not belong in an encyclopaedic article. — DeFacto (talk). 17:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPOV, it is not your job to judge how interesting different people’s reactions are. I agree that some (e.g. Ed Davey and the King) have responded with more generic messages than others (e.g. Nigel Farage and Chris Philp), but that is not relevant. Adding personal views into what content is included is editorialising which is not appropriate on Wikipedia. The only thing that should merit inclusion or not is the status of the individual themselves; for example, Zia Yusuf‘s response has been widely reported but not included as he is Head of Policy at Reform UK, and then for neutrality we’d be adding loads of random non-MP politicians to the section. Currently it is only the home secretary and her shadow counterpart, party leaders, members of the royal family, and the MP for the affected constituency. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 17:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobTheRox, this is not a question of NPOV. By removing those particular ‘responses’ I did not unbalance the article as they were not balancing any POV, they were simply worthless boilerplate platitudes which add nothing of value to the subject of the article.

Questioning the validity of these ‘responses’ is not “editorialising” it is complying with WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, which says, “An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject”. These had no meaning at all because they are the same sort of things that have been routinely and automatically issued by such individuals so many times before following these types of incidents.

The only thing that merits inclusion is content that complies with Wiki policies and guidelines, including WP:ONUS, and not content based solely on an editor’s opinion of the “status of the individual”. — DeFacto (talk). 17:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, I think the transport secretary and her shadow counterpart’s response merit inclusion, because it happened on the transport network and the DfT is responsible for the British Transport Police. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 17:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobTheRox, can you please clarify that you intended this to be a reply to Ben-fpyt’s post, as suggested by the indentation, and not to mine. Thanks. — DeFacto (talk). 17:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DeFacto – it was a response to you; I have corrected the indentation — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobTheRox (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — DeFacto (talk). 17:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t remove the parts of the transport secretary’s, or her shadow’s, responses which added value to the article, I only removed the meaningless bits. — DeFacto (talk). 17:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve not looked to see who added or removed what, but as it currently stands the only part of the reactions section that adds any value is Shabana Mahmood said she was “deeply saddened” and that she “urge[d] people to avoid comment and speculation at this early stage”. She also announced a greater police presence on the rail network the following day as a result of the incident and to reassure commuters. and even that is arguable. Everything else is meaningless words unless and until there is some secondary coverage about the reaction specifically. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had dropped her “deeply saddened” bit too, but left the rest of what she said per your comment and the similar sentiments from Philp, Farage and Obese-Jecty. — DeFacto (talk). 19:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Kemi Badenoch saying that this is related to deeper societal issues (“We cannot be a country where people are innocently going about their business and facing this level of violent crime”) is undeniably worth keeping as well? Also Keir Starmer’s should be kept however meaningful it is because he is literally the head of government, as should King Charles’ response as the head of state. That leaves removing Ed Davey, Heidi Alexander, and Richard Holden. If you want to remove those then be my guest, but I am a little concerned at the notion that we would have one response from the government (Mahmood) and three from members of the opposition (Philp, Farage and Obese-Jecty), especially as the latter three are somewhat critical of the government’s actions in regards to crime. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 19:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again, I agree that Badenoch’s comment should stay. Starmer’s though are the stereotypical hackneyed remarks that add nothing to the discussion and are not worthy of inclusion. The King’s and Queen’s remarks similarly add nothing to the understanding of the subject. The standing of the individual is irrelevant here, it’s the value to the subject of what they say that matters. — DeFacto (talk). 20:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you take away the King/Queen and Keir Starmer, a reader sees the following reactions:

• Kemi Badenoch (CON), Leader of the Opposition
• Shabana Mahmood (LAB), Home Secretary
• Chris Philp (CON), Shadow Home Secretary
• Nigel Farage (REF), Leader of Reform UK

Do you not think there are NPOV concerns with that? I mean you are literally including the reactions of major party leaders except the one in government. It’s also not at all proportional to the balance of power. Yes, Keir Starmer has issued the standard drivel but having the head of government and head of state’s reaction feels like a bare minimum to me. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 20:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reactions to be included should be based on their relevance and value to the subject, not on who made them.

NPOV is irrelevant here as it only applies to the handling of views on the topic, and the reactions by their Majesties and Starmer were not views on the topic, they were expressions of sympathy and support to involved parties. — DeFacto (talk). 20:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Platitudes are not relevant regardless of whether they are said by the king or Joe Bloggs on twitter. I’m still not seeing why we need the responses of anybody other than the home secretary (because they are the only one who has said anything practical) unless and until they are accompanied by secondary sources demonstrating their relevance? I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the comments about deeper social issues do get discussed in secondary sources (I’ve not looked) but unless we are discussing the remarks in the context given by those secondary sources I don’t see them as encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto What do you think about Keir Starmer saying that the attack was “deeply concerning” and urging people to “follow the advice of the police”? Is that beyond thoughts and prayers? The King’s isn’t of course. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 23:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobTheRox, I agree with Thryduulf, I think it is irrelevant. — DeFacto (talk). 09:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find the background section distracting and largely irrelevant. Southdevonian (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I do not think all of the information is really that relevant to the main incident. Should we proceed with removing it? Ben-fpyt (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The station is the area where the incident came to an end. Stations vary a lot in layout and style so the image is useful. While I’d prefer one focusing on the relivant platform we have what we have. The train is important because while right now we all know what a British Rail Class 800 is 20 years from now not so much and a pic is much easier than trying to write out a full description.©Geni (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That picture is the same platform that they disembarked the train on JMajor14 (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is now. I went through commons and found one that covered it.©Geni (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is it a black man when they commit crime but a Black man when they dindu nuffin. whats the deal here 143.44.196.49 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed – it is uppercase when referring to the ethnicity (e.g. a Black man) and lowercase when referring to the standard colour (e.g. a black pen). JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 23:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🪢🪑 NOW! 88.97.205.24 (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cambridgeshire train stabbing train diagram.svg has two coach Ks. Is this correct? Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s supposed to be M, L, K… ([1]). Pinging @Cmglee to hopefully fix it. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 07:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]