Talk:2025 Liverpool parade incident: Difference between revisions

Title

Can we change the title to 2025 Liverpool car attack as the a in attack is not a capital? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I've already requested that the redirect 2025 Liverpool car attack (the original title) is deleted to make way for this move. We just need to wait for an admin to make the move. harrz ^talk 20:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Page has been moved. I apologise for capitalising the full title in the initial move. Fantastic Mr. Fox 21:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Since this incident is not being treated as terrorist-related, and we don't know whether this was an attack, might I suggest moving this article to a different title until we know for certain what happened? This is Paul (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, “Attack” does seem to be the wrong term. Possibly “2025 Liverpool Parade incident”? That would be my proposal. CDRL102 (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree "2025 Liverpool Parade incident" sounds better. This is Paul (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Police are referring to it as an incident; we should do the same until a motive has been established; to do otherwise is to prematurely speculate on the motive. 81.102.163.168 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, especially as "attack" strongly implies that a crime has been committed. Stuart2202 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The BBC have described the incident as Liverpool car ramming (see here) and Liverpool FC parade incident (see here). I have no strong opinion on the title itself, however think it is clear this was some sort of attack and was certainly intentional, especially after seeing the videos of it. harrz ^talk 23:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I have moved the page to “Liverpool Parade incident”. CDRL102 (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with naming this an "incident" instead of an "attack", as according to the reports coming in it seems to match the former term better. However, I do not believe "Parade" should be capitalized, because capitalizing it implies there is an official event known simply as the "Liverpool Parade". For reference, when there was a shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs' victory parade last year, it was titled: 2024 Kansas City parade shooting. Red0ctober22 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I dont think it really meets the definition to be described as an attack currently. It looks bad on video however the same could be said of the Glasgow bin lorry crash that was deemed to be not intentional.(in that case the lorry mounted the pavement and accelerated) 195.99.90.207 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Number of casualties

Let's not add any casualty numbers to the infobox until there's an official announcement. I don't think using a witness statement that quotes "dozens" of people injured is reliable enough source for use in an infobox. According to BBC News there's going to be a police statement at 22:30 BST, which is less than half an hour away, so I don't understand why everybody can't just wait till then. This is Paul (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

"Vehicular Rampage" categories.

Unfortunately, these categories are being repeatedly added for no real reason. @Harrz in particular has reverted my attempts at ammending this.

The issue is that the vehicular rampage categories denote an intentional crime, that is the crime of intentionally using a vehicle to cause harm to many people. It can be assumed that this category likely uses the definition outlined in the article Vehicle-ramming attack.

However, there is no confirmation from any official sources that this act was intentional. No criminal charges have even been filed at this time. Furthermore, no reliable source is calling this act intentional, presumably for the aforementioned reason. @Harrz pointed to some colourful language used by certain sources, however this should not be relied upon as implying intent, as that would be original research. Per WP:BLPCRIME, suspects should be assumed as not guilty until convicted, and giving this article the categories of an intentional attack goes against this. Macxcxz (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It can be assumed that this category likely uses the definition outlined in the article Vehicle-ramming attack.: It can be assumed by whom, and with what likelihood? Wouldn't it be nice to point to a definite piece of text rather than making likely assumptions? Einsof (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I had missed the criteria given in the page Category:Vehicular_rampage. This designates it as "Killing, injury and/or damage to property deliberately committed with a vehicle.". Given that there is, as I said, no indication from reliable sources that this act was deliberate (as well as considering WP:BLPCRIME) I think it is inappropriate to add the relevant categories based on this criteria. Macxcxz (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

"Rampage" is not a legally meaningful term, criminally or otherwise, as far as I am aware. How does its use violate WP:BLPCRIME? As for reliable sources, the Associated Press paraphrases a witness saying that it "looked deliberate". Einsof (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It violates WP:BLPCRIME as it heavily implies a criminal act where one has not yet been found. Vehicular rampage, as defined in the category page, is an intentional act. There is no indication this is an intentional act from reliable sources at this time. It is fine to say within the article that it "appeared intentional", but this would not be sufficient for a category, which should qualify defining characteristics that are commonly and consistently referred to (see WP:CAT#D). One witness' testimony does not constitute as such, and would only be one type of source, and not a reliable one even, since that is just reporting of someone's opinion.

This is not to say this will always be the case. I just think it would be worthwhile to wait for further police statements and such before rushing to apply any label implying intention to this incident, just like how this article's name was changed from "attack" to "incident". Macxcxz (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Unlikely, but could even be a "medical episode". WWGB (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not really about subjective likelihood. Do I think this is probably an intentional act? Personally, yes. Should this article say the same thing? No, probably not. It would be inappropriate given the reasons I've stated above, namely the lack of reliable sources calling it such. Macxcxz (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Treating police statements as reliable and eyewitness accounts as unreliable is no way to write an encyclopedia. In addition to an eyewitness assessment, we have from the BBC "videos seem[ing] to show a man in the car arguing with pedestrians and beeping his horn before accelerating forwards." Insisting that eyewitnesses and journalists be overridden by police officers, who didn't witness what occurred and whose primary function is to enforce law and order rather than to gather facts, is not consistent with how we source factual material. Einsof (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it can be said the man accelerated forwards. It can even be said that he struck people with his vehicle. However, it cannot be said he went on a "rampage" as that implies criminal intent. I am not sure what is difficult to understand here. Macxcxz (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I added the reference to the reported videos mentioning the suspect being seen arguing with pedestrians.

This doesn't preclude the possibility this could be some form of medical episode.

It's not a case that we are intrinsically treating police statements as reliable and eyewitness accounts as unreliable.

It's a case that we have no reliable source confirming the intent behind the actions. A crime might have been committed. The act might have been intentional. But, presently, we do not know. That may change in the future. 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:9CB0:4249:67B2:B4C2 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Plus, "rampage" is a dumb tabloid word. Too bad there wasn't a fire as well, so we could refer to the "raging inferno". EEng 16:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

If I were naming these categories I would have simply gone with "vehicle ramming", which is factual without ascribing any mental state to the operator. Einsof (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Einsof: I agree with your proposal for renaming the categories. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

And another question: is it “violence”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated the category for renaming here. I encourage anyone here to go there and discuss. harrz ^talk 20:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Not being "that guy", but...

"Parade" should not be capitalised in the title or anywhere else, because it's not a proper noun. This wasn't at an event formally known as "Liverpool Parade" Unknown Temptation (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Move performed. Zacwill (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Overlong reactions section

Harrz, I trimmed the reactions section, as per edit summaries, under WP:NOTNEWS. We are writing an encyclopaedia article, not doing a news report. Most reactions are not encyclopaedia-worthy information. We don't need specific quotations. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't include these reactions, they are all from notable people such as local/national politicians and football-related things, and all news sources have been reporting on these reactions heavily. harrz ^talk 10:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

News media always report heavily on reactions to mass casualty events, because they have column space to fill and because politicians always have boilerplate to give. Most of it isn't notable. Einsof (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Einsof. Also, looking at the section, most of the reactions are only sourced to tweets, which is insufficient. The argument that all news sources have been reporting on these reactions heavily only works if there is secondary sourcing showing that. Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Einsof also. And per EEng who says it nicely: If there's someone who says it was a great day all around, that would be worth reporting. Basically, man bites dog. I see the cruft has been removed; would reversal on whatever grounds would be indicative of an intent to edit war? Update: I see Harrz has in fact now chosen to edit war the material back in. Sigh. Harrz, please read WP:ONUS, which is policy, and familiarize yourself with why it is your responsibility to seek consensus for the inclusion of disputed materal, no-one else's. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I was in the middle of writing a comment when I got pinged for this, so I'll just paste it here:

I see no reason why we shouldn't include any reactions... it's simply nonsensical. I would understand the removal of some reactions, but it is also important to show some of them, such as LFC, the Premier League and Everton have reacted as they are very closely associated with the incident. Furthermore, reactions from the prime minister, the head of the catholic church in England and royals are also definitely notable, and I see no reason why they should be omitted. According to @EEng, they shouldn't be included merely because they are "predictable"... really? Furthermore, other big incidents in the UK have sections for reactions with politicians and monarchs responses, see 2024 Southport stabbings#Official responses. I will refrain from doing anything with the reactions section now because it is apparently something very contentious, however I strongly disagree with the removal of every single reaction simply on the grounds of predictability. harrz ^talk 14:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

A few reactions is OK, but they need to have secondary sourcing to demonstrate they are notable and there is no need to go into detail, and rarely much need to include quotations. If people are just saying the predictable, they can be summarised (x, y, z expressed their support... that sort of thing). Bondegezou (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I fully agree with that and the quotations were pretty overkill, a summary would suffice, however the removal of everything is totally unnecessary. All the reactions that were there before were mentioned in secondary sources, and I was going to add those sources but the whole section was removed so I couldn't… harrz ^talk 14:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Summarising them, like we've done in articles such as 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash and 2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash, sounds like a sensible plan. Everyone's going to say similar things ("this was awful", "our thoughts go out to those involved", etc), but I think it should be acknowledge that there was reaction. Also, we can mention any visits to the scene by the prime minister or a member of the royal family, which would be likely to happen following such a huge incident as this. This is Paul (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I did add that Princess Anne had visited a hospital in Liverpool but it was hastily removed. I would appreciate it if this was restored. harrz ^talk 14:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

If reactions were mentioned in secondary sources, they should have been cited as such from the start. We should never have had a section predominantly based on Twitter citations. Bondegezou (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• A summary would be a great improvement, and cut down substantially on the waste of our most elusive resource -- the attention and interest of our readers. But I would go further: if there's a secondary source telling us that reactions were unusual in some way, then we'd include that. Otherwise, telling the reader that Important People incommoded themselves long enough to Post on Twitter that What Happened was a Bad Thing and Very Sad, is completely pointless. EEng 15:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Most of the quotes don't appear to have made it into secondary sources, which has to say something. This is Paul (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Water Street

Is there a more recent image? Family27390 (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

There's this one from 2018 and this one from 2024, but neither seem as good. I guess the 2024 one would be ok if it didn't have the roadworks. This is Paul (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Alcohol

Any alcohol involved should be mentioned. 2A00:23C4:7C91:4C00:A47B:CC8A:3067:346F (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Citation number 4 as of time of posting mentions police investigation into suspicion of driving under drugs. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Reactions

OK, here's my suggestion for a slimmed down reactions section. All we need are two or three reactions, such as those from the prime minister, the King and a local official. If anyone wants to add in a statement from Liverpool FC as well then that's probably ok. Princess Anne visited the Royal Liverpool Hospital, so that should get a mention, because the visit took place in the aftermath of the incident, as should any other visits from senior royals or politicians, as I'm sure there will be some. Let me know what you think. This is Paul (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed text

A number of notable figures issues statements expressing their shock at the events. These included prime minister, Keir Starmer, who described the incident as "appalling" and thanked emergency services. He also said the whole country "stands with Liverpool". King Charles III said that the "strength of community spirit for which your city is renowned will be a comfort and support to those in need". Steve Rotherham, Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, issued a statement thanking the emergency services.

On 27 May, Princess Anne visited the Royal Liverpool Hospital to meets medical staff, as well as some of those being treated following the incident.

References

Comments

I think this is perfect, however I think statements from LFC and the Premier League should also be included, as well as the prayers at Liverpool Cathedral. Thanks Paul, harrz ^talk 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I can only find John Sherrington's comments at the moment, but I imagine there'll be a service for the victims in the next day or so. This is Paul (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I had seen this on the BBC's live feed which says Cardinal Vincent Nichols, who is the Archbishop of Westminster and as such the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, had also made some comments. harrz ^talk 15:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Sorry, but the above is far from perfect. The following are nothing but fat:
  • A number of notable figures issues statements expressing their shock at the events – Well, DUH. (If notable figures universally feigned ignorance of what happened, THAT would be worth noting in the article.)
  • described the incident as "appalling" – If the PM had said, "I'm sorry it happened, but what's the big deal?", we'd want to report that.
  • thanked emergency services – Again ... DUH. (If the PM had said, "Look, it's their job. What do they expect -- a bouquet of roses???", then THAT would be worth noting in the article.)
  • Steve Rotherham, Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, issued a statement thanking the emergency services. – Ditto.
  • to meet medical staff, as well as some of those being treated following the incident – This is particularly rich with the pedestrian and obvious. Here are things that would be worth reporting, were they the case:
    • Princess Anne visited the hospital, but pointedly ignored the medical staff.
    • Princess Anne visited not just some, but every last one, of the people being treated.
    • Princess Anne visited not people being treated following the incident reported in this article, but rather people who had been treated prior to the incident.

So I suggest we go with this:

Prime minister Keir Starmer said the whole country "stands with Liverpool"; King Charles III said that the "strength of community spirit for which [Liverpool] is renowned will be a comfort and support to those in need". On 27 May, Princess Anne visited the Royal Liverpool Hospital to meet the injured and the staff caring for them.

EEng 16:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's even better than my effort. I entirely agree with you, of course. This is Paul (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah??? Well here's what I think of your ... Oh, wait ... you're agreeing with me. Never mind. EEng 16:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:) This is Paul (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Forensic dissection from EEng as usual; I suppport this form of words. It's nicely sparse ... so fat-free as to be almost vegetarian. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the triple-p suppport, because I really gave it 150% effort. EEng 18:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I like EEng's paragraph, it's concise and summarises what most news sites are saying well. I'm just wondering whether William and Kate's statement is worth a mention or not? I don't have a strong opinion on it but thought I'd mention it. Also, the home secretary visited the scene earlier, would that be worth including? harrz ^talk 18:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

No. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

References

I like EEng’s version too. Bondegezou (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Race in lead

Any reason for race in lead? Other attacks such as the 2024 Southport stabbings do not include the race of perp in lead. 50.174.22.78 (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, reliable sources have done so, to preempt trolling by knuckleheads I guess. Cheers! —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The release of the information was a deliberate choice by the police: [1] (remember the riots?). Perhaps this should be mentioned in its own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It has already been added as a notable fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Reporting on it, and statements released, quite prominently mentioned the suspect's age, described him as "white British", and described him as a local to the Liverpool area. Additionally, we do not have the perpetrator's name at present, only that he is a "53-year old white British man". Presumably, should his name be released, the lead will be modified to refer to him as such, and details like his age, race, and locality will move to a dedicated "perpetrator" section, much as in the Southport article. 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:B46E:21F:2359:298D (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

There seem to be a number of editors here who would not add the name of the accused criminal until a conviction was achieved, which might take weeks or months. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Crime categories

In this edit Category:Crime in Liverpool and Category:May 2025 crimes in Europe were removed, with the edit summary "whilst there has been no conviction and someone is in custody, let's not imply that". With a 53-year-old White British man "arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, dangerous driving, and driving while unfit through drugs", I do not see how this event is not wholly relevant to those two Categories. What is expected to happen? That the suspect is released and all charges are dropped? Even if that occurred, surely this was very clearly and unambiguously a criminal act? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Even if the man arrested isn't convicted, someone was driving dangerously which itself is a crime. The only way this couldn't be a crime that I can think of would be if there was a medical emergency, and in that case I doubt the police would have announced charges without mentioning it. harrz ^talk 20:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I propose that the Categories should be restored. What exactly is the policy which prevents this? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Harrz, that is your speculation - or can you cite reliable sources that confirm that a criminal conviction has already been made? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPCRIME. These categories heavily suggest that the person in custody has committed or is accused of having committed a crime. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The person in custody has been accused of committing a crime... actually, three crimes: "arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, dangerous driving offences and driving while unfit through drugs" harrz ^talk 21:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but BLPCRIME insists that A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. That is very clear. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a vehicle ramming directly witnessed by hundreds of people, not about the individual driving the car. Why would the police arrest and detain a man, and charge him with three different offences, if no crime has been committed? The suspect's identity has not yet been revealed in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the police assume that by the time any trial takes place they they will have gathered enough evidence to support their accusations, as, presumably, the police did in before the Colston Four trial. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the Colston Four trial is wholly irrelevant here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It's an example showing how the police arrested and detained 4 people, and charged them with an offence, when no crime had been committed. The nature of the alleged crime is immaterial to the principle that it is not the police who determine whether a crime has been committed. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The police make mistakes, and much worse ones than that. I'm not trying to argue they don't. But having watched the arrest of the driver myself on television, along with hundreds of bystanders in Liverpool and millions of people across the world, I don't see how they have made a mistake there. The attempted murder charge may not stick, if it gets as far as court, but I believe one or more crimes have been committed. I would expect there are very good RS sources that support that view. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

None of that alters the fact that we will not know for sure unless and until any convictions have been made. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I've also watched people smashing the car windows. As this video footage, with very clear WP:RS commentary, is all in the public domain, details like that seem to be more like plot narrative that unverified witness claims. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Was the smashing of the car windows a crime? Have you seen-- DeFacto (talk). 09:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The smashing of the windows may have been a crime, although there might be mitigation in terms of self-defence. As far as we know, however, the police have not detained or charged anyone in relation to that act. I would not really argue that Category:Crime in Liverpool and Category:May 2025 crimes in Europe should be added just becuse the car windows were smashed. My point is that the article doesn't really need to say "According to a witness, the vehicle then stopped and people began smashing its windows..." Another detail, not yet included in the narrative, is that someone opened the driver's door as the car was moving, which the driver then had to pull shut. This also is plainly visible in the video footage that has now been shown across the world. It's veracity does not rely on any witnesses physically present. I'm sure that the video footage itself could be used to prove the sequence pf events in a court of law. CCTV is often used as wholly impartial evidence. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC) p.s. if you get a copy of the "video footage of the detainee's side of the story", by all means forward it on to me. I'd love to see it. I mean, poor guy, he must be quite traumatised by the whole thing.

p.p.s. oh yes, it's also now in {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}} Would you also object to that? Because no one can say that a crime has been committed?

WP:THEREISNORUSH - It is probable that these categories may describe the article, but still uncertain. We can fully expect over the next days or weeks that this will become more clear. We already have this article in existence, with an easy to find name, and we already have a bunch of fitting categories we know DO fit (2025 in England, 2025 road incidents in Europe, 2020s in Liverpool, May 2025 in the United Kingdom, Road incidents in England, Traffic collisions, Violence in England, and Liverpool F.C.). Lets wait to see if our suspicions that this is a crime become confirmed. 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:B46E:21F:2359:298D (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Is everyone prepared to wait until the driver is convicted before any criminal Categories can be added, or the article can be marked as relevant to the WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography? I have seen no media reports questioning whether a crime has been committed. Perhaps you have. I'd be interested to see them. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Is the man arrested also confirmed to be the driver?

I’m hearing multiple things saying it was him and that it wasn’t him. Does anyone have a confirmation of it being the same guy or not? Also I heard someone say “ there is clear video of the incident. a video clearly shows a person whose upper body (head and face) is covered by a jacket and surrounded by police being put into the van. that is the driver. the video then turns away from the police van, as the driver is put in and is no longer seen, and then we see a secondary incident where police are detaining an older white male (he may have been attacking the driver), that is the white male mentioned, he is not the driver.” Is this true? Darwizzygoattt (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly which sources are you using? Are they reliable? You could copy them here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/26/a-day-of-joy-and-celebration-for-liverpool-turned-into-one-of-horror reads “ Just after 6pm, on nearby Water Street, the scene was one of devastation. A car, driven by a 53-year-old white British male from the Liverpool area, collided with a number of pedestrians including four children.” This matches the identity of the man arrested to the driver. But https://news.sky.com/story/liverpool-parade-everything-we-know-after-dozens-injured-in-collision-13375146 says “ A 53-year-old white British man, who is believed to be the driver, was arrested at the scene” the changing knowledge of if it was the driver arrested is confusing me, any help will be appreciated, thanks. Darwizzygoattt (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

A phrase such as "believed to be the driver" is one commonly used in the UK by the police when charges have been made, but no prosecution has yet been formally brought. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

So would this mean it is more likely that he is this driver? Darwizzygoattt (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Most observers, in a situation like this, would assume this was 99% certain. It has yet to proven in a court of law. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

This. Until proven in a court of law, effectively all details regarding the act will be "believed", "alleged", or similar, especially while the investigation is ongoing. 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:B46E:21F:2359:298D (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

So the article needs to start with: "On 26 May 2025, a motorist allegedly drove a grey Ford Galaxy into a crowd..." etc.? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

No, because that's not in question. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

According to very many WP:RS sources all of the other events described in this article are also "not in question". They have been reported as facts. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

See this..... Washi198 12:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

This does not really cast doubt on the factuality of the events. It's rather a case of mistaken identity/ false accusation via social media. The person wrongly named is urging the police to release the name of the detained suspect. I imagine he's feeling somewhat threatened. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a clear case of Wikipedia bias. When the suspect is a White British man, ethnicity suddenly becomes important to include, but normally Wikipedia avoids mentioning ethnicity to prevent bias or profiling. Also, the SportBible article shows how easy it is to misidentify people, so including ethnicity only adds confusion and is not necessary. Wikipedia should stay neutral and avoid adding details that don’t directly relate to the event.Washi198 13:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

What? The reason it's included is because the Police rushed to make it apparent the race of the man they detained, it's been rightly pointed out by RS that that's to head off any potential riots like what happened following the 2024 Southport stabbings. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I think (the unreliable) SportBible is reporting on the latest social media frenzy. The context of why the ethnicity has been reported is fully explained in the article. I see no bias at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The Suspect

Can anyone add this? Is this helpful? The man believed to be the driver isn't actually the driver.https://www.sportbible.com/football/football-news/liverpool/liverpool-parade-car-incident-suspect-489555-20250528?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR7P96nMFVTZrSJcKUDq5lr03K6ZW3ViCzc_22-kQs17T4HJtrcc3KFhiFe99A_aem_4BSW4giRcSCiOpjm4-S98A..,.. |Washi198 12:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure SportBible is regarded as WP:RS. If the story is picked up by mainstream media it might be useful to mention it. The article currently does not name the suspect in detention. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSP says: "The site is considered to be generally unreliable and of poor quality, posting repackaged clickbait content with unclear editorial oversight and little fact-checking." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Where on that page is SB mentioned? And who does not use clickbait? CNN or the BBC? Sports Bible is unreliable and has little fact-checking, but Wikipedia is the most reliable source because anyone can edit.Washi198 13:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It's lumped together with sister publication LADBible? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Worth reading WP:RCO. There's a reason that Wikipedia isn't counted as a reliable source by itself, because it's user generated. Articles simply summarise what reliable sources say on topics so you can draw your own conclusions. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

So, SportBible isn’t good enough because it’s in the same boat as LADBible, apparently too clickbaity and not terribly reliable. Fair enough, but let’s not forget we’re on a site where anyone — on a laptop, mobile, tablet, or frankly even a toaster with Wi-Fi — can jump in and edit. Not exactly the Financial Times, is it??Washi198 13:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Clickbait says it is (emphasis added): "... a text or a thumbnail link that is designed to attract attention and to entice users to follow ("click") that link and view, read, stream or listen to the linked piece of online content, being typically deceptive, sensationalized, or otherwise misleading." We write Wikipedia but we never use it a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's the key difference, Wikipedia doesn't claim to be a reliable source, nor does it claim to be a journalistic entity. Articles compile reliable sources. I'm not sure why you're trying to use that fact as some form of gotcha to justify SportBible's inclusion on this article. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

If the Financial Times mentions this mistaken naming, I'm sure we could add it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.liverpool.com/liverpool-fc-news/features/man-speaks-out-after-being-31739532

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/my-photo-wrongly-shared-connection-31738799

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c5yqp4yp88nt

https://www.liverpool.com/liverpool-fc-news/features/man-speaks-out-after-being-31739532 Washi198 14:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/liverpool-crash-man-wrongly-accused-35299893.amp#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17484411495201&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com Washi198 14:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo@Martinevans123 Washi198 14:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, BBC source looks fine. We wouldn't nornally use the tabloid Daily Mirror. Not sure about those two local ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You (all) use what supports the left.Washi198 14:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)