Wikipedia

Talk:2017 London Bridge attack/Archive 3

< Talk:2017 London Bridge attack
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Dekimasu in topic Requested move 8 April 2018
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Petrol bombs were found in the attackers van, unused

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4581146/Haul-petrol-bombs-London-Bridge-terror-van.html

Should probably be added into the article somehow 51.9.96.79 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If we have a WP:Reliable source to support it, then yes it should. The Daily Mail is however not one of those, per WP:DAILYMAIL. TompaDompa (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Denied If you can find a WP:RS I would   Agree. The Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source.
Also mentioned in the Metro (http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/05/petrol-bombs-found-in-back-of-van-used-by-london-terrorists-6687612/) and The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/police-take-petrol-bombs-from-london-bridge-terrorists-van-8dq3rkzqr) - I would say it should go into the article, although I consider myself too inexperienced at Wikipedia to make the relevant additions 46.18.172.210 (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Added! Thanks for the links! XavierItzm (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Interesting to note that the two ‘reliable sources’ and the Daily Mail all report the ‘petrol bombs’ slightly differently. The Mail mentions “at least four wine bottles with paper 'fuses' wrapped around their necks… [and] 14 jerry cans”. The Times is essentially on the same lines, except describes the bottles as having “rags” rather than paper for fuses. Meanwhile, the Metro writes of “At least a dozen ‘petrol bombs’… bottles filled with clear liquid, which had rags stuffed in their tops.” One or more of them may be accurate and reliable, but I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to which one. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, an editor memory holed one of the three in the interesting comparative analysis you raise. So I guess now we'll never know! This is what happens when sources get deleted. XavierItzm (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
See WP:DAILYMAIL. It is not a trustworthy news source. – Sigersson (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that point was already made. However, if (and I fully agree!) The Mail isn't reliable, then presumably neither is The Times, as on this occasion their reporting is largely the same. It's Metro which is out of sync. So are we saying that Metro is the only reliable one here, by virtue of being different from The Mail? ;) DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Nope, despite the false logic! ;) Even a broken clock is right twice a day. - Sigersson (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
A logician uses all available sources, and assigns a certain value to each. A zealot blanks out heretical sources. I, for one, think DoubleGrazing's analysis is spot on. XavierItzm (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I am no zealot (and I'll ask you not to continue down the line of uncivil comments), but we have guidelines not to use the Daily Mail because it is such an untrustworthy source. I am sorry you are unable to understand what the guidelines are, or what they are for. - Sigersson (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Butt and the Rigby murder

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

"Khuram Butt and two other men were escorted away." ""he was verbally assaulted by Butt in 2013 - the day after another ALM follower killed Fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, south-east London. "Khuram Butt called me a 'Murtad', which means traitor in Arabic, and accused me of being a government stooge when I confronted Anjem Choudary about him supporting terrorism," he says. Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40167432. XavierItzm (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Whole quote:

" Mohammed Shafiq of the Manchester-based Ramadhan Foundation, an anti-extremism group, says that he believes he was verbally assaulted by Butt in 2013 - the day after another ALM follower killed Fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, south-east London. Khuram Butt called me a 'Murtad', which means traitor in Arabic, and accused me of being a government stooge when I confronted Anjem Choudary about him supporting terrorism," he says. The police turned up and Anjem, Khuram Butt and two other men were escorted away. I am not surprised that Khuram Butt carried out the terrorist attack and there are serious questions for the authorities."

Note, Mohammed Shafiq of the Manchester-based Ramadhan Foundation, an anti-extremism group, says that he believes
No mention of Butt speaking up for Rigby Murderers, simply this happened on the day after. There is implicit support for Choudary, whom Shafiq thinks is supporting terrorism, nothing more, even your selective quoting doesn't support the text you want.Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Disputed edit herePincrete (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The text wanted by XavierItzm is quite valid and should be preserved. The "believes" only modifies the "he was verbally assaulted", because Shafiq is wary of libel. The "believes" is unrelated to the Rigby events, which cannot be questioned by an editor here. I'll make the change now because it seems to be consensus. Spem Reduxit (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
So what we have is Shafiq believes he was verbally assaulted by Butt, precise reason unclear, but because Butt thought he was 'a traitor', it happened at the time of the Lee murder. 'He believes', can only mean he is not certain, dead men don't sue for libel. Pincrete (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The text prev. wanted by XavierItzm is pure synth, near invention. The present text appears to be accurate, but I question whether a single individual's memory of a single encounter is worthy of so much space. We know Butt had radical beliefs. Pincrete (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Spem Reduxit, there is no consensus, which is rather obvious, so your addition of such a large quote is rather pointy, although I will not be the one to revert it, although I will trim the ending, as his opinion on what the authorities should or should not do bears little relevance or weight. - Sigersson (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The funny thing is that my original summary of the BBC quote was just a few words, and Siggerson groundlessly disputed the BBC, so now we have a whole paragraph. Look, the point of the BBC (and my edit deleted by Siggerson) is that the police had at least three notifications that the terrorist was an islamist, according to the Beeb: (1) the mom whose daughters he wanted to radicalise; (2) the co-worker at ToL who called the terror hotline; and the Shafiq incident where the cops took away the terrorist back in 2013. XavierItzm (talk)
The funny thing is that your edit was so badly done it was not backed up by the source you used. My removal of it was not "groundless", as what you had written was so far away from the source it was a BLP violation. As an aside, it's not ToL, it's TfL. - Sigersson (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I openly admit my original edit was not perfect. It is great when editors look at imperfect text and improve it; not so much when editors simply delete stuff wholesale, like what happened to the Shafiq/Lee Rigby incident cited by the BBC. XavierItzm (talk)
It was a BLP violation. It's great when editors try and take the time to ensure one our most important policies isn't breached. – Sigersson (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Evidently it was not, as it was restored by other editors who performed constructive work by improving that which was defective, instead of merely blanking out the Shafiq/Lee Rigby citation from the BBC. XavierItzm (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Evidently it was. The re-writers did it properly, whereas you posted misleading information. You did it poorly and it was removed as the BLP violation it was. Just accept you made an edit that wasn't as accurate as it should have been and move on. - Sigersson (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Updated Timeline of events

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Updated timeline from the BBC, the image in the article needs updating:

At two minutes before 22:00 BST, the van crossed London Bridge heading south. Six minutes later [at 22:04] it returned, crossing over the bridge again and making a U-turn at the northern end. The attack began with the van driving back along the pavements of the bridge, running down three pedestrians ... Police were called within two minutes ["Ambulances were called at 22:07 with police alerted at 22:08" [1] which puts the first collision with a pedestrian at 22:06] and arrived eight minutes later, killing the attackers [22:16]. [2]

Whizz40 (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Prioryman: New times have been released by the police. Would you be able to assist with refreshing the image with the new information? Whizz40 (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, done. Prioryman (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Not clear

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

It is not clear to me if the last man stabbed survived or not. He walked away as the three were shot by the Police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.96 (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

He seemed to be staggering at one point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.96 (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
You could always look at what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I have looked at a video, which shows the man's staggering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.130 (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
He might have been the man hit by the stray Police bullet. If so, he seems to have survived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.130 (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
What do RS say, that is what we use to include material, not what we think.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
See [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.130 (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Youtube is not RS, and videos of the event say nothing about it's aftermath.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Page Move

Latest comment: 7 years ago24 comments12 people in discussion

Hi everyone, while nothing is confirmed as of yet, a new attack has potentially just taken place in London. I think the page should be renamed "3 June 2017 London Attack". If there is no opposition within the hour, I will go ahead with the move. Thanks. RES2773 (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Icewhiz over this. Ohh and as far as I known at least one of the attacks occurred in Southwark.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
They were all in the London Bridge area; which extends into Southwark, beyond the bridge itself. That's why I think "2017 London Bridge attack" is the most appropriate title - it covers exactly the area involved. -- de Facto (talk). 09:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Odd then that many of the address are given as Southwark and not "London bridge".Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Southwark is the London Borough in which the attacks took place; London Bridge is an historical area of Southwark between Tower Bridge and Southwark Bridge. It's like how Covent Garden is an area of the City of Westminster. Sceptre (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Yet this page [4] does not list at least one of the pubs as being in the "London Bridge area". Covent garden is a specific postal area (by the way), shops give it as a place in their address.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Covent Garden would only exist as an address if one were in the market itself. Anyone living or working close by would refer to themselves as 'working in Covent Garden'. They would probably mean the area around, not the market. Most London place names work like that, they exist as specific landmarks, as the tube station nearby and as the (loosely defined) broader area. In that sense all of this event happened in London Bridge, but not on or at London Bridge. Names can also be used as borough or other admin names, but boroughs are very broad as units and not generally known outside London, unless (like Westminster), they have fame in other contexts. Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • FWIW I too support 2017 Southwark attack - We could be potentially confusing alot of people by using "2017 London Bridge attack" as 2 attacks happened on a bridge (Yes they were different bridges however it could still be confusing), Also an RFC/RM may be a better way of dealing with this seeing as no one here can come to a straight agreement. –Davey2010Talk 10:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @RHaworth: - your move is against the consensus here - which seems to favor Southwark.Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @RHaworth: per WP:Common Name, I think it should probably stay as "xxx London Bridge attack", but the "xxx" should be just "2017" (month not necessary) giving: "2017 London Bridge attack". Or do you have an obverriding reason to include the month too? -- de Facto (talk). 13:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Even though there could be confusion over "London Bridge attack", if we were to use anything else we would be making it up. "Southwark attack" produces only "London Bridge attack" related hits on google. "London Bridge attack" is the WP:Common Name of this incident: that what it is referred to throughout the coverage. Hopefully the bolding of the B in Bridge would somewhat help with any confusion. A hat note stating something along the lines of "For the 2017 attack in London starting on Westminster Bridge, see 2017 Westminster attack" would clear that confusion up. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Dictum factum per Gaia Octavia Agrippa, in articulum.Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of the noun "attack" to describe the event

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
This discussion has been moved to WP:VPM#Use of the word "attack" in various article titles in order to have all 20-30 discussions in one place. Please go there to participate. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

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

I have questions about the widespread use of the noun "attack" to describe this event. These questions similarly concern other accounts of violence where the use of the word "attack" seems related to the country of origin or religion of the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators. I will therefore try to raise this concern elsewhere as well. (For this reason, please bear with me if you see this comment elsewhere and it seems repetitive.)

My concern is roughly as follows. First, calling such an incident an attack uses the register of war to characterize the event. (Consider for example the widespread use of the expression _armed attack_ in the UN Charter and in other instruments treating the laws of war.) This is a very specific move and seems to me to be one of consequence in our understanding of such an event. This is to say that the use of war as an animating backdrop into which to integrate our understanding of the event is a very specific choice, and by no means the only option at our disposal. Using the noun "attack" and the backdrop of war to characterize an individual event assimilates it to the plane of collective action. Assimilating an individual act to wider collective action is a very specific interpretive choice, and one that is not disinterested. For example, characterization of an event as a crime does not generally carry the suggestion of collective action. It might be objected that characterizing such an event as a crime is not apt because of the apparent political motivation of the violence considered. Options other than imposing a frame of either war or collective action onto our understand of an event are nonetheless available. Consider our understanding of the Oklahoma City bombing or the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, for example. No one doubts the political motivation underlying either event, yet our understanding of neither of these events is animated by the suggestion of either war or collective action more generally. If it is wished to indicate a wider conspiracy underlying an individual event, such a conspiracy should be indicated explicitly, not by means of suggestion or innuendo. In a dispassionate account with ambitions of being held out as a reliable encyclopedia article, collective action should be demonstrated by the evidence provided. Collective action should not be an unsubstantiated, hollow spectre that looms over every corner of such an account.

Second, even in the case that collective action--specifically, war--is chosen and adopted as the animating register for the discussion of this event, "attack" is a particularly odd choice in characterizing it. To repeat what's already stated above, both war--and more generally, collective action--are specific interpretative choices for our understanding of this event, neither is obvious or necessary. If such an interpretative choice is adopted, such a choice should be explicit and, ideally, demonstrated by the evidence--deserving a discussion of its own. Now, in the case that collective action and war is chosen as a rubric in which to understand this event, "attack" carries an added suggestion. "Attack" suggests the initiation of hostilities. Once again the claim being made is not explicit, but is glossed over by means of suggestion and innuendo. Again, one suspects that the claim comes by way of suggestion and innuendo because it would collapse if it were made explicitly. The Pentagon and Whitehall began bombing Afghanistan in October 2001, Iraq in March 2003, Syria in September 2014, and Somalia since at least October 2016. French and affiliated NATO forces began their occupation of Afghanistan in December 2001, and of Libya in March 2011. (France has also announced a bombing campaign of the Sahel region in August 2014, that includes parts of Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, Eritrea, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and Ethiopia.) One is by no means obligated to understand an individual act of violence in the United States, UK, or France in the context of "war" that includes these military campaigns singularly or collectively; as already emphasized, taking such an act to be one of war is the result of a specific interpretive choice. However, in the case that this route is selected--and an act in the United States, Britain, or France is taken to be part of a war--it seems highly misleading to further portray such an act with an incipient or initiating flavor that "attack" suggests. This portrayal is again glossed over without discussion and seemingly counter to all evidence: if an individual event is understood as a collective action that is part of a wider war, using language that suggests or attributes an initiating character to such an event seems highly dubious when that event takes place 15+ years into the supposed war. Characterizing such an event as an attack seems to want it both ways: to push an account of the event as a collective action that is an act of war, and to at the same time avoid any discussion of that wider war ("attack" with its suggestion that t=0; as opposed to "response," usually reserved for justifications of the ensuring state-violence).

Use of the word "attack" to describe such an individual act thus seems to me highly incoherent. It is an interpretive choice that on the one hand suggests collective responsibility for an individual act of violence, and does so by means of innuendo rather than explicitly (for doing so explicitly would seem dubious in the absence of specific evidence that is often simply not there to be found). And on the other hand, substantive discussion of the wider war being suggested as the animating context in which the event occurs is avoided; "attack" carries with it the suggestion (again, pure innuendo unlikely to survive serious discussion) that the event has an initiating character, glossing over the possibility that such an event could be the response to something.

For these reasons, this word does not seem worthy to form the basis of a discussion which aims to be neutral or dispassionate. Rather it seems highly politicized, and on even a moment's inspection, a tendentious characterization that summarily assimilates an individual event to a collective act of war, while at the same time denying the continuity of the very war being supposed ("attack" bearing the suggestion that event initiates, rather than responds to anything). Moreover, one wonders if the term carries slanderous suggestions; the spectre of collective responsibility cast by the word seems particularly given to scapegoating. "Conspiracy theorist" is a term of derision often used to characterize the speculations of those that suppose collective action or a plot in the absence of good evidence. Well, in addition to its being unthinking newspeak--in its current, and now longstanding, uniform use--"attack" is nothing if not a term of the conspiracy theorist. Collective action is supposed in the absence of evidence. The fear-mongering of supposed collective action gives rise to the war-mongering of suggested collective responsibility.

The innuendo and spectres that one might expect to litter Pentagon briefings should not provide the basis for an encyclopedia article that aims to be disinterested. Alfred Nemours (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

[5], no attack implies it was...an attack. It is fairly common to describe a criminal assault as an attack.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the term "attack" is very usual in such circumstances. Joobo (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys, thanks for saying something in reply to my bulletpoint. Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I really disagree. First, although "attack" has as Joobo notes become a typical characterization of individual violence in cases deemed to political, this tells us nothing about the accuracy of such a characterization. The widespread portrayal of individual events in a politicized lens is in fact the motivation for my bulletpoint. So I entirely agree with Joobo that the such a portrayal is "very usual." Slatersteven gets to the heart of at least one point of contention when he insists that a criminal assault is often described as an attack. It is certainly true that the verb attack is used informally to describe the details of a robbery or rape (in a crime log, for example), I can't think of a single example where an "attack" is described in connection with a particular place or city where this connection was not used to invoke the register of war or the spectre of collective violence. "Attack" has a specific meaning in international law. It not only invokes the register of war but also confers responsibility on the initiation of that war. So I disagree. Thanks for replying all the same. Alfred Nemours (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Not like this you mean [6] or this [7], sorry again this is not unusual. But let us look to see if it used in non terror related crimes [8].Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The concern is about the accuracy of the characterization. If the characterization is inaccurate and usual, this seems more worthy of scrutiny than if the characterization is innaccurate and unusual. As already stressed, it is the ubiquity of the characterization that has given rise to the concern. Alfred Nemours (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, well you find an RS or in fact anyone but you who says that the word "attack" is only applicable in war.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incompetent editing

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I've just restored two items that were deleted by editors who claimed that the facts were not in the cited sources. In fact, they were. Evidently the editors deleting them didn't read the cited sources carefully enough. Folks, please take more care with your editing - it's sheer incompetence to delete cited content just because you haven't read the sources properly. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Some of that material was in fact not in the cited source. I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Folks, can we not delete material but just put in a failed verification tag and then take it here and ask. I have missed material in an article as well. It is a good idea thus to ask for the quote, not just delete.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Some people, rather unhelpfully, dedicate themselves to blanking out text, as opposed to improving it. Oh well. Always "assume" good faith! XavierItzm (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I've seen helpful editors use Template:Failed verification [failed verification] instead of simply deleting, which makes for a less abrasive experience for everyone involved. Spem Reduxit (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
If the information isn't in the Source why is information which is no better than guess work being kept in this article? Sport and politics (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Which is why we tag, to encourage the provision of sources. It may be (I know I have done it) that someone see's something in an RS but forgets to cite it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

Latest comment: 7 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

So which part of this really needs sourcing?Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Seeing that Islamic terrorism is copiously sourced, and 2017 is in 2014-present on the face of it one would presume, are we to source London being part of Europe (Particularly in the British English sense (convention used here), this ins't actually so easy to source, though it is the accepted view to assign islands to the nearest continent).Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The template documentation describes "partof" as "a terror campaign containing the civilian attack event described in the article". The field renders as "Part of Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)" - an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice, so not just an opinion.
Now WP:WikiVoice has a very clear and relevant requirement about the treatment of facts:
  • "Avoid stating opinions as facts"
So what we need (because this is being asserted as a fact), per WP:VER, is a reliable source that confirms that the assertion is indeed a fact; that means a source that confirms in clear and unambiguous terms that this incident is part of a organised campaign commonly known as the "Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)" so that readers can verify for themselves that this assertion is true. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Is that what that page is about, or just an overview article about Islamic terrorism in Europe? Is it a fact it was Islamic, it it a fact it was after 2014 and is it a fact it was in Europe?Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The statement made in this article (never mind what any linked article is about) is effectively saying that this incident is part of the campaign commonly known as "Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)". So it is reasonable to expect a source that allows readers to verify that. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
As per WP:BLUE, the "world at large" recognises that there is a campaign of Islamic terrorism in Europe and London Bridge was part of that. --TBM10 (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Second BLUE comment. We could source this one, probably quite easily, as appearing on European terror timeline coverages (for this attack or subsequent attacks), however doing so for each Islamic terror attack in Europe, from 2014 and later? The definition of both tedious and obvious. A minority of editors is denying the existence of Islamic terrorism and are challenging such classifications in every article - it is bad enough this is hashed out the first time (at the level that it is).Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, it is a shame to see a minority trying to deny/suppress the existence of Islamic terrorism in Europe using the veil of "uncited". The same is going on here: Talk:2017_Westminster_attack#Part_of_a_.22campaign.22.3F and there is a wider discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present). --TBM10 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is trying to deny or supress anything. I think they're trying to ensure that what we present as fact is verifiable as fact, as Wikipedia policy mandates. That is what sources are for, to remove doubt and to give credibility to content, and why they are necessary for controversial aspects such as this one. We must try to WP:AGF, and try to ensure that our articles are robust enough to withstand scrutiny. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: what is special about 2014 and why is that the the cut-off date? If we are to assert such a specific campaign exists and that every incident is part of it, we certainly need the readers to be able to verify that from a reliable source. We can't (per WP:SYNTH) invent our own campaigns based on an arbitrary date and certain similarities between events - we need reliable source consensus that such campaigns are in fact in progress. Don't you agree? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
2014 is a tad arbitrary as a start year, however it is mentioned in some sources. The salient point is that there is a large time gap between AQ (and offshoots) terror which ended with a bang in 7.7 2005, and the current ISIS/lone wolf/inspired wave. 2014 is used by some due to the increase of jihadist arrests, the beginning of the Western coalition against ISIS (after the beheading videos), the French state of emergency, some attacks in December 2014, and the large attack in Jan 2015 on Charlie Hebdo. The start date of this wave is somewhat debatable, as with most undeclared wars or campaigns. However it is quite clear there is a wave, regardless if you place the start in 2013, 2014, or 2015.Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
That sounds very much like OR/SYNTH then. If readers can't even verify for themselves the existence an ongoing and organised campaign that started in 2014, then is is impossible to justify asserting here that this incident is part of that campaign, surely? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Readers can verify easily the existence of the terror wave. The possible disagreement over the start date is a different matter (and for the other article). Many conflicts and terror campaigns have fuzzy start dates - you do not always get a clear declaration of war. Many years later historians sometimes reach an accepted consensus on a start, usually cribbing off of a large event. 2014 is a quite probable crib here, given the beheadings and the Western attacks in Syria, following which ISIS called for revenge against the West. Whatever the start date, this attack is clearly in the bracket.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: it seems we agree then! :) Without certainty (so without a reliable source) we cannot assert it as a fact. I think the correct action then, as we cannot provide a source, is to remove that assertion (i.e. remove that value from the "partof" field) from the template. If, at some later date, historians and commentators agree that a specific campaign existed, we can add it. Are you ok with that? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
We don't need to wait for future historians to agree that the campaign existed, because it is obvious today that it does. Just because there may be a debate over the start date does not mean you can cleanse it from Wikipedia and pretend this attack (and Manchester and Westminster) are not part of the ISIS-inspired wave of attacks. You should also wait for additional comment, here and on the deletion of the other article. --TBM10 (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
We cannot declare that this incident is part of a campaign that started in 2014 without an RS to support that; that's all that we are discussing in this section, and it now seems that the date isn't that certain at all. If we want to change it to say it's part of a less specific campaign, then let's discuss that in a new section. In the meantime it's probably best to remove the 'partof' content until we can reach a consensus as to what it is actually part of. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
No DeFacto. Just the start date is under some discussion. In 1968 we could clearly say the US was involved in the Vietnam War, even though the exact start date of US involvement, at the time, was somewhat fuzzy and still is (moreso than the ISIS inspired terror wave I might add). I do not see calls for citation on each war event in Vietnam during the Vietnam war to ascertain it was indeed part of the Vietnam war. Typically, dates and locale are enough..Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Well it is more obvious what's going on when traditional armed forces, clearly acting under political direction from an established and recognised government, take part in a clearly defined and clearly reported campaign! Here we have a problem in that we are trying to assert a specific and dated campaign, not only without an RS to support that that campaign exists, but without a clear understanding as to whether the date is actually correct! How can we defend that position? Our readers deserve better and we can do better than that, can't we? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@TBM10: re the essay you mentioned. This specific cite isn't needed to be able to verify that it was terrorism. It is to be able to verify that it was part of an organised campaign of Islamic terrorism in Europe which is acknowledged to have started specifically in 2014 - that is what the template is asserting- and that is not general knowledge or common sense at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The problem IMO lies with the use of 'campaign' rather than simply a list of 'phenomena/events' with some connecting features Not long ago it was acknowledged here that the best terrorism sources say that there are a number of distinct ongoing 'campaigns' in Europe (inc Russia and Turkey) plus other events that it is difficult to ascribe anywhere with certainty. Either way the discussion should be taking place over on the list article, because that is where the synth problem lies, but DeFacto is right, the idea that this event (or any of the events on that list) is part of a single coordinated campaign with certain countries and orgs on one side and ISIS, Al Q and 100s of lone wolves on the other is simply bollocks which is explicitly contradicted by Europol etc. You might find it supported - in a rhetorical manner - in newspapers, but not in studies.
There would be great difficulty finding sources that say that most of the events listed on the linked article were part of a single campaign.A campaign which has the unique misfortune of not having acquired a start date, not having acquired any clear definition, nor a name. The linked article should be a list with clear inclusion criteria and several broad trends and instances, but abandon any pretence of being a campaign or having any single unifying factor other than the inclusion criteria. What we are doing at the moment is pretending that Kurds in Turkey, various groups in Russia and lone wolves with disputed or unclear motivation in EU countries are all part of a single campaign, which may all relate to Syria/ISIS/online radicalisation, even though many of the linked articles mention none of these three. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there maybe a misunderstanding going on. I do not think that "Part of Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)" mean what you think it means. It is not saying (I think) that this is part of a war called "Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)", it is saying it is part of a wiki "series".Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: reading the template used (Template:Infobox civilian attack), it appears not. The "partof" field is described as being for "a terror campaign containing the civilian attack event described in the article". I think it is as we thought, and as such needs a reliable source saying exactly that, which it doesn't have at the moment. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
We need to ask the edd who added it what they intended, this may be a mix up.Slatersteven (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago19 comments11 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to 2017 London Bridge attack, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 11:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


June 2017 London Bridge attack → London Bridge attack – London Bridge doesn't appear to have been attacked at any other time. Unreal7 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I certainly support a move to 2017 London Bridge attack, the month is completely redundant, and appears to be a hangover from when the article was called "London" rather than "London Bridge". Currently Neutral on removing the year. We discussed this for other incidents a while back, but didn't come to a firm conclusion. WP:CONCISE is obviously an issue, but also the year is really useful for context, even if there is no other London Bridge attack, so can see the benefit of keeping it.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The problem is that it could lead to confusion. There was the attack on Westminster Bridge (also a bridge in London) earlier in the year, and perhaps unsure of where that incident took place people may search for London bridge attack rather than London Bridge attack. This is Paul (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    There's a hatnote in the article to deal with that potential confusion, and technically this is a case where WP:DIFFCAPS is appropriate - 2017 London Bridge attack is not the same as 2017 London bridge attack. Also, I don't think including the month particularly helps with recognition anyway... I didn't remember exactly which month the Westminster and LB attacks took place in myself.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@This is Paul: Well yes, in general that's true, and I am actually opposed to the current setup that is the poster child for WP:DIFFCAPS - I think Red Meat should redirect to Red meat, not be an article on a different topic. In this case, however, the capitalisation "London Bridge attack" (with two words capitalised and one not), is so unusual that I don't think someone would mistakenly enter that in the search box if they actually meant the generic bridge attack. "London Bridge Attack" or "London bridge attack" would be a different story. But either way, I think those are going to be a very small number of users, and the hatnote will take them right where they want to go anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
No, IIO, I don't. Given that you just created those two articles right now, even less reason. Unreal7 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Just a thought, but was London Bridge ever bombed during World War II? This is Paul (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know no.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2017 London Bridge attack. Doubtless London Bridge was attacked during the Blitz! As well as the ones above, of course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Actually - was not bombed during the blitz - see this map of every bomb hit. You can see some discussion of why not - here on quora. Hitting bridges, from the air, while being intercepted by enemy fighters - was not so easy in WWII. The Germans (with better kit and closer to home) failed (the bridge did fall in the end - but not due to the aircraft, but rather do to previous structural damage) to successfully bomb The Remagen bridge in 1945 - despite attempting to do so "at all costs" - and with large (for jet sorties in WWII and for the German Luftwaffe at this point of the war) sorties of jets (Arado Ar 234 escorted by Messerschmitt Me 262).Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Being attacked and being hit are not the same thing, as you've just pointed out! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Hmm - yes - but you'd have to purposefully target it (as opposed to area bombing the city). The Luftwaffe did try and bomb the docks - but there would be little utility in taking out this particular bridge (they did hit Tower Bridge - but probably by chance - as it is near the docks). Taking out the bridge would have accomplished very little beyond angering the Brits. In night time bombings (which is what London had most of blitz) - throwing bombs close to the river would make little sense (assuming they knew where they were) - hitting the water is of little utility. So unless you consider it being attacked as part of the area attack on London during the nighttime raids - it was probably not purposefully attacked during the blitz.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as London bridge was attacked previously (so we definitely need the year) and the earlier attack on Westminster Bridge (a bridge in London, just not "the London Bridge") - makes this confusing for non-brits.Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_London_Bridge_attack/Archive_3&oldid=1085908182"