Talk:2019 London Bridge stabbing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Learning Together

At present, the program name is written variously in single quotes, double quotes and italics. Can there be a consistent style? WWGB (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

WWGB, I've removed the quotes as they aren't needed. Qono (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Great!. WWGB (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

campaign

I do not think it is wise to list those parties who have publicly been reported as suspending campaigning, we have had to update it every time there has been a new announcement. We think we can now say that campaigning has been suspended.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Time format

This note about the time format reminding readers that GMT and UTC are equivalent, so no units are given: I don't think this is a good idea. For instant clarity we should just suffix all times with GMT. 5.81.164.70 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Times in article are not normally suffixed with time zone, but are often described as local time or universal time (like "at 12 local time" or "at 3 UTC"). That is a standard across Wikipedia. That does not need to be done here, because the timezone matches universal time. But people may not know that they match and wonder whether the times given are local or not, so the note exists to say 'well, both'. Kingsif (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

A minor point, but now that GMT has been put in (not by me), should we also have "(UTC-0)" alongside, to enable readers elsewhere in the world to more easily relate to the timing? 5.81.164.70 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Kingsif (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. 5.81.164.70 (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Referencing

So far the referencing looks pretty comprehensive, but two issues make it hard for editors:

• Repeat references are being given names like ":1", ":2" etc. This is unhelpful to other editors and is consequently deprecated in WP:INCITE To help with page maintenance, it is recommended that the text of the name have a connection to the inline citation or footnote, for example "author year page": and WP:REFNAME Names should have semantic value, so that they can be more easily distinguished from each other by human editors who are looking at the wikitext. This means that ref names like "Nguyen 2010" are preferred to names like ":1"

Thanks Qono for fixing these refs. Davidships (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Davidships, No problem! Qono (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• References to rolling-news web pages soon become unusable as practical refs (like citing a book but no page number) - for example this BBC page is already used nine times. For me at present that is 21 screen pages, but many of the uses of that ref will not be on that page because they have been shunted into subsequent pages like page 2 up to page 6 at present, each with about a dozen screenfuls each - scrolling through over eighty screen pages to find the actual source is just hopeless. Davidships (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  Davidships, These "live updates" news pages often have a timestamp with the update. It could be helpful to include that time or the title of the update in the reference using the "quote" parameter in citations to help others locate the source. Qono (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Image caption

Fishmongers' Hall, with London Bridge in the foreground, pictured in 2019. the attacker was shot close to the street name plate which can be seen on the bridge pier

For a reason I can't divine (none was given in any edit summary), the text "the attacker was shot close to the street name plate which can be seen on the bridge pier" has been removed from the lead image (also shown above, with the caption as it was). So we have a picture of where the last part of this incident took place, but we don't tell the reader that that is what it depicts. The text should (in some form, if not verbatim) be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Was that the original?! The second sentence is poorly written (esp. compared to the first) and uses inaccurate terminology, so I assumed it had been casually added by a separate editor and didn't need to be there, especially without a source saying that is where he was shot. If adding back, I suggest "Fishmongers' Hall, with London Bridge in the foreground, pictured in 2019. The attacker was reportedly apprehended by/near the streetsign in the lower-middle of the image." Although, of course, there's no real need for that part of the caption (in general and given its lack of source) because the article makes very clear that both the hall and bridge are involved. Kingsif (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources showing that to be the location of the fight, shooting, body and forensic tent. We generally don't give citations in image captions in the infobox, but if that was your concern, you could have said so instead of removing it. If you find some wording not to your taste the solution is to rewrite, not remove it, especially when that results in pertinent information being removed from the article all together. "street name plate" is the correct terminology. "reportedly" is a weasel word and utterly unnecessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

My main concern was that it looked like a separate, not very constructive, edit, as I said. No capitalisation, no period, etc. And I didn't think it added anything. Kingsif (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It certainly added something useful, visually showing (rather well, I thought) the two locations of the events. The text was a bit over-wordy, and could be tightened to something like "Fishmongers' Hall, with London Bridge in the foreground. The attacker was shot near the street name plate on the bridge pier". Davidships (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Change ‘response’ tab to ‘Aftermath’

Wouldn’t it be more suitable to rename the Response tab to Aftermath? Neon 19:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say so. Nate Hooper (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree, did it, awaiting responses. Or aftermaths, indeed. 82.39.96.55 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

In the last few hours, a number of statements have had their sources moved, and a number of sources have been added to statements, even though they do not support them. I've undone some of this, but please take more care. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Title: "Attack"

Since the local police have now classified this incident as a terrorist attack, I propose we change the name to "2019 London Bridge Attack"Juneau Mike (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001:, you'll need to follow the instructions at WP:RM.
SSSB (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I also thought to point about the same thing as stated by Michaelh2001. However most of the sources depict it as major incident instead of stating it as terrorist attack. Abishe (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to ask what the views of the Wikipedia editors community are on the talk page first, before moving ahead with a formal move.Juneau Mike (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"Stabbing" is definitely worse than "incident". Going to be BOLD and just move it to attack, per logic. Kingsif (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It would definitely be wise to make the move to 2019 London Bridge attack now considering the circumstances now. However, I could see the article not move yet due to the news services and the public settling into the fact that it is now being treated as a terrorist attack. OfficialNeon (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Stabbing is far more precise than incident or attack. Jim Michael (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"London Bridge" or "Fishmongers' Hall"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME would say "London Bridge" for now, which I support. If the name changes over time to Fishmongers, then we have that discussion when it happens. PotentPotables (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

What's the rationale for moving the title from stabbing to the more broad term attack? Jim Michael (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"Stabbings" are normally thought of as criminal and indifferent to victims (i.e. as a means to rob someone or in enforcing gang territory) as opposed to an attack where its clear the intent itself is to hurt people. A stabbing is not an appropriate description of a mass-targeted rampage. 2A01:388:290:150:0:0:1:BB (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Stabbing as a terrorist tactic. Jim Michael (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Title: 'terrorist attack' or 'attack?'

What gives the reader a clearer picture? Reaper7 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Attack, per 2017 London Bridge attack PotentPotables (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Many msm sources have now admitted that it was a terror attack, so I think that would be a better label Nate Hooper (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

We're not disputing that, & it's mentioned in the body of the article. We have hundreds of articles about terrorist incidents, but we prefer short titles, so very few of them include terrorist. Jim Michael (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

We don't feel adding the word 'terrorist' to the title will significantly enlarge the title but we do feel it will make the title less ambiguous as per wiki policy. It is time to end the tradition of the ambiguous nature of these titles concerning specific terrorist incidents. The readers deserve honesty and clarity here. Reaper7 (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

There's no ambiguity here - this is the only notable attack in London Bridge this year. Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Attack on its own is ambiguous. Terrorist attack is not. Simple. Reaper7 (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It won't be confused with any other crime. The year disambiguates it from the 2017 London Bridge attack. Jim Michael (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to do with confusing it with another 'attack' from another year. About describing the incident properly in the title without ambiguity. Reaper7 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think 2019 London Bridge attack is best. It's the shortest natural phrase that sufficiently distinguishes it, and is consistent with 2017 London Bridge attack. Adding the word "terrorist" is unnecessary additional verbiage; no one will confuse this for some non-terrorist attack that occured on London Bridge in 2019. "Stabbing" is unnecessarily gruesome. (I also think that articles like 2017 Las Vegas shooting should be renamed to "attack".) "London Bridge" > "Fishmongers' Hall" per usage by RSes, who are referring to it mostly, AFAICT, as "the London Bridge attack". But we'll need "2019" to disambiguate from the 2017 one, so: 2019 London Bridge attack. I would support this as a WP:BOLD move, because I personaly think it's the rather obvious right title, given that we have 2017 London Bridge attack. – Levivich 01:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that terrorist is necessary in the title for description, because the article explains the details. Based on the claim that there's a need to include more description in our titles of terrorist attacks, we'd need to include Islamist/Kurdish separatist/Irish republican/far-left/far-right etc. in many such articles.

In most cases, we use attack in the title when multiple methods were used, which was the case in the 2017 LBA. When only one method is used, we in most cases specify bombing, stabbing, shooting etc. Jim Michael (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Motive in the infobox

Reaper7, according to the {{Infobox civilian attack}} template documentation, the 'motive' field is for The motive, the reason why the attack was carried out. So as it is still unknown, shouldn't this field be left blank, rather than set as equal to "Under investigation"? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The consensus from similar articles is that the motive should be given by the investigators, not media reports, to prevent media speculation which turns out to be wrong; this has happened before. This is an unusual attack because nobody is going to be surprised if investigators decide that the motive was Islamist extremism. The motive should be left out of the infobox for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This field is for an established motive, "under investigation" is not a motive (it may not even be true as nobody will be charged). Should be blank unless or until something definite can be added. Davidships (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Motive should remain in the info box and 'under investigation' will inform the reader no conclusion should be made and the incident is still under investigation. To remove the whole 'motive' from the info box is not required. Reaper7 (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

@WWGB: Your copyedits to the lead that followed mine are mostly good, but I object to your removing the information about the victims. The article dedicates a significant section to them, and the lead should reflect the content of the article. Do you think we could add this back in? Qono (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The lead correctly states that two people died. As they were not notable, publication of their names in the lead is not warranted. WWGB (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

WWGB, Maybe their names don't need to be noted, but perhaps we note that they were both associated with the event where the attack started? I think just a few words will more accurately reflect the weight given to them in the article. Qono (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I have added "killing two of the conference staff". WWGB (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim that they were "conference staff"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Jack Merritt was a course co-ordinator for Learning Together.[1] Saskia Jones was a volunteer.[2][3] They were both at Fishmonger's Hall for the fifth anniversary event of Learning Together. Although Khan stabbed people outside on the bridge, the two people who died were attending the event at Fishmonger's Hall and helping to organise it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps; though "helping to organise it" is also uncited, and even if so that doesn't make them "conference staff". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Name in lede

Someone keeps adding the name of the perpetrator to the opening sentence. Why? It's not even needed in the lede, as 2017 London Bridge attack shows. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I added it - because without the name the whole lead section was badly structured. Khan, using just his surname, was mentioned in the second or third sentence of the lead without any mention as to who he was. It was terrible writing; now it's okay. It's a basic fact that Khan committed this act and this needs stating at the outset. That there's no comparable mention in the 2017 article is irrelevant, and perhaps that article needs modifying as well to make it flow, and read, better. 31.52.163.204 (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I just looked at the 2017 article. In that incident there were multiple assailants, so it would have been clunky to list them in the lead; perhaps that's why they aren't. In this article, where there is only one attacker, it doesn't seem to be a problem to name him up front. However, this is of course just my view, so anyone else want to propose something? Thanks. 31.52.163.204 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Another difference is that Khan has his own article; Butt, Redouane & Zaghba don't. Jim Michael (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Mass stabbing

This fits the criteria, because Khan stabbed 5 people in a single incident; 4 victims (regardless of the number who are killed) is usually the threshold for mass in regard to stabbing or shooting. Therefore mass stabbing should be included in the lead, ibox & cats. In addition, this template {{Mass stabbing}} should be reinstated to the bottom of this article & this event reinstated to the template. Jim Michael (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

As I can only find a handfull, if that, of reliable sources referring to it as a "mass" stabbing, I can only conclude that that term does not have a consensus amongst the reliable sources, so I continue to believe that we should refrain from using it. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

This event fits the criteria of a mass stabing, there are other incidents and attacks detailed at {{Mass stabbing}} which have fewer victims than the 2019 London attack. The same criteria that is used in Mass shootings (4+ victims) should be applied. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and we don't require that many sources describe each incident to have been a mass stabbing/shooting in order to describe it & categorise it as such & to include it in the template. Jim Michael (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's not called a "mass stabbing" in the sources then it would be WP:OR to call it that here. Remember the definition of "mass" - it means a large number. Five is not a large number. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

'Mass stabbing/shooting/murder etc.' are terms used less often in UK and would almost certainly require a number greater than 4 victims to be seen as justified. 'Multiple' is more likely to be used there. Pincrete (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)