Wikipedia

Talk:2017 London Bridge attack/Archive 2

< Talk:2017 London Bridge attack
(Redirected from Talk:June 2017 London Bridge attack/Archive 2)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InedibleHulk in topic No names of victims?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Move to "2017 June London terror attacks"

Latest comment: 7 years ago31 comments15 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: Not moved. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) TompaDompa (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Article should be moved to "2017 June London terror attacks". That is what police, politicians and reliable sources are calling it. If it turns out that one of the incident isn't a terror attack, then this isn't the article where it is covered. --DHeyward (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You raise a very good point, DHeyward. The attacks of tonight have already been declared terror, and therefore the article should plainly call the black kettle black, i.e., terror attacks. Recommend you move boldly. XavierItzm (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
But these have already been called "terrorism" by the powers that be! XavierItzm (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
To editor XavierItzm: I could hypothetically be chasing a person with a log and be acting with "terrorism", but that would not link me terrorist groups. The "powers that be" might well have labelled it as terrorism, but not linked to any groups as of yet. Wes Wolf Talk 01:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
That's why it's a "terror attack" and not an "Islamist terror attack." If it's the IRA, it's still a terror attack and is still being treated as one. We don't need to identify a group for the word "terror" justs as we son't need a group for the word "attack". --DHeyward (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
I'm sticking to my opinion of "strong oppose". Nothing is convincing me nor will I be bullied into changing my opinion. I've pointed out my reasons, which have been further justified by another user who points out WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. As an admin, I would have thought you would be one respecting policies, and not arguing them? If that policy is wrong, then it needs to be addressed by the wider community, and not on this talk discussion. Wes Wolf Talk 01:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the naming. However: 1) The "as an admin" argument is better avoided, especially in discussions where no admins have participated. 2) I see no one trying to bully anyone into changing their opinion; just people disagreeing, which is entirely acceptable. Let's keep it like that. RN1970 (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
To editor RN1970: I'm not stating anyone is bullying. All I am merely saying is that current view still stands and I won't be bullied (as in, coaxed, coerce, future tense) unless a more convincing argument can persuade me otherwise to change my view. And DHeyward, is an admin, I do check a user page so that I know to whom I converse with. It avoids awkward situations, as I had in the past come out with a comment to a user, only to discover that if I had checked their user page first, I would have avoided coming out with the remark. So nowadays I like to be safe and avoid situations like that again. Wes Wolf Talk 02:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
His/her user rights: Not an admin. I was unaware of the earlier history between the two of you and I'll stay out of that. (This is also only indirectly related to the name change discussion; should an editor wish to collapse it, feel free to do it.) RN1970 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I was about to mention that. You beat me to it ;P Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Well that is confusing then. They have RfA items on their user page as if to portray across they are an admin. I thought users were not allowed to add content on their user space to portray across a "fraudulent admin" status? Wes Wolf Talk 02:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice the heading those items are under – Need help from admin links. Presumably they have the items there for when they themself need help from admins. TompaDompa (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Wesley Wolf: I can't see anything wrong with having links that help following what the admins are up to. For quick and accurate identification of userrights, I recommend User:PleaseStand/User info – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
To editor Finnusertop: so it is reasonable to have {{RfA toolbox}} on any user page, even if that user is not an admin? Wes Wolf Talk 02:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Wesley Wolf, it's not meant to be confusing. I do have a section called User Rights [1]. Admins, I believe, are generally required to have an admin userbox. I am not an admin. I keep the "Need help from an admin" section both for myself and for those that have issues with me that defy ordinary resolution. I am just a regular user with lots of experience and virtually no chance of passing an RfA so no worries. --DHeyward (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Wesley Wolf: having {{RfA toolbox}} on a non-admin userpage seems rather pointless, yes. I think the key is that users themselves recognize if their pages could cause confusion and, if necessary, offer to clear it up. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:55, 4 June 2017 (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.

According to the police

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Should a sentence beginning "According to the police" use the same term as the police officer cited, "neutralised", or should we use "killed" or "dead" per WP:WEASEL even though the police did not use those terms? 92.19.24.114 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

  • We do not need to copy every word the police uses, so "killed" or "dead" are correct. Is there a reason we need to start the sentence "According to police"? They are stating a fact, so we do not need to couch it in the same terms as we would an opinion. – Sigersson (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Using an alternative phrase, such as "The police reported that... ", might provide the required degree of official certainty, without the suggestion of an opinion? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The sentence conveys (a) the number of shots fired and (b) the police explanation/justification for the number fired. I don't like tampering with their explanation, but I'm not sure we need it at all. Could we simply move the number of shots fired into the previous sentence and drop this one? 92.19.24.114 (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Neutralizing means shooting enough (or a very-very clear surrender / disarmament / loss of consciousness) to be sure that the threat is a threat no longer - neutralizing the threat. This isn't weasel words - but rather the Police's intent (stated at least) - as their response isn't aimed to kill the suspects for personal or vendetta motivations, but to remove an active threat. A stmt that officers acted to neutralize the threat is a stmt of fact - as that was (presumably) their intention.Icewhiz (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
"Neutralising a threat" is very different from what we had which said the attackers were neutralised. This is fairly moot now, as the text has been re-written in a different manner. - Sigersson (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Reactions from Other world leaders

Latest comment: 7 years ago24 comments16 people in discussion

Did no Arab World leaders make a public statement? (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The Reactions is already way too long; about 1/4th of the article. It's mostly just utterly predictable PR mush. What, did anyone think Mariano Rajoy's P.R. staff from Spain was going to tweet anything other than "condolences," "support," and "solidarity."? Like in prior events, the political pap from "world leaders" (i.e., politicians) should be mercifully taken out and shot into a separate article. XavierItzm (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Rothorpe (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  Comment: I just added a line about the known Muslim countries that have made statements but the article I found didn't list any leaders just the governments reactions. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.- MrX 19:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree it's too long. In most cases we have country, office, leader's name (blue-linked) and reference, which is all very thorough but almost unreadable. If we're to keep iit, could we reduce it to country (not blue-linked, per WP:SOB) and reference? 92.19.24.114 (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe Trump should be listed as a leader sending condolences. His reaction is the second-most prominent news component right now specifically because he is criticizing, rather than sympathizing. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Being neutral I would say leave the condolence part in there however on the relevant article about Trump should be about his recent tweets and how he is being criticized for using this event for political purposes. However removing Trump completely we may need to revisit Pence's comment for inclusion since it was just simply condolences. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I would be in support of switching Trump out for Pence in this article. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the best option would be what Sigersson proposed but if the consensus is to leave the names in as they are then I would support switching out Trump for Pence since Pence is the highest official of the country that issued true condolences and didn't politicize the situation. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that would be a good compromise however if the section continues to grow in detail then it might need to be split off into its own article like Reactions to the September 11 attacks. However I think for now re-writing the section to mirror the format used at 2017 Westminster attack#International where the list of countries is in a footnote would be the best option going forward for now. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I've tried shortening it to a list of countries only. To be exact, I've avoided specifying "country" to make it easier to retain the president of the EC and the leader of the Vatican - there's probably a better way but is this a bit better? 92.19.24.114 (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment. The reaction section is already too big! What do you guys think world leaders do? Oh, great job there ISIS? Of course not! They say the same damn thing 24/7: we condemn violence and our heart is with the victims. It is not really WP:NOTE! In most of the other articles, we just said that world leaders condemned terrorism.--Rævhuld (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Worthy of it's own article, and so reactions and controversy to reactions can be explored in greater detail (Trump's opportunism, Trump vs Khan, in comparison to Manchester, for example) 131.227.105.31 (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We should shorten the reaction section about the world leaders empty words

It is just not WP:NOTABLE. This is a WP:ENCY. It's the same condolences they give all the time. Do we really need a large section about who condolence?--Rævhuld (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Comment: Rævhuld isn't this tying in with the still active discussion above at #Reactions from Other world leaders? Maybe merging the discussion together so it is in one location? Wes Wolf Talk 23:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

What about the Trump controversy?Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Video shows CNN handing signs to Muslims in order to stage a fake protest against terrorism

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
This is a textbook WP:FRINGE case. If it becomes notable and is widely reported in a variety of sources then yes maybe but not until then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 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.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/shock-video-cnn-creates-fakenews-london-following-terror-attacks-stages-anti-isis-muslim-protesters/

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/cnn-becky-anderson-staging-fake-news-scene-london-terror-march-2e6bdc3aa68c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ObbTX_nMGk

71.182.238.248 (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a problem for CNN controversies, I think, if it's a problem at all. TV production people are compelled to produce compelling TV, and have been since the '40s. Which section would it go in here, anyway? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The section is reactions. Becky Anderson CNN follow here the interruption of the Rock Am Ring event, where Marek Lieberberg in an interview claim "...there were no demonstrations of the Muslims against Islamterror". --46.89.140.83 (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The idea of using The Gateway Pundit as a source for, well, anything is absurd given his well-earned reputation for false claims. Prioryman (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
When RS cover it so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 5 June 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.

Article page

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article page was created by Phineas s (talk · contribs), nominator of credit at WP:ITN/C it should be the editor, is that through? SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I have credited the article's creator on their talk page.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Including facts about unnamed/unknown attackers?

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

So the names of the attackers have not yet been released, but we know that a mosque expelled one of them? How can we say we don't know who they are and still include that? We should certainly just exclude that quote until we know something more, imo. El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Just because the police have not released the names does not mean that other information about the attackers is not known. - Sigersson (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Potentially. I'd say the key is reporting what official police sources have released; if they have stated this, then it can be attributed to them, otherwise, leave it out until concrete details have emerged. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
"According with The Independent, one of the attackers, identified as Abz, was expelled from a London mosque for criticising an imam and claiming that voting was un-Islamic.[44] A former friend of Abz stated that he had been radicalised by watching YouTube videos by the American hate preacher Ahmad Musa Jibril and had been reported by friends, but the authorities had apparently taken no action.[45]"
What does that add to the article? Other than potential speculation. El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
As it is reported by several WP:RS there shouldn't be any problem to leave this in. Just because the police aren't releasing the names, doesn't mean the Journalists, friends, and acquaintances don't know who they are. In some countries, a name may be under judicial gag order for a long time - even a month - doesn't mean nothing gets published about the people. As long as we have clear attribution to the incident - and we're placing this on the incident page (and not, say, creating an article for on of the attackers or adding information to an existing page) - there shouldn't be a problem. What does it add? The fact these were known extremists - allowed to prowl on the loose in British society - says quite a bit about the state of security affairs in the UK.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Ditto. I also think it's quite pertinent. – Sigersson (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I would argue the opposite. UK police are not known to use gagging orders, nor are they known to hold back from releasing names for longer than the investigation requires. Given the debaucle involving the New York Times releasing details about the Manchester Arena attack entirely out of turn, causing a diplomatic incident between the US and UK, I don't think it's unreasonable to show some caution in adding names before the police have released or officially confirmed them. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
In recent incidents, the UK police were quite slow in releasing details (while letting the names bounce around the world) - but that's neither here nor there. We have interesting and pertinent information about one of the attackers, which doesn't include the name (which if unknown, is actually less interesting than information about the attacker), that was published by multiple RS. There is no reason to filter this out if this was published.Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
It's interesting and pertinent that Adz Doe was kicked out of a mosque? And how is that, exactly? El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry @Mogomaniac: for undoing your edit but "Shazad Butt"? I sure hope this isn't another hoax like the Korean pilots mishap as I couldn't believe the names I was seeing without a source added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is a story with the updates. http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement-on-investigation-into-london-bridge-and-borough-market-terror-attacks-244613?hootPostID=03e90f7856ec35e86c9e07eec87537c6 Mr Ernie (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Policy note: The attackers are covered by WP:BDP. Any contentious material about them that is unsourced or poorly sourced is to be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, see WP:BLPREMOVE. TompaDompa (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Information about an attacker

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Spem Reduxit, I am puzzled as to why you think information about an attacker is best placed in the "Aftermath" section, rather than the section dedicated to attackers' perhaps you could enlighten us? Just by way of an aside, given this edit summary: no, I am not a banned user, and if you wish to accuse me of being a sock, find some damned good evidence before you start throwing around your accusations. Try thinking that perhaps I may just be a former IP editor who is now registered and you'll be on much better lines). - Sigersson (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Because it's a BBC article about "London attack: **PM's condemnation** of tech firms criticised". I placed it in the paragraph related to the PM's condemnation. Spem Reduxit (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

jibril/youtube/neumann discussion - Reactions

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Hello WWGB. The point is that Neumann, when interviewed in BBC on tech firms,[1] made no attempt to address the issue: unfettered use by a US resident of fora such as YouTube to disseminate Islamic terrorist speech,[2] which is the very thing that Theresa May has highlighted.[3] Spem Reduxit (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "London attack: PM's condemnation of tech firms criticised". BBC. 4 June 2017. Retrieved 4 June 2017.
  2. ^ telegraph.co.uk: "London terrorist had twice been referred to police over his extremist views", 4 Jun 2017
  3. ^ "TEXT-UK Prime Minister May's statement following London attack". Reuters. 4 June 2017.

I can find no cite that Neumann (or May) had ever heard of Jibril, so how can you expect that they would refer to that specific matter. I am not saying that Jibril is insignificant, just that you cannot expect Neumann to comment about something of which he may have no awareness. WWGB (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Aye, it's simply making Neumann look like an ignoramus (or some other God-forsaken creature) for no readily apparent reason. It could even more simply just shit on YouTube by itself,as the source kind of does, in a new sentence. Everything looks neater and nobody gets their stupid feelings hurt for not talking about something they weren't even talking about. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
After looking again, that YouTube bit is just entirely irrelevant. Forget everything I said about a new sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep on refusing to discuss the issue. It makes both of you look like fools. Spem Reduxit (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
There's no connection. You could just as easily replace that issue with this issue or a dozen other issues. Or you could tack your issue onto someone else's existing statement. There's really no limit on what anybody fails to mention in any discussion. Your own silence on animal rights makes me think you lift dogs by the ears, and that's gotten precisely as much coverage as Neumann's mysterious insistence on not upsetting YouTube. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a connection, and it is this: the BBC threw in a red herring. May talks about YouTube. Terrorist radicalised through YouTube. BBC quotes Neumann gibberish. Spem Reduxit (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Well yeah, everything's connected to everything if you do it that way. Maybe you've miscalculated in adding it all up, maybe you haven't. What's important here is the question you're (apparently) so reluctant to answer: Why is an attacker's alleged biography in the Reactions section? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Because it's a BBC article about "London attack: **PM's condemnation** of tech firms criticised". To place it under "attacker's alleged biography" qualifies you as barmy. Spem Reduxit (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I posted in a section at the bottom of the page before seeing this. Spem Reduxit, please don't insult editors: it helps no-one. I am also bemused as to why information about an attacker should be in the Aftermath section, rather than the section dedicated to the attackers; I do not see the logic in having it in the 'politicians' waffle' section. - Sigersson (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure that InedibleHulk appreciates your concern, but this chivalric concerns seems misplaced in today's climate. The BBC article about "London attack: **PM's condemnation** of tech firms criticised" places this squarely within the paragraph on PM's condemnation. I'm puzzled at your incomprehension. Spem Reduxit (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
That's the article you wanted to hitch the pertinent one onto. The pertinent one's the pertinent one, at least this time. Seems to be settled, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

ISIS claims responsibility

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

We shouldn't claim that ISIS did it in the article. But we should mention that they claimed responsibility for the attack. That is at least as WP:RS and WP:NOTE as other reactions, like the reactions of other world leaders. And User:MrX Der Spiegel is considered a reliable source. Just read the Wikipedia article about it.--Rævhuld (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Rævhuld, I never said Der Spiegel wasn't a reliable source. What are you referring to?- MrX 23:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@MrX: Well, you undid my edit plus another edit who used Dailymail as source. So I guess it was just a mistake. I fixed it. I have removed the Daily Mail reference another user did and put my Der Spiegel and The Guardian references back again. No harm done.--Rævhuld (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I though I only removed something sourced to the Daily Mail.- MrX 23:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Amaq said they were Islamic State fighters. That's all. So that's all we need to say. Amaq isn't ISIS. Just says things about ISIS, which the Western media routinely spins into something entirely different to justify bombing ISIS. That's their game, not ours. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, good grief. Please keep your personal opinions off the TP. Bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.27.207 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
OK. I changed it because Islamic State is a redirect to a disambiguation page. The appropriate link is Islamic state.- MrX 23:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Not quite, but closer. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is who we want. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Doh! That I what I changed it to in the first place! I'll let someone else fix it before I mess it up further.- MrX 23:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Might've been from an Islamic state and the Islamic State, like the briefly scary Hatchet Boy. So maybe you're still right, just at the wrong time. You'd never see a white maniac with a bloody hatchet from Western State survive an AfD, even if he actually killed someone, that much is certain. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Labour leader Corbyn: Theresa May should resign

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
Not here I think, two reasons, it doesn't relate directly to this attack, secondly the tit-for-tat 'digs' between May and Corbyn could easily take over this page in the next week. Pincrete (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The focus of this page should remain the event itself. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Besides this being WP:ROUTINE as the opposition leader (with impending elections to boot) in any country will use whatever pretense to call for the resignation of the PM. He's just doing his routine opposition job. These sorts of calls are only really notable if they come from the PM's own camp.Icewhiz (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
That content holds no due weight to the topic of this article. Something of that nature will probably be beneficial at United Kingdom general election, 2017. Wes Wolf Talk 14:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
IMHO, Corbyn's comments were little more than all-too-predictable political point-scoring a few days before the election, and as such not worth reporting. The Prime Minister speaking as the country's leader is different - imagine the outcry if she had *not* said anything. And yes, she was also speaking as a politician, as well as a leader, but such is the role and the prerogative of the current regime; you can't exactly say that the PM isn't allowed to speak publicly due to purdah rules. I'm not commenting on whether the May video needs to be included in this article or not (if anything, I'm personally minded to leave it out), but I am drawing a distinction between political Punch & Judy shows and national leadership. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

move to specific date title?

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Hi everyone. This is not a formal proposal, but would like some quick feedback. All of the events were on the same day, so would it make sense to change the date to "3 June 2017 London attack"? Thanks. RES2773 (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If another June/Ramadan 2017 attack occurs in London - definitely (or by some other defining feature). Otherwise, not needed.Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree, not necessary (and people won't remember the date in a week's time). Pincrete (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
This proposal was already opposed as the exact date does not distinguish anything more (see archives). If two separate attacks happened in the same location on different days of June 2017, then yes it would be required. But until then, a disambiguated a title that doesn't need disambiguating is not required at this stage per WP:ATDAB. Wes Wolf Talk 13:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
If anything, we could go the other way, and drop the 'June' bit, that way it would at least be consistent with the titles of 2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing and 2017_Westminster_attack. Of course, to do that we would need to specify the location better, not just generic 'London' - as I've argued so many times before that I'm even beginning to bore myself! DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Given that it occurred in the district of Southwark, there is always either 2017 Southwark attack or 2017 London Bridge and Southwark attack to be consistent with the above naming. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
It makes?more sense to change 2017 Westminster attack to March 2017 London attack. Jim Michael (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
If the 'place' (rather than month) is chosen as 'dab-ber', I don't think there is any need to be pedantic about 'London bridge and ..'. London bridge is the loosely defined area served by London Bridge station, as well as being the physical bridge. The attack started on the physical bridge and continued into its immediately adjacent area. London Bridge probably has the advantage of being better known than 'Borough Market' or 'Southwark'. We don't bother to say in the title that the attack on Pearl Harbour included attacks outside the harbour/navy base itself. Pincrete (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Reactions section - notability

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. New editor not wishing to make edits to a controversial page without approval.

I wonder if those op-eds and expert opinions on Theresa May's comments on internet radicalisation are worth including? The Richard Barret one in particular reads as if it's been shoehorned in in order to make a point that's uncomplimentary to him. About twenty million op-eds and expert opinions have been, are being, and will be expressed on this and every other aspect of the attacks. I see that both Mr Neumann and Mr Barret are genuine experts, but so are dozens of others who have opined. The Open Rights Group reaction - as a relevant campaigning group - seems more permissable, but I guess I'm raising that too.

I'd also suggest including at least a mention of May's "Four-point plan": 1 - Defeating the ideology of islamist extremism; 2 - regulate cyberspace; 3 - Stamping out extremism (including military action in Syria) 4 - Legislation - a review of counter terror laws.

I've sourced that here: http://www.smh.com.au/world/london-terror-attack-would-theresa-mays-four-point-plan-work-20170604-gwkbxu.html - but no doubt it can be found in (better?) UK sources, which for complicated and boring reasons I currently can't access!


Thanks. SkagwayEntropy (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're saying the Barrett thing is not WP:NEUTRAL. I agree, so I removed it. Oh, and I fixed the formatting so this is a separate section on the talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I also think the Peter R. Neumann quote also breaches WP:NEUTRAL. - Sigersson (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  Removed TompaDompa (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I'd also remove all "reactions to the reaction" as everything she said has been both criticised and praised - as you would expect. This also focuses overly on the internet part of her Four Point Plan (see above). Again, everything in that plan has been both praised and criticised - you'll have a never ending reactiontothereactiontothereaction-fest if you're not careful! SkagwayEntropy (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I still think it's wrong to include "reactions to the reaction" and to restrict the initial reaction to just one issue when she very deliberateley raised four:

I'd love this text to replace that whole first paragraph.

"Prime Minister Theresa May returned to Downing Street from campaigning for the general election. Speaking on the morning after the attack she confirmed that the three terror attacks in the UK in 2017 were Islamist extremist attacks, an "evil ideology" that she called a "perversion of Islam". May proposed a four-point plan of action to tackle terrorism by challenging the ideology that inspired it, more online regulation, reducing the tolerance for extremist views in the UK, and reviewing counter-terror legislation."

I don't have any problem with the reactions reported of themselves, but if you report those should you not report the objections that are being raised to every other part of the plan and the counter-objections to them... Probably the most notable reaction to the statement as a whole is its criticism as a resumption of election campaigning to be honest.

But looking at the Orlando Pulse Shooting page even that may be too much unless you think there is enough to spin off to a new page, especially with regards to the Trump/Khan row. SkagwayEntropy (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"He worked on the London transport system"

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

With the greatest of respect, under "attackers", the phrase: "He worked on the London transport system" is highly unidiomatic and grates on the teeth of a local reader. Is it in some source? What are we actually trying to say here? It's not an expression which you'd expect to hear here (as it were) and it would be nice to reword it into something better. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I see the source here says He reportedly had jobs on the London transport network and in a fast food restaurant which is pretty awkward too and echoes with the sound of journalistic arse-covering ... it's maybe not quite as tricky as what we wrote but I can see our editor was trying to not just quote the Graun verbatim. Hmmm, tricky - maybe this cannot be easily resolved until more information is published about what were these jobs on the London transport network. There is not, of course, any rush ... DBaK (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
According to the BBC News website, "Transport for London has confirmed he worked for almost six months in 2016 as a trainee customer services assistant, leaving in October." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40167432 DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I've changed it to 'for TfL'. People in London do speak of 'on the buses' or 'on the tube', but I've never heard 'on the LT system'. TfL does all sorts of peripheral stuff as well of course, 'Oyster' cards etc. I have no idea whether a 'trainee customer services assistant' is what a dinosaur like me might call a 'ticket seller'/ 'enquiry clerk' or what.Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I used that wording because it wasn't clear which of London's various transport operators he worked for - don't forget it's not just TfL; he could have worked for any of the rail companies. But now we know it was TfL we can say so clearly. Prioryman (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks all for the co-operation and improvements. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The Jihadis Next Door

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
are any of these usable or useful ?
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The copyright owner does not appear to be the person posting these videos, so no, they are not usable here. Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Youtube is not RS, no they should not be used.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It really would be funny when people go on about how YT is not a WP:RS, especially when what's being argued is not whether the content of a video is truthful or not, but whether the video merely exists! Does anyone deny that the London Bridge terrorist appears on the Channel 4 documentary shown to millions of Englishmen last year and now available on YT? Who are you gonna believe, Wikipedia or your lying eyes? Ahh, so not funny. I'd link it as an external source. XavierItzm (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is discussing whether anything in these videos is/is not true. It's WP:Copyvio to even link to it here, therefore not remotely usable. You do understand 'copyright'? Pincrete (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually I sort of am, we do not use YouTube because it is user created content. We do not know if these videos have been altered. If we are using the channel 4 documentary as a source why do we need to use youtube, why not channel 4?Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but academic. We couldn't use these videos because of copyvio and because us looking at the videos and deciding what was/wasn't true in them would be OR, even if we knew they weren't digitally altered by the person posting them. Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Right. Digitally altered. Yep. Exactly. Like the Moon landings! XavierItzm (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes exactly, if we had a choice of "NASA video services" or "some bloke on the internet video services" which would we consider reliable for NASA material?Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Impact on elections

Latest comment: 7 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion

Didn't notice until now, there was no detailing of its impact in this article. I think there will be. Nothing else is there except suspension of campaigns. At least I've read some off news outlets. The impact of shootings of French policemen on election was presented, why isn't the same thing done in this case especially considering how close to the election ot has occurred? 117.199.84.88 (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As the election is only four days away, I'd suggest waiting till the polls close in the UK on the 8th. Then, if anyone notable publicly says in a WP:Reliable source that there was an impact on the election, then that might be worth adding. Uncle Roy (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
While when could go with the bookie betting odds, this is a clear case of TOOSOON. Wait and see how this develops.Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
What impact? The suspensions of campaigns is already mentioned and seems to be the only current impact worth mentioning so doesn't need a separate subsection. Stuff like betting odds are not significant enough for inclusion, even if you could find a RS covering them. Likewise speculation of potential impact is not something worth covering unless there's some particular controversy about it. It may very well be that there is believed to be some impact and this will be significant enough to cover, but until and unless that happens, it's irrelevant to us. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
We do not do WP:ORIGINAL research. It might be WP:NOTE but you need to find WP:RELIABLE sources to write about it.--Rævhuld (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Nobody asked for an "original research". I am asking for "help" and WP:CONSENSUS to see if users are ok with it or oppose it. In case of the shooting of French officers, the impact however brief was detailed. I don't have all the details and all reliable resources as I haven't had the time to research, nor I have currently added it. That's why I asked it here so others will help and research. The more join, the easier ot is. I can't do the whole thing on my own. Of course some important topics might not be considered by aome people, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be added. 117.199.82.143 (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think all of it can be directly attributed as impact to elections but we'll see. The elections have brought back security into the spotlight as an issue ahead of the polls, that's clear enough. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/uk-election-pauses-time-london-attack-47822816) May has detailed several strategies to crack down on extremism through increased jail offences which has unnerved some in the Labour camp as they see it as a breach of the suspension of campaigning by parties. (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/04/london-attack-theresa-may-says-enough-is-enough-after-seven-killed) She has criticised tech firms which was criticised in response. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40149649L)

NY Times also commented on May's statements as :"By stating that police and security measures were insufficient, she was announcing a new effort, if re-elected, to break down what she considers to be essentially self-segregated communities and to be less delicate of their sensitivities." In addition it also states that it may be too early too predict exactly what impact it will have, noting that the Manchester attacks didn't help her in anyway (partly because of campaign mistakes). - (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/world/europe/uk-london-attacks.html)

Then there's the issue of parties suspending elections of course which is already in the article. There were also calls to postpone the elections, which was rejected by David Davis (https://www.ft.com/content/ad6e3778-48f8-11e7-a3f4-c742b9791d43). The again there's opiniomd like this one from The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/london-bridge-attack-terrorism-general-election-theresa-may-a7772491.html). I don't know if it's good, but it's what I could find. 117.199.82.143 (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Within the UK, there was much criticism of May's 'getting tough' stance yesterday, since she was the person responsible for reducing police numbers in recent years. There are also many people here pointing out that Muslim communities have reported recent attackers to the police, so communities cannot be blamed. Personally I wonder what she means by 'too much tolerance in the public sector', politicians, police and public here have recently done a pretty good job of distinguishing between Muslims and 'Muslims who want to blow people up'. I think it better to not cover 'election effect' here until it is clear if the events have had any effect. Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Well - the UK authorities could arrest everyone who was reported to the police, and charge with treason anyone who is associated with ISIS (e.g. returning fighters - [2] [3] - was talk of this in the past) - rather then let them roam about freely (being on some watchlist, which isn't really watched because it is impossible personnel-wise to keep 24hr surveillance on so many)- however this was not May's policy as home secretary nor now. "get tough" at the moment seems like an empty platitude - which might be enough to carry the elections.Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
PS, re the NYT claims, apparently the points made in her speech outside No. 10, were already in the Conservative manifesto and therefore not 'new', which was another reason for criticism here, while ostensibly not campaigning out of respect, she campaigned. Corbyn did much the same but more subtly. Pincrete (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
There's currently a BBC article detailing security issues being thrown back into the spotlight due to the attack and what are the stands kf the various parties. I think there's enough material to be added. 61.1.57.242 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
There's stuff everyday, it's just that it's all a bit, 'she says he's weak', 'he says she's the one who cut police numbers', 'she says/he says'. It may not be clear until after the election, or indeed ever, whether any of this has any effect on the electorate. It would easily take over this page if we tried to cover it. Pincrete (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we can mention the fact that it is being discussed, but not draw any conclusions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait until there's something of substance to mention. Discussion, speculation, and maybes is mostly fluff at this point. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
If RS discus this idea I see no reason why we cannot mention it. What we cannot do is say "yes it has affected the election".Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a clear case for waiting. We'll have a slew of sources tomorrow night claiming a connection between whatever election results and this attack. No need to add stuff into the article that will be changed anyway tomorrow night.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

8 victims now

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Police raised the death toll from seven to eight after recovering a body from the River Thames on Tuesday.[1]

References

  1. ^ Miller, Hayley; Bellware, Kim; Herreria, Carla (2017-06-04). "What We Know About The Victims Of The London Attack". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2017-06-07.
So no need to reduce the "seriously injured" number (see 2 sections up) as this person would not have been included. Davidships (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Eighth fatality?

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

The Telegraph states an eighth individual - who was with his fiancee on London Bridge when they were attacked - may have been struck/thrown into the Thames. His fiancee was wounded and he's missing. I was going to morph this into the info. but even though it looks ominous, I thought I'd bring it to the talk page first.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait until there's something concrete to add. TompaDompa (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
That's why I added it here initially.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This reminds me - three days ago when the 7th fatality was announced, I updated the infobox from 6 to 7, but didn't update correspondingly the number of non-fatal injuries from 48 to 47. Should I have? Was the 7th person to die previously included in the 48? And in any case, if someone is first listed as non-fatal injury and later dies, should the non-fatal number be updated or not? You could argue that the fact remains that there were originally 48 non-fatal injuries, and to change that later smacks of revisionism. On the other hand, if you don't decrease that number as you increase the other, the total victim count goes up, which is also wrong. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If someone clearly succumbs to fatal injuries from an attack (e.g. dying within a month of the attack... Some longer-term deaths are debatable (e.g. a Persistent vegetative state victim that dies a year-two later)) - then yes, you increase the fatalities and decrease the injuries. Many of the deceased did not die instantly - instant death is actually rare in attacks - people bleed out and die minutes after the attack or succumb to trauma or abdominal injuries a few hours after - It is fair to assume that some of the initial 6 fatalities were classified as injured at some point previous to their death.Icewhiz (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Bet you anything, though, if I go and drop that 48 to 47, someone will put it back up again. Eg. BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40153090 continues to report "Seven people were killed and 48 injured". DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Probably best to go with the latest tally reported by RS - unless you are updating from an X victim died, Y days later story. They might be getting it wrong - UK media are probably not too well versed in this type of reporting, and injury figures are often a mess to begin with (including walking wounded, psychological damage, etc.) - particularly in locales which aren't used to this type of reporting. The hospitals and emergency services are also probably not reporting on a unified normalized trauma injury scale (and if they are, the media might not be reporting it accurately).Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


Personally we should wait until we know for sure.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

From similar incidents, I know that it becomes difficult to keep 'injured' accurate and up to date, since there are often contradictory figures as people get discharged etc. Pincrete (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

I think the link to Borough Market is probably wrong, since it links to the market itself, not the area, AFAIK the market was not involved in the attack. I have to say that several of the discussions here are running foul of the fact that names in London can often simultaneously refer to a very specific place or landmark, the nearest station and the broader area around the station/landmark. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what you mean by 'Borough Market', exactly. I would hazard a guess that many (most?) people, myself included, refer by that to the whole food and drink related sprawl that is to the west of Borough High St and south of Southwark Cathedral (and probably north of Southwark St only), whether or not actually part of the original wholesale market per se. In which case, The Wheatsheaf, where some of the attacks happened, is by my reckoning at least pretty much in the middle of that. But if you can find a better destination for that link to point to (as in, the 'area' you refer to), by all means do. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
With Google Maps and Street View you can navigate to locations and derive the coordinates for each event.Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
synecdocheXb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pincrete I can see that you've now removed the link to Borough Market. I think that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater - now readers can't follow a link that is even approximately (and, I would still argue, almost completely) right. As a compromise, how about putting a link around the Borough Market bit, even if you add 'area' after it, ie. "Borough Market area"? DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Quite happy with the compromise. As I'm sure you are aware if you are a Londoner, at/in Marble Arch can mean the monument, the tube station, or the ill-defined general area around the Arch, which is more the case here. Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. I've been arguing all along that we should just name this article '2017 London Bridge attack', given that part of the attack happened on the actual bridge itself, and part in the immediate vicinity, and (cf. your point) that vicinity often is referred to as 'London Bridge' on account of the station etc. (I worked for many years for a company whose head office was next to Guy's Hospital, and everyone called that 'the London Bridge office'.) Alas, I seem to be fighting a losing battle with that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleGrazing (talk • contribs) 13:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I would support a name like June 2017 London Bridge attack; I have little doubt that a survey of RS from British media would refer to it as the "London Bridge attack", and that's how everyone I've spoken with seems to know it as. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It would only need a title that long if there had been another notable attack at London Bridge this year. Jim Michael (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Good point. 2017 London Bridge attack would bring it in line with 2017 Westminster attack and 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Considering the 2017 Westminster attack also started out on a bridge in London (just not the London bridge, but a mile and a half away) this is a confusing title (says the non-UK native who knows but a little of London... Consider those who know nothing). I think the month should be in the title. The two incidents are arguably of similar weight (Westminster was the beginning of the wave, this one has a few more casualties (8 vs. 5)).Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
London Bridge is an area, not simply a bridge. There is no need to know London, only what the incident is being called, I had no idea where Orlando was last year. I had no idea where Pearl Harbour was until my 30's but I knew what had happened there in WWII, I'm sure many younger Americans feel the same about the Normandy beaches, would that be the North, East, South or West coast beaches of France? glad you spotted my deliberate mistake, lad. Pincrete (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

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.

The article currently states: "three men driving a van at high speed..." Obviously this is not accurate. What about "one man drove the van at high speed, while the other two men were passengers", or something like "three men driving (one worked the steering wheel, one worked the pedals and gear stick, and the third operated the windshield wipers, horn and checked the mirrors for blind spots) a van at high speed... As it stands, it could be confusing, especially to American readers. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're serious or jesting, but in case the former, then maybe change it to "three men travelling in a van at high speed" or something to that effect? I expect anyone even vaguely familiar with the operation of the usual types of road-going motor vehicle (ie. cars, vans and the rest of their ilk) will understand that one, and only one, of the three men would have been at the controls, with the others as passengers. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  Fixed. WWGB (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! This is more for our American readers. Many vehicles stateside have dual brake pedals (one on passenger one on driver side) or even dual steering wheels. For example, when I took driver's education the car had two brake pedals. Well done and a needed improvement! MUCH less confusing. 2600:1012:B01D:680:9904:52F3:BA06:693C (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so now I at least know you were joking. Or else I must have been exceptionally unlucky not to have ever seen one single dual controls vehicle in all my time living and travelling 'stateside', or anywhere else for that matter. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
MANY (if not ALL) vehicles used for drivers edication in the USA have DUAL controls. Like I said it is a cultural disconnect. The important thing is the ambiguity was fixed. I know little details can seem like a "jest", but I (and I assume most stateside readers) was confused by the prior version. By the way, ask an American where the "entrance to the toilet" is and see what kind of reaction you get.2600:1012:B01D:680:9904:52F3:BA06:693C (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
And what proportion of the total vehicle stock in the USA do you suppose that constitutes? ('Infinitesimal' is a word that comes to my mind, but I'm open to other suggestions.) That's a bit like saying that nearly all vehicles adapted *for drivers with their lower limbs missing* have hand-operated accelerator and brake controls, and using that to imply that this is the case for nearly all vehicles *on the roads*. There is no 'cultural disconnect' here, and I doubt many American readers would have been confused by the original wording of "three men driving", any more than readers of any other nationality or cultural background. But you've made your argument and successfully got the wording changed, so let's just leave it at that. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 8 June 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.

Trump comments

Latest comment: 7 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

I have just removed the information about Trump's Twitter ramblings and reactions to that. It's not relevant enough to the subject of the attacks to be included. – Sigersson (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The section was indeed much too long - but removing all mention of Trump is misleading given the specific circumstances. Cpaaoi (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Not really. It belongs elsewhere, rather than here - United Kingdom–United States relations or Ill-considered ramblings of a president or similar would work. We mention the fact that the US has passed on official condolences, as we have for lots of other countries, and any more would be to give undue weight to what is a minor spat. - Sigersson (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings about the inclusion/exclusion of DJT's characteristically sensitive messages to the US's ally No.1, but if included, they belong in a sub-section, if excluded, remove the textual reference to the US sending messages of condolence or support, it didn't, it sent cheap shots, which even large numbers of its own citizens are embarrassed by. Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I think they have received sufficient coverage to make them "part of this". Nor do I agree they need their own section. I thInk we just need to say "and Trump made a Number of controversial comments that have been condemned by the London mayor and the Pm.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I think Khan's office actually replied that he was too busy to respond to Troll no.1 our much valued ally, but I could support inclusion of brief coverage. Pincrete (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/05/donald-trump-attack-courts-travel-ban-london
Ah well, used copies still available I believe. Pincrete (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course Trump's comments are relevant to the article. Pretty much every source – including the one used in the article to substantiate Khan's comments – mentions them, and it's perfectly relevant to note the POTUS' reaction to the events as it's so... let's say "unusual". Wikipedia should not be censoring his comments IMO. GringisMan (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, Trump's comments are much more important thank Khan's boilerplate reaction. I wouldn't think Khan's stmt would be of much interest without Trump jumping on it. They should go in.Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The United States does not have a monopoly on the English speaking world thus Trump's comments are no different than the reactions made by the PM of Australia (WP:UNDUE). Since the comments about the travel ban had no relation to the attack, I feel they should be excluded as off topic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
And Mr khans comments about security, and Mr Khans opinions [4], moreover this is overshadowing The US regimes commiserations over the attack.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
And not just Donny [5], but his team'Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
And it may have wider repercussions [6]. This may well be far more important then the attack ever was.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above that the Trump issue belongs in United Kingdom–United States relations. The feud between the two had been ongoing before this attack took place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
International significance is not a democratic "thing". Being the leader of the country with the largest military (or military expenditure) and largest GDP in the world gives the American leader (Trump, Obama, or whomever) extra weight. That he chose to use a non-boilerplate reaction - both attacking Khan and justifying a travel ban (perceived by some as a Muslim ban) - is extra weight as well - all in relation to this incident.Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Inclusion/exclusion has nothing to do with the importance of US, only relevance to article and level of coverage. I have mixed feelings as to whether it is relevant here. However, the last time there was a public call for a foreign leader's invite to be withdrawn (that I can recall), was when this guy, visited the UK. As I recall, some elderly ex-PoWs were a bit unhappy about their treatment between 1940-45. It is not a small thing that, not only Khan, but Gdn and others are saying 'don't come here', 'with friends like you ....'. Pincrete (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It isn't relevant here as the issue is the feud, if Donald Trump were to get his travel ban approved by SCOTUS as a result then yes a link could be made. For now it is just heated rhetoric that extends beyond the scope of this one event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Calls for Trump's invitation to be withdrawn have been going since the invitation was first extended; as I recall, a Parliamentary petition for the withdrawal of his invitation garned several million signatures. At most, his recent comments have probably only drawn it back to the fore. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • He wasn't involved in the attack (and a US citizen was only partly involved, so his comments has less relevance than Turnbill, Macron, etc). He's just one leader of a country, with no more or less relevance than any other country leader in this particular instance. His spat with Khan pre-dates the attack and will possibly run on after this. - Sigersson (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

US condolences?

User:GringisMan, the question here is not whether part of what is said in a speech several days later 'sounds like condolences' to either of us, rather do RS report messages emanating from DJT as being 'condolence or support'. I contend they do not. I have seen no source so far, US or UK that does not report him 'trying to pick a fight' with the elected official of an ally, at a wholly inapt time and using the event to try to push his own US agenda etc. By all means let's leave the whole DJT subject out of the article, but let's not pretend that what was reported as coming from DJT was condolence or support, even your source says he "waded into a row with the Mayor of London by posting criticisms" and more before the quote you use. Pincrete (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been an advocate for including the row with Khan in the article, as I've mentioned just above on this talk page. And it's possible for him to have offered condolences to the victim whilst initiating a (totally ridiculous and unwarranted) row with the Mayor of London. I think that's the most reasonable interpretation of the piece I included here. Here are a number of sources claiming that he offered sympathy, condolences etc. (emphasis added):
  • "[Donald Trump] then offered his sympathy, and said the US would assist in any way it could. 'Whatever the United States can do to help out in London and the U.K, we will be there - WE ARE WITH YOU. GOD BLESS!'" – The Telegraph, 4.6.17
  • "On one level, President Trump reacted to Saturday night's terrorist attack in London much as his predecessors might have. He expressed solidarity and telephoned Britain's prime minister to offer condolences. 'WE ARE WITH YOU', he wrote to Britons". –NYT, 4.6.17
  • "Mr Trump said on Saturday the US was 'with the UK' and spoke to British Prime Minister Theresa May to offer his condolences." – FT, 4.6.17
  • "President Donald Trump is offering his condolences to British Prime Minister Theresa May after Saturday's terror attacks in central London." – Associated Press, 3.6.17 (via Fox News)
  • "The president also offered his condolences over the 'brutal terror attacks,' which police said also left at least 20 people wounded." – First Post, 4.6.17
  • "Trump offered his condolences to May, according to the White House" – Daily News, 3.6.17
I could go on. But I do agree that since nearly all of these sources also mention Trump picking a fight with Khan, that should be included as well. But because the former is not yet included does not mean the latter should be excluded. GringisMan (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a page for The Jihadis Next Door?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, I am wondering if their should be a page for The Jihadis Next Door? Do any of you think this would be a notable page; because one of the attackers was on it. 15:08 --Skim (UTC)

No, no more then for any other one of documentary, it would not be that notable were it not for this attack.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree. If others who appeared on the programme also follow suit, and the notability of the programme rises, then it would be worth reconsidering, but not at the moment. - Sigersson (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Dude Skim, of course! The Wikipedia abounds in articles about obscure TV shows and movies. It's just jam-packed with this kind of stuff! And often not only does it include a page per show, but entire pages per season and entire plots-per-episode summaries! So it goes w/o saying that if you want to create a page on this particular documentary, you should do so. If you do, please let me know directly, and I'll be sure and edit and add material to it. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Pavement or footpath?

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion

In the UK the technical term for the pedestrian path alongside a road or street is a "footway" (the road is a "roadway"). However, "pavement" is the more common and more generally used term for this feature in the lay press and media. "Footpath" is more commonly used for paths which are not alongside roads, so could be misleading in this context.

I believe the word "pavement" should be used in this article as it is the more normal British English word. To avoid confusion with other uses of that word it should be linked to the appropriate article - which in this case is sidewalk.

For these reasons I made this edit. However, Pol098 quickly reverted me. What do others think: do we use the more ambiguous term (in British English), "footpath", or do we use the common term in British English "pavement" (suitably linked)? -- de Facto (talk). 20:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see there has been some flip-flopping of terms going on whilst I was writing the above. Let's discuss it here and reach agreement, rather than edit-warring. -- de Facto (talk). 20:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Common British English "pavement" reads better - as in 2017 Westminster attack. Davidships (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Pavement.Pincrete (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The reason I strongly prefer "footpath", or at least something other than "pavement", in the introduction (it is less important in the body) is that this is an international encyclopaedia. "Pavement" is not just, for readers in some countries, an unclear term easily clarified by following the link, but a clear, familiar, and unambiguous word meaning "roadway" (or whatever term you who read this use). "Footpath" is a bit formal, but is definitely in formal English usage; where people talk about pavements, wodges of officialese often talk about footpaths. In the OED we have among several definitions "Footpath: A paved footpath alongside a street, road, etc.; a pavement, sidewalk." A written example, mixing "footpath", "footway", and "pavement" is in "Items placed on the Highway (streets and pavements)": "This will result in the streets becoming even more congested and public footpath space ever more precious. It is already apparent from daily observation that pressure on footways is often leading pedestrians to „walk in the road‟.

So (1) "pavement" is confusing for an international audience, and (2) "footpath" is in the major English dictionary, and in formal English use (probably British in general, but I speak of what I know). Maybe another term could be used? Footway? Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Pavement, as footpaths tend not to be next to a road. And sidewalks don't exist in the UK. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The point has been made that "pavement", while the common term in British English, has a different meaning in American English. Might there be a MOS:COMMONALITY way to circumvent this issue entirely by referring to it as e.g. the "pedestrian portion" of the bridge? TompaDompa (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As an illustration of the ambiguity, the following statement is totally clear to anyone in Britain, and to anyone in the US. What does it mean, in other words? I am mad about my flat. [Hint: make sure you have a wheel brace.] Pol098 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Pavement, I would consider footpaths to be like paths going through wooded areas if that makes sense, Pavement sounds better anyway and as us brits use the term I don't see why it shouldn't be used in a British article. –Davey2010Talk 21:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Pavement. As Davey2010 says, a footpath goes through woods and fields. - 81.141.120.238 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

British sources, including the BBC, The Independent, the Metropolitan Police, Sky News and the Telegraph use "pavement" - I couldn't find one using "footpath". -- de Facto (talk). 21:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no doubt that pavement is the correct (usual) term in British English - probably the only choice of word for the thing. Because of the contrary meaning in American it is an interesting suggestion to remove the need for the word entirely. The phrase "pedestrians on the pavement of London Bridge" appears to have some redundamcy, in the lede, IMO. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
While I continue to disagree, at least "mounting the pavement" might prompt people who use the other sense to look up the link. Article amended accordingly. Pol098 (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree, that's a useful re-working of the sentence. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Big bold sign at the top of this page says: "This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus." XavierItzm (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

No names of victims?

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments10 people in discussion

Is it Wiki policy not to name the victims of an attack? The attackers each have subsections but there's nothing identifying the victims by name and age. Each one has enough coverage to warrant at least a sentence (see this article). —МандичкаYO 😜 08:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy against it. In the article on the recent Westminster attack the victims' names are mentioned. On the other hand, in the article on the Manchester bombing, they're not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleGrazing (talk • contribs) 08:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm curious - are you coming at this from the 'completeness of information' or 'it is disrespectful to the victims to only name the attackers' or some other angle? I guess a case could be made for either point. A counter-argument would be to say that the victims and their families have already suffered enough and we need to respect their privacy. Not to mention that extreme care must be taken not to name anyone until the identities are officially confirmed etc., and including a provision for victims' identities would inevitably encourage some editors to jump the gun, either hastily or maliciously (as seen eg. in the case of the Manchester bombing, when the social media was apparently full of fake 'missing person' notices). DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
See WP:MEMORIAL and WP:BLPNAME. When there is a large fatality count (e.g. think - 9/11 (thousands) or the Orlando shooting (~50)) - a long list of victims takes away from the focus of the article - which is the amount of victims and why the atrocity was committed. If there was a victim that was significant in his own right (besides being victim), or if the identity of the victim in some way "explains" the atrocity that would be grounds for inclusion. For smaller fatality counts this is less of an issue.Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Also note that when you have a large attacker count (e.g. 2008 Mumbai attacks, Garissa University College attack, Beslan school siege) come to mind - and you aren't interested anymore in individual motivation of the attackers (but rather group motivation) - you wouldn't necessarily mention the attackers by name - listing only commanders and the characteristics of the attacking force.Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not immediately obvious (to me) that either of those policies apply here. MEMORIAL - I don't think anyone is intending to turn this article into a memorial by listing the victims' names, any more than it is currently a memorial to the attackers. BLP - doesn't that by definition apply to *living* persons? But taking your point on the number of victims, then given that the number of fatalities in this incident is much closer to the number in the Westminster attack (where the article does list the victims' names) than in the Manchester one (where none are listed), then that would seem to support the inclusion of the names in this article. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Memorial doesn't strictly apply, but what ency purpose is fulfilled by knowing that "29 year old Mary Matthis of Croydon was killed"? I also think we should err on the side of caution with naming people, newspapers are tomorrow's rubbish, WP is notionally more permanent. Pincrete (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It's true that knowing the name and age etc. of 'Mary Matthis' serves no obvious, immediate purpose. But then, that could be said of many details included in the article - or what purpose does it serve to be told that the knives used were 'long', or to have the names of the bars and restaurants listed where people were attacked, or to know that one of the injured was a Bulgarian? Or slightly more to the point, what is the fundamental difference between knowing (or not) the identities of the attackers vs. their victims? DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP also applies to the recently dead, see WP:BDP. TompaDompa (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Once again, a false appeal to WP:MEMORIAL. That policy clearly prohibits people creating pages specifically to memorialise non-notable individuals. Despite over-zealous editors attempts to claim otherwise, it absolutely does not preclude naming victims in a notable incident. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not see how this adds anything other then making the page a memorial. Oppose.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources listing the dead on 9/11. They are not listed on Wikipedia. Is that also censorship? WWGB (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, you are attempting to use the discredited WP:OSE argument to pretend that just because the terrorist attack of 9/11 Wiki does not have something, every other terror attack 16 years later shouldn't, either. XavierItzm (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Mind you, the argument that it must be included if WP:RS say it is also discredited. See WP:NOT and WP:V – in particular WP:ONUS, which says While content must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, verifiability alone is not a reason for inclusion, and does not guarantee that any content must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. TompaDompa (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
No it is not censorship it being encyclopedic. This information adds nothing to our understanding of the attack, or the motivations behind it and just adds words.Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
As long as it's no deeper than name, age and hometown/country, I'm all for IDs (once we have most of them, when fewer than 100). Joe Blow is an entirely different person from Johnny Someone, and Joe Blow, 45, from London is as different from Joe Blow, 54, from Paris. Readers should know basic who's who in a story, whether its the attackers, victims, investigators, reporters or politicians. Where we don't give an age and hometown, its only because we distinguish them another way.
In theory, we could change or hide every name and the story could be understood just as well, plotwise. Many people don't read true crime for the story itself, though, but for the Googleable truthiness. There's a certain something they get from eleven (somewhat) fleshed-out characters that they don't from merely picturing Kuram Shazad Butt, Rachid Redouane and Youssef Zaghba killing eight stock approximations of "civilian in London". That style's better suited for action stories where the heroes quickly kill a bunch of ninjas/Indians/whoever. Those aren't meant to be remotely tragic, this is.
On that note, the victims by nationality table is also in poor taste. Seems like a scoreboard. Killers shouldn't be awarded points for kills or injuries, and countries shouldn't compete for Most Affected. Even as the game it shouldn't be, it doesn't work well. Serious and/or lasting injuries are a bigger blow to a nation's health and social systems than deaths are. Deaths hurt local survivors, but dead victims need for nothing and the state shoulders that burden accordingly. Wounded victims need various things they wouldn't have otherwise, sometimes for decades. With a (preliminary) score of 6-2, the United Kingdom leads Australia in this twisted contest, but Australia takes the silver regardless. Absolutely meaningless. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_London_Bridge_attack/Archive_2&oldid=1136474944"