Wikipedia

Talk:Manchester Arena bombing/Archive 5

< Talk:Manchester Arena bombing
(Redirected from Talk:2017 Manchester Arena bombing/Archive 5)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by אריסטו המקורי in topic "Islamist terror/terrorism"? or only "terror/terrorism"...
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Casualty list

Latest comment: 7 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion

With the recent event on/near London Bridge a strange pattern seems to emerge with regard to missing girls. There is one from Queensland who was with friends and seen running away - and yet three days later she had not been located, as far as I could ascertain. A Scottish girls seems to be missing from the Manchester attack. What I found today is some days old, but I have not found that she was found. I don't know what to think of that, but I do not think that should be omitted. 2001:8003:A072:4800:7DEF:9F0F:B8C7:2995 (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


Would a list of victims with names and ages be applicable? As most dead have been confirmed by families or the police. Or is that not necessary or needed at this time? I appreciate hearing others thoughts on this as if thought of will be adding this or someone else possibly doing it thanks. My regards. DeAllenWeten (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus at Talk:2017 Manchester Arena bombing/Archive 2#RfC: Should the victims be named? not to name the victims. WWGB (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I see no clear consensus. Several yeses, many maybes, conditional on proper sourcing. The "nos" were grounded in feels, not policy.

Any case where a victim is singled out by notable media coverage should be included. For example http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/family-say-kelly-brewster-died-body-shielded-young-niece-manchester/ an aunt and civil servant is covered for her heroic act saving a child. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not news stories. There needs to be a clear reason for naming a person which would improve a reader's understanding. While there are some articles which list all of the victims, I don't think that it is needed here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I just don'y buy this heroic stuff. A blast is instantaneous, you don't get time to place yourself between the blast and a loved one. It was likely just fortuitous that Brewster was between her niece and the bomb. The rest is just the media looking for a human interest angle. WWGB (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I see no problem with a brief list of names, ages, and country of origin. It's standard practice. We did it for the Orlando event, we did it for both Malaysian Airlines flights, other accidents and events, etc. I think it adds plenty to the article to have such a list. Coolgamer (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think it's not helping the privacy of the families, or a reader's understanding. Nevertheless, this is the latest example of an article where we've had this debate.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Listing the deceased is certainly not "standard practice". There is no such list of names at 7 July 2005 London bombings or November 2015 Paris attacks, for example. It seems to be a matter of consensus at each article. The number killed also seems to infuence the decision to publish names. Certainly no list of the dead at September 11 attacks. Is it really a sound argument to publish names only when the list is shortish? WWGB (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
WWGB, above, you pointed to an earlier discussion. Did you see the comments I made there? The section may have been archived before anyone had a chance to read what I said there. Can you (or anyone else) address the following questions?
  • (1) If it is acceptable to take a picture of a memorial where the names of the victims of an attack are named, and use that picture to illustrate the article on the memorial (picture and memorial), why is it not acceptable to list the names in the article? Would it make a difference if the list of names in this example was added to the memorial article or the article on the attack?
  • (2) Is it acceptable to mention victims by name in the running text of the article? The example I an thinking of here is 2017 Westminster attack, where all (four) victims are named in the text of the article, but the victims are not named in list form.
  • (3) People come to Wikipedia looking for information - if they want to find the names of the victims (or just information about the victims), should we not at least point them in the right direction? e.g. would an external link or footnotes pointing to external articles about the victims or (later) a list of the victims be acceptable? For this this article, such an external link would be this one. Should that be added to the article in an external links section?
Carcharoth (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion on whether the dead should be named. It is usually accepted to list the dead when there are only a few, but once the dead number in the hundreds or thousands, we defer. I do wonder how adding "Maude Murgatroyd, 48, from Foobar" adds any encyclopedia value to the article. If there is a new consensus, it may be best to add a sidebar like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Events. WWGB (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The question is, what encyc. value is there in a list? I see none whatsoever, we are not 'hiding the names' so comparisons with photos of memorials is a bit silly. I find 'lists of victims' borderline 'memorial' and that is not our purpose here. Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Pincrete, it is not just a photo of a memorial, it is a photograph of a plaque that lists the names of the victims. What I am trying to do here is get people to consider the differences between a list of names in text, and a photograph of a list of names. If one has encyclopedic value and the other does not (or neither has encyclopedic value), that is fine, but people need to actually say that and articulate why, not just vaguely wave their hands and make claims about encyclopedic value. My view is that a photo of a memorial (the same as a photo of the huge array of flowers laid in St Anne's Square to remember the victims - see 2017 Manchester attack tributes and memorials at St Ann's Square) would have encyclopedic value as visually illustrating a response by others to the event. A list on its own does not do that. I think at least a photo of the flowers laid at St Ann's Square should be included on the main article (this was done here as I was typing!). Does anyone want to give their opinion on the question I asked that hasn't been answered yet, the one about adding an external link? I will add that in a minute as well. Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Carcharoth, it is a matter of intent for me, a photo of a memorial, vigil etc. probably has the purpose you mention, to record public response. A list can have no purpose that I can see apart from being OUR memorial, and, regardless of how we feel, leaving memorials is not what we do IMO. I have yet to hear a sound reason for including a list of names. Pincrete (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
A photograph of a memorial or vigil quite obviously has that purpose (saying "probably" underplays the matter - why are you so sure about a list, but less sure about photographs?). A photograph is a direct record of what exists that was created in response to what happened. i.e. It is OK to record and document memorials on Wikipedia, but not to create memorials. This can be a subtle distinction at times, as writing about memorials can feel like a form of memorialisation, but the focus should be on providing information about the memorialisation that occurred, rather than the people being remembered, though the lines can get blurred quite easily.
I agree with you that a list republished on Wikipedia could be seen as being a form of memorial, and I agree that a list of names of the victims should not be included in this article. But it is, as you say, a matter of intent. Some people will want to include a list of names as a way to ensure the victims are not forgotten, to remember them, to put the focus on the victims and not the person who killed them. These are valid viewpoints and ones that arouse strong emotions. This is why it is important to be careful how to phrase reasoning in discussions such as this. Other people will want to include a list of names not to remember the victims, but to provide information, to provide a record of what happened. The intent in that case is not memorialisation - the intent is to document the history of the event. Do you see the distinction there?
On that note, providing information to the reader, I'd like to ask you a direct question. Do you agree with the inclusion of an external link to an article about the victims? When you sit down and read the whole article from start to finish, to get a feel for its quality, does the relative lack of information in the article about those who were killed, followed by that external link, strike the right balance for you, the right tone? Carcharoth (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If there are WP:RS citing a list of the casualties, it seems quite unencyclopaedic to censor our these WP:RS, unless Wikipedia is somehow running out of space. XavierItzm (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

RS are a necessary, not a sufficient reason for inclusion. What has changed since this RfC? Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Pincrete is correct. reliable sources are necessary, but deciding whether to include a particular fact requires editorial judgement. It is not possible (or desirable) to include everything. I put in an external link to an article on the victims (and no-one has objected to this - Pincrete, did you see the question I asked above?). But there are articles out there on the injured as well. Where do you draw the line? Most of these human interest stories are only brief reports. Only rarely will you get comprehensive and detailed reports and follow-ups over the coming months and years (the daily news media mostly moves on, apart from articles to mark memorial events and anniversary commemorations). Once you start including some details, where do you stop? The line has to be drawn somewhere. My view is that including external links that point readers in the right direction is the best way to balance the tension between providing the reader with information, and not going into excessive detail. Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Excellent argument for picking and choosing partial info and presenting biased data: «reliable sources are necessary, but deciding whether to include a particular fact requires editorial judgement». Must avoid double plus ungood thinking! What happened to the good old we go by the WP:RS? XavierItzm (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@XavierItzm: I see this argument—that we should include whatever the WP:Reliable sources say, sometimes invoking WP:NOTCENSORED to support that assertion—coming up every now and then. I suggest you read our policy WP:What Wikipedia is not, especially the part at the top where it says The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere., the part at WP:NOTEVERYTHING that says Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful., and the part at WP:INDISCRIMINATE that says [...] merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. TompaDompa (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Carcharoth, I didn't answer your direct Q.. I don't know what 'policy answer' is, but personal answer is I would not object to external links to a legitimate victim information/memorial site, but memorial and/or victim info or support isn't something we do, or should attempt to do (badly?). Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Throwing the baby with the bathwater, much? «therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere». No-one is arguing you copy-paste the entirety of the news report about the terrorist attack. Nonetheless, multiple WP:RS have deemed fit to list the casualties, as well as other facts and factoids duly included in the article; erasing only the former naturally is a form of bias which results in censorship of that which you do not like. XavierItzm (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Attacker name in the lead

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

@ZodKneelsFirst: - The attacker's name should be mentioned in the lead, as it is mentioned in the lead of any news coverage (or any long lasting coverage of the events). Your edit summaries of "Removed the attacker's name from the preview as this only seems to aid the perpetrators' aggrandisement of the murderer. The details are further down the page for anyone who wants it." and "The attacker's name is not "hightly pertinent". It's relevant, and the information is there on the page. By making him the headline you're doing Daesh's job for them." exhibit that you aren't exercising NPOV. Articles should be NPOV in relation to Islamic State / UK relations. I might agree with the UK POV, but when editing one should be NPOV. This is an encyclopedia - not a soapbox for either side.Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's obviously an attempt at Damnatio memoriae to remove the name. Omar Mateen killed more people in Orlando (silly sod) but he is still mentioned by name in the WP:LEAD.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the problem is one of tone, in the way the first paragraph is written. Having the second sentence starting "The attacker was...." gives his name undue prominence, as though the writer is promoting it. ("...and the winner is....") Perhaps it would be better if the order of the second and third sentences were reversed, to give greater weight to the number of casualties. So, something like:

On 22 May 2017, a suicide bombing occurred at Manchester Arena in Manchester, England, following a concert by American singer Ariana Grande. The perpetrator detonated a shrapnel-laden homemade bomb at the exit of the arena after the show.Twenty-three adults and children were killed, including the attacker, a 22-year-old British Muslim named as Salman Ramadan Abedi, and 119 were injured, 23 critically.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is OK as an alternative form of wording.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this phrasing treats the attacker as a victim (and giving his name&details prominence in the victim count (where it is debatable whether he should be counted at all)). I modified it a bit - pushing down the attacker details into a second (short) paragraph after the first (short) paragraph.Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that wording is a vast improvement. I'm not sure I agree that leaving out the name is not NPOV. I've never suggested that the attacker's details should be removed from the article completely (although I'm still not sure what's there is necessary). My concern is one of moral responsibility. The killer's background, details etc. are all important and should be included, but it seems to me his name (and I've only objected to his name) and probably his photo is only relevant to those who want him to be remembered. It makes him a martyr, which is Daesh's aim. I understand I'm not likely to win the argument, it just seemed that the tone of the preview para was wrong. ZodKneelsFirst (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm also content with Icewhiz's wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial, and stating that friends remember him being a footballer and a ManU fan is utter rubbish. It's wholly unrelated to the event and his motivations. El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

PS I left the part about weed in because I remember earlier discussions of people wanting to include it. I am totally fine if someone wants to omit it. El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I've omitted it. Singling it out as the important part of the sentence feels like an antique Reefer Madness tale of woe. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

New timing for explosion of bomb - 22:31

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Re this edit: evidence given at the inquest today has said that the bomb went off at 22:31.[1] This is more exact than the previous timing given by the police of around 22:30. It doesn't invalidate the point that 22:33 was when the police received the first emergency phone calls; according to the inquest evidence, it was around two minutes before the first emergency calls were received.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I vote we just put ~22:31. But frankly I don't see it as a material issue. El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
That isn't strictly what the MEN source says. I suspect that police have based this on CCTV footage from the foyer area, which there must have been.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Always better to be specific, if only slightly better. Until we reach tenths of a second, anyway. Most humans can't count or imagine those. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
In the Murder of James Bulger in 1993, Merseyside Police were able to pin down the exact time when Bulger was led out of the shopping precinct by Thompson and Venables. It was 15:42, based on CCTV footage which was much less common in those days.[2] It's unlikely that we will ever see CCTV footage of the Manchester Arena bomb going off on LiveLeak, although it may exist somewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course it exists, it happened in future England. Cameras on buildings, cameras on cars, cameras in space. I don't need to see it to assume police did, and can't imagine a reason they'd lie about (or misread) a simple minute like this. Unless the framerate was crap and it happened near the 59-second mark, I guess. Even then, rounding up seems fair enough to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Photo of Salman Ramadan Abedi

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

The non-free image of Salman Ramadan Abedi is used in this article. After photos of perpetrators have been deleted from other pages, is this an exception or no exception to generally photos of such perpetrators? Does this photo help readers understand the event in question? --George Ho (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I thought it wouldn't be long before someone raised this objection. Personally, I don't think that the perp photo adds a great deal, but nor am I in a great hurry to nominate it for deletion. Also, the deletion rationale would have to be stronger than the routine WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

WClarke, who uploaded the image, is out of town. I thought about adding PROD on it, John (I wonder whether you knew that PROD now applies also to files). However, I decide wait for the uploader's response unless not necessary. --George Ho (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well I would support either a Prod or FFD - We don't include photos of attackers here so I don't really see why this should be any different. –Davey2010Talk 17:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Would you do the honors, go ahead, and PROD it, Davey2010? --George Ho (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
You can use Twinkle to PROD it. George Ho (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  Done - prodded but if it's deprodded then FFD will be our next stop, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Davey, the image was de-prodded. --George Ho (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
You always get one!, Well by all means send it to FFD, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Image is taken to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 13. --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Current Consensus: Muslim Council of Britain

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing/Archive_2#Reaction_from_Muslim_Council_of_Britain


Some consensus. Openly accuse editors who disagree with the inclusion of this organization as individually biased right off the hop. Far cry from the wikipedia BRD. For the record I oppose the inclusion of this organization simply virtue signalling and political advertising. It is not an authoritative voice. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@ACanadianToker: Just for the record, are you proposing that the matter be reassessed per WP:Consensus can change? TompaDompa (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@ACanadianToker: Do you want to erase it per WP:TALKEDABOUTIT?--Rævhuld (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Let me know if you wish to re-open this issue.VR talk 14:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I have a problem with political organizations getting free publicity. I voiced this opposition on other article pages, namely the Westminster terror attack : https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:2017_Westminster_attack/Archive_2#Muslim_Council_of_Britain At a time when motivation was not even mentioned in the press, the perpetrator had not been identified, this political organization received undue attention. The 'Muslim Council' of Britain had as much 'screen' as the Government of Britain. I suspect my reasonings is why consensus was already so decisively reached in this article.
I currently oppose its mention on this page as well. I am sure there were a lot of 'organizations' that condemned the attacks. But I'd only like to reopen the discussion if others feel it is warranted. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
A Muslim council of X condemnation of an Islamic terror attack in X should not be mentioned as it is WP:ROUTINE, and is always stated by these local bodies in these circumstances.Icewhiz (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Wiki quote would be a more appropriate location for a quote from an NGO, notwithstanding the political aspect of the NGO. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should 'Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)' be included in this article?

Latest comment: 7 years ago44 comments29 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This was certainly contentious, but there have only been two comments the last two weeks, so I'll close it (I consider myself uninvolved since the only comment I made was noting the existence of a parallel discussion on another talk page). Arguments have been made on two bases:
  1. Editors' personal assessments about whether this is an instance of Islamic/Islamist terrorism.
  2. Whether WP:Reliable sources support the notion that this is an instance of Islamic/Islamist terrorism.

The former basis falls squarely under WP:Original research, and has been discounted when determining consensus per WP:Closing discussions. The latter concerns whether the inclusion of the template would violate Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy.

In determining whether the assertion that this is Islamic/Islamist terrorism is verified by reliable sources, the only thing that has been considered is whether the bombing has been explicitly identified as such. Circumstantial evidence and speculation can be added in prose, but the inclusion or exclusion of a template is black and white without possibility for such nuance. Note that the WP:Burden of demonstrating verifiability lies with those in favour of including the template.

Reviewing the sources put forth in this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that none of them explicitly identify the bombing as Islamic/Islamist terrorism. Consequently, they do not verify the assertion, and are not sufficient grounds for including the template. Looking at the sources in the article itself, however, I found this one from Reuters where Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Theresa May refers to this bombing as one of three terrorist attacks this year that are bound together by Islamist extremism. I'll note that Mrs. May does not use the words "Islamist" and "terrorist" in conjunction, but I would consider accusations of WP:Synthesis with regards to this to be pure WP:Wikilawyering; it cannot be both Islamist and a terrorist attack without being Islamist terrorism.

In summary, the consensus is: The template shall be included. TompaDompa (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Should the template Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) be included in this article, (and, by extension should the article be listed in the template)? MrX 16:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey
  • No - Until there are some reliable sources that describe the bombing as "Islamic (or Islamist) terrorism. Until then, the presence of the template violates WP:V and WP:NPOV.- MrX 16:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, assuming post brexit UK should be part of Europe. A Muslim suicide bomber committing an act of terror. The perp's muslim faith is clearly established. That this is an acr of terror is also established. Ergo this is Ialamic terror.Icewhiz (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Britain is still part of the European continent. Please don't allow your anger over European politics to influence your editing. There are many European countries that aren't a part of the EU.--v/r - TP 20:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, but after satisfying MrX's request for a source. I can't imagine it being particularly difficult, seeing the perp's background and ISIL's boasting. As for UK being in Europe, it's geographically bound to Europe. "Europe" != "European Union". -- sarysa (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No, there isn't a great deal of ergo other than Post hoc ergo propter hoc. As I've said, the article must not conflate being a Muslim - which is OK - with being a terrorist, which isn't. It's sloppy wording when this sort of thing occurs. Citation needed for the Islamist angle first, as MrX says.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No - Why is the question even asked? The probability given all we know so far, is that there is going to be a strong Islamist component to this. I can work out that possibility, so can the reader, BUT so long as there is not a very clear statement from authorities, we should not say it. Maybe is a long way from is.Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course it should. SarahSV (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes as clearly relevant, whatever sources show about the exact motive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes per my source below which says that police have moved away from the suspicion that he was a lone wolf.--v/r - TP 00:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No. I still haven't seen any good reliable sources. Just because he was not lone-wolf, doesn't mean it Islamic terror.VR talk 04:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No - I think we can all agree it was Isis related however we need reliable sources that actually state this, Maybe or could be isn't good enough. –Davey2010Talk 16:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No - unless reliable sources are presented. I came here after being invited by RfC bot.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Yes , so long as supported by proper WP:RS. Though I wouldn't be surprised if some authority or another, say, the President of the United States, attributes the whole thing to "workplace violence," for example. XavierItzm (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, definitely. Clearly relevant and clearly evident from the sources. StuartH (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment And the sources for this? Today even Theresa May refused to confirm. Yes this probably is "Islamist" and in good time that will probably be made explicit, not yet. Pincrete (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No It might have been "Islamic (or Islamist) terrorism." It probably was. It almost certainly was. I think it was. "I think, almost certainly, probably" are not good enough, though. As yet, there are no reliable sources saying it definitely was and, therefore, it shouldn't be listed as such. Wait until there is RS.Misha An interested observer of this and that 12:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes We know who and what it was. Hiding it and keeping it at bay seems like an attempt to whitewash the facts. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Yes Everything indicates that he was motivated by Islamism, not by hatred for Ariana Grande's songs. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes Sources are already overwhelmingly characterizing this as an act of terrorism and the perpetrator is said to have substantial links to ISIS (which has claimed responsibility for the attack). The litmus test for including a template is not that it satisfies or fails each individual editor's idiosyncratic notions with regard to the article's topic, but that the template be reasonably likely to be useful to a significant number of readers utilizing the article. I think it's manifestly clear that many readers studying the details of this attack may find the template useful for following up on topics which intersect with this article's subject. Snow let's rap 08:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Snow Rise, the RfC is not about whether this was terrorism, all sources are clear that it was. It is about whether it is 'Islamic terrorism', which is a term most sources, and certainly UK authorities have not used so far. Is there any other rational explanation given Abedi's religion, background and manner of attack? Probably not, but is 'probably no other explanation' a reliable basis for saying something now that either will, or will not be confirmed in due course?Pincrete (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe my initial comments already attest to why I think the Islamic angle is sufficiently established here to warrant the template. There doesn't seem to be any kind of confusion (in our sources or generally) as to just what kind of terrorist the perpetrator was. He was under investigation for links to Islamist groups, his radical views were public enough to have been reported to security services on at least five separate occasions (they were also attested to on social media), he traveled abroad to learn bomb making, and ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack. Nor do we have to resort to any kind of synthesis of these facts; we have more than enough sources commenting on the religious dimension to robustly satisfy the WP:DUE argument. In fact, from what I can see, every single source we use in the article at present which speaks to his motivation has treated his religious views as the presumptive cause for the attack. I agree the case will be even stronger as we get more sources reporting on just what all the security services knew, but even now I think we are way, way past the minimum threshold for establishing a nexus with "Islamic terrorism in Europe" sufficient to include the template. Snow let's rap 14:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
That said, the !vote is divided enough here that it's clear it's not going to be closed immediately, and there's no harm in waiting for further details and even more explicit sourcing before re-adding the template. Snow let's rap 14:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes Information is now even coming out that he was investigated by intelligence services as having been part of an ISIS terror cell before the attack. Sources linking the attack specifically to Islamist/ISIS terrorism: CNN, CBS. User2534 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I see no one (in authority?) saying it is 'Islamic terrorism', I see lots of journos speculating all kinds of reasons why it probably is, could well be, is in the same pattern as etc. Pincrete (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Time says that AP says that a Libyan low-ranking policemen says that the bomber's 18 year old brother says that the bomber said he "wanted to "seek victory for the Islamic State."" That is really authorative as a source. Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Do you want me to bring Abedi back from the dead and ask him personally? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I want WP to be based on RS not the assessment of editors. That is what distinguishes it. Readers have brains too, from the moment I heard about this incident I thought the most probable explanation is an 'Islamist' motive, I still think that. I also know that no RS has said it as yet. Do you generally believe single junior Libyan police unquestioningly, or is this a special case? Pincrete (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Terrorism in Europe whether you are left or right in your political leanings, is primarily Islamic in motive, readers already know that it was a Muslim who committed the crime, do you know why? Because it almost always is. The fact of the matter is, only recently did we get an attack in Egypt, you need to make a link between Islamism and this page, because thats clear to anyone who isn't in denial. Political motive and Islamism are strongly connected, I need only point you to the examples of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and other variants in other Islamic republics. The ideal of Sharia links in to this. If I am a robot, with no political leanings, no biases or agendas regarding pointing blame to ordinary Muslims, or trying to not mention the word at all to avoid offence. What would I do? I would state he was indeed a Muslim, as this was his master status, or most important defining characteristic. We know he killed himself for his beliefs, so lets state that, rather than treading on eggshells to avoid offence, don't get me wrong, I don't like that this causes people to justify Islamophobia, but we must tell the truth, this is the truth, I don't want this site to be loose with the truth and omit words for fear of offence. Factsoverfeelings (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

"We know he killed himself for his beliefs". No, we don't. We may suspect it, it may be common sense to assume it, it might be "obvious"; but we don't know. We don't know that he acted because of his beliefs or because he was made to do it by someone else or because he was just insane. You are not alone in wanting the article to tell the truth; the fact is that until we have RS we don't know the truth. As I said above, ""I think, almost certainly, probably" are not good enough for an encyclopedic article.Misha An interested observer of this and that 14:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
What rot. Of course we know. It was a suicide bombing. Silly.74.37.202.124 (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

"Islamic" terrorism? Many leaders of the Islamic faith in the UK and elsewhere condemn all Islamist terrorism, including the most recent attacks in the UK which are being attributed to Islamists. Isn't the phrase "Islamic terrorism" inaccurate, a breach of WPNPOV, and, dare I say it, Islamophobic? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic comment: The Islamic/Islamist issue is currently under discussion at Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)#Requested move 29 May 2017. TompaDompa (talk) 15:55, 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.

Abedi "used YouTube videos" to make bomb

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is on the front page of The Times today. The story is here but as usual it has a paywall so you can't see all of it. From what I read, the story is a bit misleading. Abedi may well have looked at YouTube videos, but it's unlikely that every dot and comma of the bomb's construction came from a YouTube video. As the story points out, he downloaded material from other websites about Acetone peroxide (TATP), and may have had additional help when he visited Libya.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Abedi "banned from mosque"

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Re this edit: It was reverted because it was added as part of the caption of the photo of Abedi. He was banned from a mosque "after criticising an imam for "talking bollocks""[3] but it's unclear if it was the mosque at which the photo was taken. It's also unclear if the photo was taken at a mosque, although various sources have said that it was. Some sources say that he was banned from Didsbury mosque.[4] The fact that he was banned from a mosque is notable and worth mentioning, but it needs to stick closely to the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I would (as was done in the article) just leave out that this was taken as a mosque - it's not really relevant where the photo was taken (though this was clearly attributed to a mosque + appears to be in a mosque). I agree that it is not clear that he was banned from the mosque in which the photo was taken. The current caption of "Abedi photographed several years before the attack" is spot-on and avoids all these issues - which are tangential to the use of the image.Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The entry involving this event is proposed at Talk:2017#RfC: Events in May and June 2017, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Concert "sold-out" or not?...

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Ianmacm: @Mymis: There has been some back&forth about whether or not the concert should be either characterized as sold-out ("sold-out" - early reporting from SkyNews) or if the tickets sold should be 14,200 with edit summaries stating that "it was not sold out, per Billboard".

  • Ok, so the Billboard references states "14,158 [tickets were sold and that]/14,218 [is the capacity]"...so the disagreement is over 60 (possible) seats sold?
  • So: The BBC says that 14,200 people attended BUT the box-office stats from Billboard says that 14,158 tickets were sold. The BBC is apparently off by 42 from "tickets sold" as enumerated by Billoard (maybe the Beebs rounded up?) or is rounding down from the "sold out" figure as stated by SkyNews.
  • So, "14,200" is apparently not quite correct and "sold-out" isn't quite correct either.

Unless someone is going to try to step in and characterize Billboard as being somehow unreliable, then the Billboard box-office figure of "14,158" should probably be allowed to stand as authoritative. Shearonink (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It isn't worth arguing over whether 60 seats were empty at a venue designed to hold 14,000. Here is a stadium that obviously isn't full; it is quite normal for this to happen at the Olympics. As for the Manchester bombing, it doesn't really matter whether the Ariana Grande concert was fully booked or not, but the sourcing suggests that it was pretty much fully booked.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your assessment but there is a bit of an edit/revert back&forth about how to best characterize the box-office because of the small differences between the sources. Shearonink (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Use of the noun "attack" to describe the event

Latest comment: 6 years ago27 comments6 people in discussion
Enough said on this, general discussions about policy should be raised at the Village pump.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The innuendo and spectres that one might expect to litter Pentagon briefings should not provide the basis for an encyclopedia article that aims to be disinterested. Alfred Nemours (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You've posted exactly the same wording over at Talk:2016 Nice attack and many other articles. This isn't a good thing to do and is a form of talk page spam in an attempt to draw attention to your argument. Article titles are often the result of WP:CONSENSUS from a discussion. The only way to change the article title and get it to stick is to get consensus for a requested move.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Take a minute to actually read the comment itself. Your point is addressed right at the top. The comment is furthermore not an "argument" but merely articulates a concern that is relevant to discussions of several events. On the contrary, the concern raised by the comment is the possibility that what has been summarily called an "attack" is actually an argument in the guise of disinterested reporting on an event. This concern has been posted in the talk page of such discussions, so that it does not get in the way of any article (but is at the same time available to those who care enough about an entry to read and register concerns about its background or accuracy). It is merely one unobtrusive bulletpoint among many. (It is of some length only because I wanted to register the concern with some explanation.) Feel free to dismiss the concern. But I want to register the concern in an unobtrusive bulletpoint of the talk page where relevant for those who might care enough about an individual event to consider the way it has been characterized. The concern may be inapt. But calling expression of this concern "spam" isn't fair, since it is not pushing anything nor is it obtrusive. It rather pauses to consider a point fundamental to more than one article that much discussion has simply glossed over. One of the things that gives wikipedia so much potential as a source of information is the opportunity for many individuals with diverse understandings of a given topic to raise questions and concerns via the talk page without fear of being railroaded or silenced, even if those concerns do not end up getting reflected in the substance of the article itself.Alfred Nemours (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Definition of attack: an aggressive and violent action against a person or place. Sounds good to me ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Your definition is very interesting. Your definition highlights something I overlooked, which is the suggestion of "outsiderness" carried by the word "attack." You brought this to my attention by saying a "violent action against a...place." It seems to me that describing an event as violence directed against a place comes with the suggestion that the violence is committed by an outsider. (Absent some explanation one wouldn't expect to see "an attack on Poland" committed by one or more Poles.) Your definition also highlights the geopolitical aspect carried by the word attack (again, directed to a person or _place_). But repeatedly we see "attack" being used summarily to by innuendo suggest the outsiderness of the perpetrator and the geopolitical nature of the event (even when committed by residents or citizens of the countries that they are said to have attacked). Let me add that I think that the suggestion of collective action that comes with the word "attack" is hard to deny. I mean if an attack were simply "violent action against a person," it might as easily be characterized as "battery" or "assault," or in the case of death, "murder." What distinguishes "battery" or "assault" (or "murder") from an "attack"? I think that the first set of terms in contrast to "attack" emphasizes the individual, criminal nature of the action (rather than the collective, geopolitical). If words are indeed bundles of verbal associations, it might be worthwhile not to leave aside entirely the legal/political dimension of the word "attack" suggesting an act of war that initiates, or breaks a peace. Distaste for scapegoating seems to me to require that an allegation of collective responsibility should be made explicit according to the evidence provided, but should not come by way of innuendo. Though his particular article seems well-titled, one might ask what motivates (at the present time I count) 29 mentions of the word "attack" where "bombing" (or "detonation" or "murder") might have as easily been chosen. To be clear, I am neither editing this article nor advocating that the article be edited. But the question remains.Alfred Nemours (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
This is classic social sciences jargon. You are reading all sorts of things into the word "attack" that most people would not. Many Wikipedia articles use the word "attack", the most obvious being September 11 attacks.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, and for grading the quality of my expository writing. :) But on the substantive point I respectfully disagree. "Attack" has an established meaning in International Law. It invokes the register of war. It denotes collective action. It at the same embodies a claim about who is initiating such a war, suggesting collective responsibility. These are very specific interpretive choices, presented as if they amounted to straight description. I would expect to find them in a Pentagon briefing that attempts to justify an ensuing military campaign. I am surprised to find them in an article that aims to be disinterested. Alfred Nemours (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
English Wikipedia uses English; not Legal English which is somewhat different, or legal language specific to International Law, which can be yet different. English has a remarkable number of definitions for words. You will find that the use of English can vary by article. British or American spellings, Medical English in medical articles. There is no reason to use a definition specific to International Law whenever we use the word “attack”. Besides, we use the words used by reliable sources. Objective3000 (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
First, thanks for your interest and contribution to this discussion. As to the substance of your contribution, I think it is important to consider how the word is actually being used in the given context. It is certainly true that "attack" is used in many senses, among them figurative. One might talk of an attack on a goal in a game such as football, lacrosse, or hockey for instance. (Someone even brought to my attention the different meaning of "attack" indicated by the expression, "an attack on Noam Chomsky"--which would indicate, for example, either a refutation of the views of Noam Chomsky, or a denunciation of the character of Noam Chomsky.) But none of this seems to me to have the slightest relevance to the concern being raised. The concern pertains to the use of the word "attack" not in discussions of sports or verbal denunciations, but in news accounts and other discussions that explicitly invoke geopolitics and international affairs. No claim is being made about the singularity of the meaning of the word "attack" or of any other word. Rather, the concern is directed at the widespread--and indeed, ubiquitous (widespread to such an extent that it is apparently not even noticed) use of the word "attack" to (1) raise the spectre of collective action, one of war, and (2) suggest responsibilty for initiating such a war (again, not by means of explicit discussion, but by way of suggestion and innuendo). None of this seems to me to befit any disinterested discussion of an event, let alone that of an aspiring encyclopedia article. And restating the fact that "attack" is used often enough in what are taken to be reliable sources in characterizing certain violence does not engage the concern--but only underscores the basis for the concern.
Alfred Nemours (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
If the preponderance of reliable sources use a noun, that's the noun we use. That's the way Wikipedia works. Objective3000 (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Shearonink (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The authoritativeness of news sources does not lie in their judgments about politics or international affairs, or their interpretations of international law. It lies in their statement of the facts, in their reporting of the concrete details surrounding a given event. You both would be quite right if the issue were whether an event actually began at 8:30 or 8:45. But the concerns raised here involve whether an event is being portrayed in such a way as to provide a very selective interpretation of the actors involved, judgments about collective responsibility (including the possibility of defaming entire groups of people), and the wider social context more generally. These issues are interpretative and conceptual, particularly vulnerable to kneejerk portrayals and other varieties of recentism. You both are citing the reliability of news and other opinion leaders on matters about which they're least reliable.
Incidentally, what I'm saying above is entirely in agreement with Wikipedia standards on sourcing. Alfred Nemours (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I would characterize the 2017 bombing of the Manchester Arena as an attack. Shearonink (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, and for your contribution to this discussion. Alfred Nemours (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
BBC News, Manchester Evening News and The Guardian are all mainstream British media sources which have used the word "attack", unsurprisingly as it is a common English word often used to describe terrorist incidents. We are here to report what reliable sources have said, not to write an essay on the meaning of the word "attack" for a social sciences coursework assignment. If it's good enough for secondary reliable sources, it's good enough for Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You're citing the reliability of the BBC, Manchester Evening News, and the Guardian on a topic on which these guys are least reliable. See my reply to Objective3000 and Shearonink above. Alfred Nemours (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • WP is not censored. WP does not stop using commonplace words because editors think they can be misinterpreted. This is an encyclopedia, not an academic essay, a legal treatise or a social science controlled study. Attack is an encyclopedic word with a basic definition which fits what occurred in Manchester. Individual concerns about potential connotations that might be drawn due to an elongated chain of causation is not really something we should be spending our time on. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Your fire is misdirected. The point is accuracy and disinterestedness, not essay writing. Alfred Nemours (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You need a basic crash course in the five pillars. Wikipedia is not a social sciences course where personal opinions and analyses override what secondary reliable sources have said. The reason why the article September 11 attacks has this title is because it is the WP:COMMONNAME for this incident. There is now an element of failing to get the point, so I'm not going to say the say the same things endlessly.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more on the importance of the Five Pillars. That's why I mentioned disinterestedness (neutrality). Also, you have simply restated the importance of secondary reliable sources that I've already directly replied to. Please see my reply above on reliable sources and recentism. Alfred Nemours (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, your point is about accuracy. But, that is not how Wikipedia works. This is not a guideline, but an essay, which explains where accuracy fits into the WP concept: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Objective3000 (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Again, accurancy and disinterestedness. And recentism. From an essay (also not a guideline) on recentism in the WP concept: "When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time." Alfred Nemours (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Usage of the word "attack" to describe politically-motivated assaults, various truck-bombings, targeted suicide-bombings, mass murders of individuals identifying as being part of a group, etc

And then there's:

The word "attack" is a perfectly serviceable word, it describes what happened in all of these instances, in the various yearly "Attack" Categories, in the List of attacks and so on. I think, Alfred Nemours, that you consider the word to be somehow unfairly or pejoratively applied within the pages of Wikipedia, but so far, the overwhelming editorial consensus is to keep the word as is in the articles you have posted on multiple Wikipedia talkpages about. You are focussed on your interpretation of one particular understanding of the word but there are other definitions that apply:

an act against (someone or something) aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill
an aggressive and violent action against a person or place
to set upon with violent force
a violent attempt to harm a person, animal, or place
An aggressive and violent act against a person or place
to try to hurt or defeat someone or something using violence
a violent act intended to hurt or damage someone or something

It seems to me:

  • that if the references (for all these various WP articles that use attack in their title or that use the word within the article) also use the word "attack"
  • and that if their usage is not incorrect according to commonly-accepted definitions
  • and that also the word is being used within Wikipedia articles and this usage is within the commonly accepted definitions

then I have to say I don't understand what the problem is with using the word "attack" in Wikipedia article titles and within the articles themselves. Shearonink (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You might have added the WP entry on lacrosse, where "attack" is mentioned 24 times. This point has already been discussed in detail above. The word "attack," like other words, has many meanings. The reason why use of the word "attack" in the WP entry on the Columbine massacre (and in several other of the entries you mention) is not troubling is because no reader could plausibly understand from the entry that the event was an act of war. This would not clearly be the case had the perpetrators been, say, North Korean nationals at a time after the United States bombed and occupied Pyongyang. In such a case I think repeated and unthinking use of the word "attack" to describe the event would be misleading absent some cautionary qualification.
Guys, no one is trying to censor any WP entry or expunge any trace of the word "attack" from one or more WP entries. In fact, as you guys have underscored, our presses have (whether deliberately or unthinkingly) continually labeled most any violence with suspected middle eastern origin in the past 15+ years with the word "attack" without explanation at a time when several middle eastern countries are subject to bombing and occupation. This depiction, however misleading, is now part of the historical record, and I think it should be preserved. But as a Wikipedia discussion of recentism notes, we can do better than simply regurgitate media coverage of an event, even if simply by way of some brief cautionary addendum. Alfred Nemours (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


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

Re closure reason by Ian, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_56#Use_of_the_word_"attack"_in_various_article_titles for discussion. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is this article categorized under "WikiProject Islam Articles", et al.?

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Why is this article categorized under "WikiProject Islam Articles" (as well as under "C-Class Islam-related articles" and "Low-importance Islam-related articles")? Odd.

Jim Crow was justified by means of Biblical injunction. Should Jim Crow be linked to "WikiProject Christianity"? Or "WikiProject Bible"? Alfred Nemours (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

While that may sound bad, including such articles in the Islam Wikiproject means that it will receive more attention from the members of that project, many of whom are knowledgeable about and/or adherents of Islam. Which is likely to improve neutral point of view. Objective3000 (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore this Talk page is not a forum to discuss the fairness of WikiProjects. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 11:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing/Archive_4#RfC_Regarding_the_Attacker.27s_Religion where this was discussed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
If the Jim Crow laws article dealt with the underpinnings and justifications for the Jim Crow laws and those reliably-sourced underpinnings and justifications included racist interpretations of Christian theology then I would have no problem including that particular article under WikiProject Christianity. At present, the Crow article does not.
I also think it should not be classified as being part of WikiProject Bible for two reasons - 1)does not mention any aspect of the Bible and 2)WikiProject Bible would seem to be more appropriate for people, places, countries, religions specifically named in the Bible itself, not for connecting "Jim Crow laws" with a bedrock of the Jewish, Christian & (the Pentateuch, Psalms, etc) Islamic religions
Re this particular article & WikiProject Islam? - Because 2017 Manchester Arena bombing#Attacker. Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Costa Rica incident

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm just wondering if this would be worth a brief mention somewhere. It's getting a lot of coverage, though I suspect only because of what happened in Manchester. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like someone added it, and then someone took it out. I think it may be worth mentioning- if not here, perhaps in the reactions article? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
It could - and may well have been - a routine piece of nonsense from a crank. At best it isn't directly related to the attack in Manchester, and may soon fade from the news headlines, leading to problems with long term notability.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps that's a reason to keep it out of here, but as for the reactions article: the reactions of celebrities and world leaders have long been unnotable, even if they were notable in the first place, and probably have only a single mention somewhere This seems to be an attempted copy-cat, so I think a mention there wouldn't hurt. BUT I see where you're coming from and don't disagree so either way I think it will be fine. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 16:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

See also section

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Re this edit: Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014-present) and 2017 Westminster attack are largely redundant, because they are already covered by other see alsos and portal links. The Boston Marathon bombing is not a related incident in an immediate and obvious way that needs mentioning.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree, the section is for related topics not for any incident that happens to be a terrorist attack. This is Paul (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments13 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: moved DrStrauss talk 09:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


2017 Manchester Arena bombing → Manchester Arena bombing – The present title contravenes Wikipedia policy, common sense and good taste.

  1. Two points of the WP:Article titles policy are contravened: WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. The former says that when there are two titles which are both "precise and unambiguous" (Manchester Arena bombing and 2017 Manchester Arena bombing), we should opt for the one that is "the most concise title to fully identify the subject" (i.e. Manchester Arena bombing). WP:PRECISE tells us that "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that".
  2. The unnecessary disambiguator in the title of the article is misleading readers. It suggests that there was a previous Manchester Arena bombing from which this Manchester Arena bombing should be disambiguated. While the title Manchester Arena bombing would make it clear that this was the only bombing in Manchester Arena, the title 2017 Manchester Arena bombing prompts me to waste my time looking up a previous one.
  3. By keeping this article at this title, we are not only ignoring the policy, but also leaving the wrong impression that the current format is proper practice, leading to new articles with titles which again contravene the policy and common sense. People think it is supposed to be done that way and even cite this as an example, but it is not. For example, the article Grenfell Tower fire was once moved to 2017 Grenfell Tower fire and Unite the Right rally was created under the title 2017 Unite the Right rally, all due to this misunderstanding. Will this lead to 1940 Battle of France, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, 1878 Berlin congress, etc?
  4. Preemptive disambiguation has been "rejected by the Wikipedia community on countless occasions" (quoting David Levy). The so-called "future-proofing", or disambiguating this from a future Manchester Arena bombing (as if expected), is not only unnecessary and misleading, but also quite distasteful and morbid.
  5. Carcharoth has suggested that either "2017" or "Arena" be dropped from the article title to make it less clumsy, as 2017 Manchester bombing would also be in line with the policy. I decided to go with Manchester Arena bombing because it was favored by more users.
  6. It has been pointed out (by Neutrality) that the title Manchester Arena bombing would be in line with similarly unique attacks in the United Kingdom such as Harrods bombings, Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings, London Hilton bombing, King's Cross station and Euston station bombings, Downing Street mortar attack, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 08:44, 3 October 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.

New image in article

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re this edit: I think it has problems with WP:PERTINENCE because it doesn't show the actual area of the bombing clearly. It would be better to have an infobox image of the Arena building that is newer than the one from 2010 which is used. If G-13114 is in or near Manchester, it would be very useful as the exterior of the Arena looks considerably different now than it did in 2010. The sponsorship and branding with the Manchester Evening News ended in 2011, [5] so the image is out of date; people have pointed this out before. Surely someone must be able to take an up to date photo.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Abedi's funeral

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Re this edit: numerous mosques and undertakers in the UK said that they would not handle Abedi's body.[6][7] According to this source from November 2017 "His family could not find a mosque which would deal with his remains so flew them to Tripoli where they were buried in a secret location without a full Islamic service." However, it isn't strong sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The text does seem to contain a significant chunk of direct borrowing. My main worry was WP:DUE, however. It may be worth mentioning that local mosques refused a funeral to Abedi, but it should be done is a way that keeps it simple and without long quotes or commentary. This situation also occurred with the Moors murders, because numerous funeral directors refused to handle Ian Brady or Myra Hindley.[8] It's unclear what has happened to Abedi's body and the November 2017 source isn't ideal, but it seems plausible that he was buried in Libya, as there are no reports of any ceremony in the UK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

He's either a Muslim or He's Not

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Lede should include this, one way or the other. I came here to "remember" this particular attack and tbh at this point I don't know if he was Muslim or not. Expected to see it, one way or the other, in the lede. It's not there. That looks like censorship if true, and censorship by failing to say he was NOT Muslim, if it's not true. (Pandering to a religious group known world-wide to do this sort of thing over a long period of time, by failing to note that in this case it the bomber was NOT muslim, or being fearful of Muslim reprisals by failing to answer the obvious question everyone is asking.) Either way, it's censorship, IMO. The only way to deal with it is to deal with it directly.2605:6000:6947:AB00:11DD:A43D:6F9:D330 (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

See the thread "Islamist terror/terrorism"? or only "terror/terrorism" above. I've supported "Islamist" because it is the BBC's term for people who are motivated by extremist doctrines of Islam. Given that all of the mosques in the UK refused to bury him (he was apparently buried in Libya) his status as a Muslim in the UK had been effectively revoked by church leaders. He might have thought that his actions were compatible with Islam, but the vast majority of British Muslims didn't.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The article describe the "attack" as an "Islamic Terrorist attack" but does not describe the person that actually committed it. As I understand it, Islam is a decentralized religion, i.e. they have no formal heirarchy, such as a Pope, and so the "official word" by any church on whether or not the perpetrator of the attack was actually a Muslim or not seems fairly weak. The Pope can state publically whether or not someone is or is not, was or was not a Catholic, but I don't believe any Muslim Mosque or religious leader can make this determination, due to the decentralized nature of the religion. Further, as I understand it, there are various branches within Islam, and who's to say which branch he either did, or did not belong to? However, if this is asserted to be the standard, then I would ask if there are, or have ever been, ANY Islamic Religious Leaders that have ever "claimed" a terrorist as being "one of their own". If it never happens, and it never has happened, that means one thing, and if it has happened, but not in this case, that means something else. (Comparing which Islamic Terrorists either are, or are not, "claimed" by which part of the Islamic religion. The point here is to illustrate how murky, subjective and also how far outside Wikipedia Editor's influence and control such a standard would be. It also seems kind of convenient; a way of (Wikipedia) "passing the buck" in order to avoid having to make a hard judgement call, and commit to it. Certainly the general public doesn't put much effort into applying any standard at all. It's generally accepted that if the terrorist says he's doing it in the name of Islam, then that is the framing around the act. Seems to me that Wikipedia should have some compelling reasons for not simply adopting the perspective and the thinking of the rest of the (non-Islamic) world believes.2605:6000:6947:AB00:11DD:A43D:6F9:D330 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It's simplistic and even baseless to say the attacker was motivated by "extremist doctrines of Islam." No doubt ISIL is an Islamic extremist organization known for numerous horrific religiously-motivated actions against the people who come under its control, but the motive for this attack seems to be political; see the section below that I started. Finsternish (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Islamist terror/terrorism"? or only "terror/terrorism"...

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Recent edits have removed the wording "Islamist terror" etc from the article - I have restored the wording but let's discuss the matter here. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep As I've said before, "Islamist" is used by the BBC to describe people who are motivated by extremist doctrines of Islam, not mainstream Islam.[9][10] The repeated efforts to remove the word "Islamist" run into problems with WP:NOTCENSORED because Abedi was not a random crank. He had acquired Islamist extremist views that led to the attack and text of the article makes this clear.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep "Islamist" is used in the sources and I've seen nothing in reliable news reports that suggests a motive other than radical / extreme Islamism for Abedi's actions. JezGrove (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

So there’s no motive for his actions? Lavinia Belcrove (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a clear ideology behind the attempt to deny and wipe out the Muslim origin of so many terrorist attacks nowadays. The origin is Islam, and the big plan of these terrorists to turn the whole world to be Muslim. This idea is clearly expressed and preached in mosques and elsewhere, and is the source of motivation to these attacks. It is not a question of race or ethnicity but of a cultural motivation. Known are the cases of Western origin individuals who converted to Islam and then went out to commit terrorist attacks in the name of Islam.

On the other hand, there is the approach of ideologists, such as Barack Obama, who think that if they deny this fact, they would somehow contribute to world peace. I still remember how Obama described the Islamic terrorist attack on the Jewish supermarket in Paris, killing four jews this way: "...a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who... randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” [11]. Muslims turned into zealots and Jews turned into folks. What a way to understand reality.

As far as the human experience is accumulated so far, denying a problem is never the way to solve it, and even if it was, the job of Wikipedia is to tell the truth, otherwise it stops being an encyclopedia and turns into Pravda. (אריסטו המקורי (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC))

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester_Arena_bombing/Archive_5&oldid=1136986020"