Jump to content

Talk:2017 London Bridge attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CitationKneaded (talk | contribs) at 04:37, 4 June 2017 (→‎Motive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is pretty recent

is ongoing, and might not warrant an article in the end. It's also not yet confirmed as a terrorist attack, so it'd be worth leaving that out for now -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 21:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There have been at least two recent incidents which turned out to be nothing to do with terrorism, and so far not even the Murdoch press have speculated about terrorism yet. Uncle Roy (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, could be a mad hatter in a mass spree and not all of those are notable to have a page.Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, it could simply be another incident of workplace violence, you know. XavierItzm (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second attack at Borough Bistro

We now have a second incident at Borough Bristro in London, looks like we are seeing another situation similar to November 13, 2015 Paris attack where Terrorist hit several soft targets. --Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not yet confirmed as a terrorist attack, but given the two incidents it could well be. It may be worth waiting until a credible news outlet uses the word "Terrorist" -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With this incident being in more than one location should we rename it? Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Borough Bistro and Borough Market are different. Both are being evacuated due to an incident. May have to rename this to focus on London as a whole. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 22:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As this is still an on-going incident and rapidly unfolding at a rate of knots, I personally feel it is too soon to speculate on links and similarities. Wes Wolf Talk 22:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^ this, and the fact that unless this gets confirmed as a terror attack, it may well not be notable enough to keep around -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Until there is confirmation in reliable sources, I'd oppose a rename as we don't know yet if this is even an attack or related to the Market. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but it depends Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the source of this is this metro.co.uk report, I think this could be over-interpreting a tweet. The tweet and the overall article are consistent with exiting a bar, seeing an injured bleeding person and either correctly or incorrectly believing that someone had a knife in his hand. It doesn't sound like a separate incident. Boud (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a confirmed attack

Has any credible news outlets confirmed this as a terrorist attack? I can't find any. @Walsak: you mentioned one when you restored the attack mention -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

>> I was watching Sky News and they said so about five minutes ago on the live feed on Youtube.--Walsak (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Walsak: Anything in a reliable source? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor There'sNoTime: nothing reliable to confirm terrorism at this early stage. BBC have even reported that the police have not confirmed anything of the sort (terrorism or linked incidents) and urge people not to speculate whilst they are investigating a rapid-evolving series of incidents. Wes Wolf Talk 22:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxhall

Forth incident, what now. Should we rename. Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its the third, not forth. And still too soon for renaming. It is already clear all this is unfolding at an alarming rate. Hold fire and be patient. Wes Wolf Talk 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. These are not necessarily linked yet so we'll just give it time. Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Someone keeps insisting on categorising this article as 'Bridge disasters' and 'Road incidents'. Come on! How stupid is that? 86.185.30.254 (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very - so can we stop doing that please? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Used to be called "terror attacks", but perhaps editors would prefer entitling these unpleasantnesses as "events"? XavierItzm (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third incident

BBC are now reporting of a third incident in Vauxhall. I can see this article getting rather messy with severe disruptive editing. When is best for semi-pp? Wes Wolf Talk 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well there isn't any yet, so move on, to put it politely. Check policy. SP is ONLY for vandalism that can't be otherwise dealt with! It's not for preemption. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wesley Wolf Is salting it until the incident(s) have fleshed out more and have RS and not ongoing an option? I know it's not but I had to try...CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wesley Wolf: Trying not to, I prefer to err on the side of allowing editing than restricting it, but it's getting a little silly -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no problem with the editing so far, except for overzealous removal of material. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
No it is not getting silly. I get really pissed off when as soon as something like this comes along a load of control freaks come along to freeze out IPs for no good reason at all. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chill, it's not being protected just yet -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Control freaks? And "move on"? No personal attacks, please! IPs have been warned from a couple of admins about attacking me lately. Wes Wolf Talk 22:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but please don't SP this article unless IP vandalism becomes a real problem. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Until it becomes an issue, don't protect it. And it isn't that difficult to create an account if you're being constructive. You sound too experienced to be an ip. Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but I'm on my works computer, and I never log on from it (and I won't now edit this article at all while logged on). 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have a significant number of very experienced IP editors. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

To editor Chrissymad: correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the act of salting something mean the placing of creation protection level on an article? As this is already created, then I'm not suggesting salting whatsoever. All I'm saying is if this gets out of hand should we be looking into protection? This is likely to appear on the main page, so protection level will be required at some stage per WP:SEMI which strongly recommends when an article is subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. This is high media attention. Wes Wolf Talk 23:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wesley Wolf: I was joking because right now it's bound to be a hot mess of unsourced or unreliably sourced claims as the incident is unfolding and I was suggesting it would be better to have no article and no ability to create the article than to have a dumpster fire. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Chrissymad: ah right, LOL. Shall I get the coffee pot on boil? Looks like this could be a long-haul night keeping watch on this article. Wes Wolf Talk 23:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rapid straw poll move

Propose moving to London incidents of 3 June 2017:

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

No, the word order is wrong.Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now: as even the police have said they do not know if these incidents are linked, and are not treating them as such whilst they ar still investigating. Wes Wolf Talk 22:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'm with WikiImprovement on this one. I think it needs to flesh out more since we don't yet know if they're related, no matter how likely it is. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wording above, but I do support an eventual move... perhaps better wording would be 3 June 2017 London attack — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of wording as well. June 2017 London attacks would be better.Walsak (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The detail of the wording I am not too fussed about, that can be resolved in due course. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

OK, let me explain my reasoning here. We do not know if the events are related, therefore having them in an article entitled "London Bridge incident" makes little sense. It may transpire that only the LB incident is significant, for example, in which case we can move back, but meanwhile it makes sense to have a title that covers all three incidents. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose for now: If they're found to be all linked later, then sure. For now, no. DanielEnnisTV ✉ 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the article been moved anyway, by Rossbawse when this discussion is still ongoing? Wes Wolf Talk 23:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also pinged them on their talk, Wesley Wolf. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map

can someone add a map of the 3 areas in London?Lihaas (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Open Streetmap of the area. Couldn't get my head around the attribution requirements. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Number of deaths

I understand the need to get the wording correctly, but we all need to agree on the correct way to phrase this. Should it be spelled out or using symbols? RES2773 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols? Do you mean numerals (1, 2, 3 etc) or lettering (one, two, three, etc)? Wes Wolf Talk 23:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or using greater than/less than. RES2773 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest using words until we have some reasonably stable figure - without "at least" or "more than" in it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

US President Donald Trump first two reactions to incidents

In his first reaction to the incident, U.S. President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter in relation to his travel ban executive order: "We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"[1][2][3] He further wrote that the United States would do whatever it can to help out in London and the U.K.[1][2][4] CNN documented that his national security team had briefed him on the incidents.[2]

References

  1. ^ a b King, Robert (3 June 2017), "Trump pushes travel ban amid London Bridge attack", The Washington Examiner
  2. ^ a b c "President Trump tweets about 'Travel Ban' after apparent attack at London Bridge", Fox 13 News, Fox13now.com
  3. ^ Logan, Bryan (3 June 2017), "Trump touts his blocked travel ban during ongoing police operations in London", Business Insider
  4. ^ Morin, Rebecca (3 June 2017), "Trump tweets on 'travel ban' as London incidents unfold", Politico

Placing here for posterity. Sagecandor (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get rid of this absolute garbage from the article? I keep trying to remove it, but someone has now accused me of vandalism (LOL). 86.185.30.254 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It IS notable whether one like it or not. I have trimmed the quotes to proper english.Lihaas (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is crackers! There's more in the article about what Trump thinks than there is about the incident itself. Can we please remove the nonsense? 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Does the IP need to be reminded about civility towards others? What might be garbage to one person, may be useful information to another. Everything needs to be written in a neutral point of view, including reactions from Heads of State. Wes Wolf Talk 23:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, but I think the editor who accused me of vandalism does. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple references now applied to single statements - a sure sign that the contested statements should be deleted. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That warning on your talk page is a standardised worded template, issued via Twinkle. I wouldn't worry too much about it, and assume good faith. I get them all the time and shrug them off like water on a duck's back. Wes Wolf Talk 23:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
:) No probs - thanks. But what about that stuff from Trump? I think at this stage in the article development it really isn't needed and for the most part is not relevant - all that stuff about a travel ban ... 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tweet 2 was just quoted on BBC News. I'd say that's the most relevant one to this topic and the one we should use. This is Paul (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced all primary sources with secondary sources. This is notable. Secondary sources are reporting on it. Multiple. Sagecandor (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Thank you to the IP for cooperating and respecting civility. I respect that it can be hard at times like this, as tempers can get frayed and overheated. But an approach of calm should be practised as it helps others to maintain a level of calmness during this distressing incident. The Mt have now confirmed all of this as an act of terror though. Wes Wolf Talk 23:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP in saying that the trump tweet should be removed but not in full. The travel ban nonsense is political garbage that really is just extra fluff. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"2017 London Bridge incident" redirect

2017 London Bridge incident has been redirected here. Should it remain or be changed to a disambiguation? Although this is the only to occur on the London Bridge, it is not the only on a London bridge. The first part of the 2017 Westminster attack was on Westminster Bridge, a London bridge. I realize that this distinction may be obvious to UK citizens, but I suspect that is not the case for most others. RN1970 (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor RN1970: I wouldn't think that is necessary. Everyone knows about the London Bridge, and is hardly going to get confused with a bridge in London. Don't forget the worldwide known nursery rhyme, London Bridge is Falling Down. Wes Wolf Talk 23:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is one of those weird cases where 2017 London bridge incident might be a dab, but 2017 London Bridge incident doesn't need to be. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for both your comments. However, I really would appreciate some comments from people that are not UK natives. As I said in my earlier comment, I realize that the London Bridge/bridge distinction is obvious to UK citizens, but most en.wiki users belong to other nationalities. As a frequent London visitor, I'll also leave the final judgement on this redirect to others. RN1970 (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor RN1970: I would assume that {{distinguish}} might be a good solution, as that would bring up Not to be confused with. But as noted, everyone knows of London Bridge as it is a landmark and notable for being in a nursery rhyme. Also WP:COMMONTERM may apply. Wes Wolf Talk 00:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) American here. Never been outside the country. I understand the difference between "London bridge" (a common noun with an adjective) and "London Bridge" (a proper noun), and I suspect most other Americans that have at least been through elementary school (If I'm not mistaken, it's what you guys would call "primary school".) will understand the distinction as well. — Gestrid (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it was unclear from my posts, but the question wasn't if people know the difference between a common noun with an adjective and a proper noun. I certainly presume most do, regardless of nationality. However, most people searching on wiki (or google, etc) are lazy with caps. "Donald Trump" becomes "donald trump". Similarly, "2017 London Bridge incident" becomes "2017 london bridge incident". When only the version with caps exists, it'll redirect you. Regardless of your use of caps. The same will happen to anyone putting "2017 London bridge incident" into the search bar. You'll be redirected via "2017 London Bridge incident". RN1970 (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a slightly different note, 2017 London attack/2017 London attacks ought to be a disambiguation page now. The first has been created, so I'll redirect the second. This is Paul (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable in my eyes. Wes Wolf Talk 00:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "2017 June London terror attacks"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
But these have already been called "terrorism" by the powers that be! XavierItzm (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I was about to mention that. You beat me to it ;P Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Declared terrorist attack

Per Met twitter https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/871152151787171840 -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 23:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But not the Vauxhall one. https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/871152386739404800 158.174.11.112 (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2017

Add "A waitress was reportedly stabbed in the neck." Under "Borough Market". [1] 32ciN (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done. Details like this should wait until they are confirmed - "reportedly" means that some unspecified person or organisation has said that but it hasn't been verified as correct. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/03/europe/london-bridge-incident/index.html

Mike Pence and other reactions

I've twice removed, and user:MrX has removed at least once, mention of Mike Pence from the reaction section (added I think only by user:Lihaas). MrX described it as "Trivia". My rationale is that Pence is not an international leader, is not relevant to the UK and has not said anything significant at all so it does not add anything to a section that is likely to become extremely bloated with meaningless, formulaic quotes as more people react. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editors Thryduulf and Sagecandor: strangely enough, Lihaas had removed the same content as quoting non-notable indivicduals, only to reinstate it 5 minutes later as being notable. Both summaries got me all confused! Wes Wolf Talk 00:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That user is being very disruptive at this page. Sagecandor (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I agree. Such platitudes should remain out, or be relegated to the inevitable reactions and flags article.- MrX 00:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed it, and the US flag template, again. Added this time by user:PerfectlyIrrational. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree with you Sagecandor. And still making disruptive reverts too. The user is showing signs of edit warring, and I'm dubious of them wandering into WP:3RR territory. Wes Wolf Talk 00:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
someone ELSE added the latest addition. In fact, I further removed non-notable stuff.Lihaas (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) And now user:DHeyward has just added the Pence quote back. I've not removed it as I don't want to go over the 3RR. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have a consensus on the talk page for NOT having this on the page. Sagecandor (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to replace it with a note to not re-add without discussing it here? Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) x 4 (I hate edit conflicts lol). To editor Thryduulf: I think it is exempt per WP:3RRBLP, as it would appear to fall under biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. Wes Wolf Talk 00:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note not to add Mike Pence's reaction per talk page consensus. I don't know what good it will do, but we can try. I've also replaced Trudeau's quote with the start of a list of international leaders who have reacted. Unless they say something different to the standard formulatic sympathies, etc. we don't need the quotes here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only changed a long string of words to "offered" as a copy edit. Same as I did for Trump. I could care less if it goes or stays and there are a number of busybody numbskills worried about whether the VP of the US is notable. Who cares? --DHeyward (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DHeyward: I don't care what your motivations are, your edit summaries on the talk page and above are personal attacks. If you persist you will be blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[2] [3] - Is this WP:NPA reportable somewhere? Sagecandor (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I refer all busybody numbskulls to ANI. They are used to them and there is much fucking off on that page. --DHeyward (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


To editor Thryduulf: Would the use of {{Consensus}} on this talk page and list any consensuses be helpful? Wes Wolf Talk 01:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wesley Wolf: Maybe, it's not a template I've encountered before so I don't know how effective it is in practice. If you think it will help then I've got no objections. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Thryduulf: it is one that I've seen on the talk page of the Manchester attack. And it seems to be working very well on that, so maybe worth a go on here!? Wes Wolf Talk 01:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it then. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added it. It works well in my experience. TompaDompa (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by TompaDompa. Nice swift action there, TD! Wes Wolf Talk 01:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Islamic terrorism"/Witnesses

Thre is no official corroboration of an invstigation into the backgrounds of the perpetrators and/or their motivation. Further, the views of a witness somewhere about is not notable enough to be here. Else we ought to add all the individual analysis on the web too with people who have more credentials. This s not a newspaper.Lihaas (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why @Lihaas: if you actually took the time to read edit histories, rather than rush-edit, you will have seen why the template has been hidden. Somebody has clearly added this article to the navigation template. And I did state in my edit summary that it is probably best left hidden for now, and subject to becoming visible should details verify otherwise. Wes Wolf Talk 00:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are based on what WP:RS report, not on some "official corroboration of an invstigation". Your position is untenable. XavierItzm (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor XavierItzm: to whom is that comment being directed at? Please specify. Wes Wolf Talk 01:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion
Yeah, heed the Muslim person above: the attacks weren't actually Islam-related. Who's ever heard of such a thing as Islamic terrorism? They were clearly carried out by either Lutheran Finns or Japanese Shintoists. --79.56.15.171 (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope there is no act of WP:SCRUTINY of another user, by that IP comment which bears similarities to the original post. Wes Wolf Talk 01:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wesley. The article is directed to the person who wrote "official corroboration of an invstigation", i.e., Lihas. XavierItzm (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right XavierItzm, I can see that now, yes. Thank you for clarifying that comment further. I smell a dodgy scrutiny going on though. The good old sock and scrutiny snout is working well as 2:12am - LOL. Wes Wolf Talk 01:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion
I'm not a sock puppet. I'm a real person. Chill and hunt down those evil Finns. ;) --79.56.15.171 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For an IP who has made 3 sole edits in the last 10 minutes, you seem to be well educated on the sock-puppet term. Talk about quacking scrutiny. Wes Wolf Talk 01:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah yeah sure, whatever, mate. I really don't care about all your rules and the collapsable Off-topic box censorship trick, I'm off to bed. Keep being slaughtered by Muslims and denying they're Muslims if that's what you want, okay? Peace. --79.56.15.171 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I never collapsed the content. Wes Wolf Talk 01:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the collapsable Off-topic discussion box I'm currently writing in. --79.56.15.171 (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And like I said, I never placed yours or my comments into this collapsable Off-topic discussion box, nor did I "censor" anything. Check the edit history "mate", someone else censored. Wes Wolf Talk 01:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We clearly have eyewitnesses who were attacked by the jihadists corroborating the story. If eyewitness reports aren't good enough for you, I don't know what to tell you. [1] CitationKneaded (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map (2)

Could someone please create a map to show the proximity of the two sites? Thank, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Gaia Octavia Agrippa: already done from what I gather, see above. Wes Wolf Talk 00:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it hasn't been done. I've found File:Southwark London UK location map.svg, if anyone knows how to put pins on it. Its the smallest local map I can find. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 01:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best I can do. Should they be added to the page? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 01:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
London Bridge is located in London Borough of Southwark
London Bridge
London Bridge
London Bridge (London Borough of Southwark)
Borough Market is located in London Borough of Southwark
Borough Market
Borough Market
Borough Market (London Borough of Southwark)

References

  1. ^ https://d2isvgrdif6ua5.cloudfront.net/cinemr_com/717935085025763331/360.mp4

To include Ariana Grande's tweet?

Outside of politicians, she is the first to express condolence -- and it comes just after her concert got bombed. Is it significant enough to include? Kingsif (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why not, on a separate "reactions" page to be used as dustbin for all the virtue-signaling to pour out of politicians and performers. XavierItzm (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think the article should focus on what happened and meaningful commentary from UK government officials, terrorisms experts, etc.
I say no. Trivial really. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't generally include celebrity reactions to these kinds of incidents unless there is a direct connection which doesn't appear to be the case here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Grande's tweet is necessary or significant enough for the reasons that other editors have given. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Trump Tweets

I object to the removal of President Trump's tweet about the Muslim Travel ban, which sources clearly show is the most noteworthy reaction from him in response to this tragedy. Knowledgekid87 removed it (twice), the second time with an edit summary "Removed political bias". Is this to suggest that we can only quote Trump when it's completely innocuous?- MrX 02:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section is about reactions to the incident not about an executive political order. This tweet just adds WP:UNDUE weight, why does America have to be the dominant English country with the most detailed response to the attack? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. It sound like you advocate listing his name next to Turnbull, Trudeau, Macron and Kenny, without quoting his Tweets?- MrX 02:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we should just quote his tweet in reaction to the attack or yes remove it, if you want to make a worldwide political reaction section then go ahead. I am sure this having a ripple effect on the upcoming election in the UK as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please make up your mind. Either we quote his first tweet and his second tweet, or none. None makes more sense since that is what we have done for other major UK allies.- MrX 03:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with none then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's travel ban is a US domestic issue. It's not related to this in any way. Keep in mind that relevancy is also what keeps out responses such as "Islamist terror" or "Al-Qaeda" or "ISIL" before it is known. Arguing that the "muslim ban" is a relevant tweet means that "islamic terrorism" is a relevant tweet. We should be consistent and respectful of being neutral. --DHeyward (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing it; the sources are and so is Trump! His first public communication after learning of this attack was to renew his call for a Muslim ban. Even Fox News points that out in large bold font. But that's OK, let's leave his tweets out altogether and just say that he reacted along with other world leaders.- MrX 03:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@OP You know by now it's not a "Muslim ban", right? It's a travel restriction on 7 countries known for producing terrorists. If it was, as clueless critics claim a "Muslim ban", then why are there no SE Asian nations (the most populous Muslim-majority nations in the world) on the list? Please refrain from embarrassing yourself by commenting on things you have clearly not taken the time or effort to educate yourself on, thank you.CitationKneaded (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should be in Wikipedia front page

I'm watching news in Australia and thus event is being called out as a terrorist attack, with dead and wounded. Notable enough to be in Wikipedia's front page. Why is in not yet there? Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. And with it being well-established that the attackers shouted "Allah!" during their rampage, why was it not listed under "Islamic Terrorism"? Leaving out that blindingly obvious fact reeks suspiciously of a blatant bias to whitewash the attack of crucial religious & cultural context.CitationKneaded (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editors DPdH and CitationKneaded: it currently is pending at Portal:Current events/2017 June 4 and also at Portal:Current events/2017 June 3 and will most likely appear on the next cycle (whenever the bot does its update). Wes Wolf Talk 03:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Wesley Wolf: Actually, the article was quickly nominated here, but is was closed because there wasn't enough detail at that time. I think we have enough now, so it could be worth re-opening. FallingGravity 04:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor FallingGravity: it already is in the ITN part as "ongoing", which the two links I provided above are located. Wes Wolf Talk 04:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious material

The "this is for Allah" allegation has no basis and can be harmful to Muslims. The first mention appeared to be some fake news site like Daily Caller, who said that the witness told it to BBC. But the allegation doesn't appear to be anywhere BBC. "Reliable" sources like Telegraph only picked up on it hours after the fake news sites did (and even then it's just an allegation and innocent until proven guilty) which is more than enough time to copy fake info and mistake it for real news. Unless someone can point to me where BBC mentions this it should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.15.14 (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2017

I'd hardly call the BBC "reliable" after they report that the Middle East is one of the lowest-rate places in the world for modern-day slavery. And if your first concern after an Islamist terrorist attack is "oh no, this will be bad press for Muslims" instead of for the innocent people killed & injured, then you're part of the problem. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral platform - please refrain from using it as a soapbox for ideological apologia.CitationKneaded (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We clearly have eyewitnesses who were attacked by the jihadists corroborating the story. If eyewitness reports aren't good enough for you, I don't know what to tell you. [1] CitationKneaded (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)CitationKneaded (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://d2isvgrdif6ua5.cloudfront.net/cinemr_com/717935085025763331/360.mp4
We have eyewitnesses. And it's nothing new that Islam, sadly, teaches people to kill. No one has ever blamed all Muslims for what some Muslims do. We are only talking about a social construct called Islam. And may I mention that no
There, and now we do have it from BBC. [1] [2] [3] Is that finally good enough for the obligatory parade of Islamophile apologists that come up after every Islamist attack? Can we get back to calling it what it is? CitationKneaded (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the Islamic apologists can stop with the obligatory cries of "oh, but we don't know for sure if it was" apologia already, it's getting old, you're not helping

We have multiple eyewitness accounts confirming that the attackers shouted "Allah" during the terrorist attack. If that's not good enough for you, nothing ever will be. [4] [5] [6] [7] CitationKneaded (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain YouTube cannot be used to cite content, per WP:YOUTUBE. And please remain WP:CIVIL at all times. Calling people "Islamophiles" is inappropriate and may lead to a WP:BLOCK. Wes Wolf Talk 04:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1st. I was mostly citing BBC, don't whine just b/c the links themselves led to youtube (srsly?). 2nd, you do know to indent your entry when posting after someone else, don't you?
Firstly, don't be telling me about whining. I am the one talking calmly and with civility. Pity the same cannot be said about yourself. Secondly, don't get patronising about indentation of comments. I have been a user for almost 6 years, and I am fully aware of indenting. Your actions are coming across as disruptive. Your comments are very pointy. And thirdly, have you forgotten about your ArbCom sanction? At least I have some level of intelligence to do a background check on your behaviour. Wes Wolf Talk 04:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And finally, WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS is explicit in not reporting first-hand accounts, of which those "eyewitness" videos are first-hand hearsay. Wes Wolf Talk 04:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motive

It's established beyond a reasonable doubt by multiple eyewitness accounts that the attackers shouted "for Allah" during the terrorist attack. Therefore the motive was pretty obviously Islamic Terrorism, and unless any new information surfaces to challenge those conclusions, any changing of the "motive" entry on the article page should be considered vandalism. We have a motive established, the attackers made it very clear who they were killing those people for. Erasing it here accomplishes nothing helpful & exposes an obvious bias to cover up the truth. [8] [9] [10] [11]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUvl9EbvfhE
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFppfdWg7kY
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZyr5aB4oTQ
  4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUvl9EbvfhE
  5. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFppfdWg7kY
  6. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZyr5aB4oTQ
  7. ^ https://d2isvgrdif6ua5.cloudfront.net/cinemr_com/717935085025763331/360.mp4
  8. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUvl9EbvfhE
  9. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFppfdWg7kY
  10. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZyr5aB4oTQ
  11. ^ https://d2isvgrdif6ua5.cloudfront.net/cinemr_com/717935085025763331/360.mp4
Can't we just wait until we know more about the attackers? I'm sure we'll get an in-depth investigation into their identities and past lives soon. Seriously, there's no rush. FallingGravity 04:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need to know their whole life story to know that they murdered innocent people "for Allah"? That's what they were shouting during the attack - one would have to be either daft or purposefully obstructing the truth to not get something that obvious. They told us their motives.CitationKneaded (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_London_Bridge_attack&oldid=783715650"