Talk:Manchester Arena bombing/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

ISIS claim

I want to repeat a "claim" does not mean it is true. I can claim that I own Canada, does this make that true? I have no problem with inclusion in the article but we cant go saying that ISIS is the perp as police haven't ruled this out as a lone wolf terrorist attack. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If they claim the attack then they are automatically a suspected perp. Surely, it has to be verified and confirmed in order to state that ISIL is the sole and certain perpetrator of the attack.GreyShark (dibra) 13:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It bothers me that it is all over the article though when we don't even know for sure if there is a connection or not. Yeah it is noteworthy but ISIS has done this before with no found connections in the end. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes any category/template associated with ISIL or Islamic terrorism needs to be removed. There is no evidence yet. This is surely against Wiki guidelines. JanderVK (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What Greyshark09 has said kind of hits the nail on the head. If they claim, they are automatic suspects, until verified and confirmed. Look at that in a different light, we can only add content to an article if it can be WP:V by WP:RS. So we shouldn't give automatic conclusion that ISIS are the perps just because they say so, that would be ISIS WP:OR. Wes Wolf ^Talk 14:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

However, they are suspected perps if they claim so, unless proven otherwise with no doubt.GreyShark (dibra) 14:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

But to automatically give them accolade of "suspected perps" based on an alleged statement by ISIS saying "they did it", is not strong enough to grant them actual suspected status. I'd personally treat the statement like we treat articles and policies. For them to be the perps it needs to be verified and confirmed; otherwise it is one-sided original research based on ISIS' own unverified claim. Rewording it to show that ISIS have initially claimed responsibility, although official clarification has yet to be determined; would keep in-line with WP:NPOV and WP:V. A couple of my friends went to that very concert, so I'm abstaining from contributing to content, which I'm sure you'd appreciate. Wes Wolf ^Talk 14:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to repeat what cautious editor InedibleHulk has pointed out before: There are a number of sources that are popularly used to claim that "ISIL claimed responsibility" when those sources are known to have nothing to do with ISIL whatsoever. I'd like to rule out that our sources like the Guardian ain't quoting or referring to the same old irrelevant sources again just so everybody can scream "ISIL" at the top of their lungs, including Wikipedia. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The only thing we can say at this point is that ISIL claimed responsibility. There is no requirement that we prove that they are not a suspect. ISIL is not a reliable source for the claim that ISIL is a suspect.- MrX 16:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about whether we should say that ISIL would be a suspect. I'm talking about whether we should say that ISIL has claimed responsibility. As said, InedibleHulk has named a number of outlets which are popularly used to claim that ISIL has "claimed responsibility" to whatever happened the other day or the week before, but it is known that those outlets are entirely fake and have no connection to ISIL whatsoever. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I only named Amaq. It's typically watermarked by SITE, then sold to multiple outlets, but always the same Telegram account. This time, it's a bit different. The typical shit came out around the same time as a more detailed and religiously decorated paragraph from the Nashir account, using Islamic State letterhead. Still disseminated by SITE and still more a claim of inspiration than responsibility, without details one couldn't find in the news, but (at least apparently) closer to the horse's mouth than usual.

Using either to say ISIS is a "suspected perpetrator" is stupid, but I'd feel alright attributing what was actually said in the non-Amaq one to someone representing the Islamic State. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2017 (2)

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: no change. I've been WP:BOLD and ended this move request for the time being, as there doesn't seem to be much support for it. Best to wait until things settle down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

---

2017 Manchester Arena bombing → 2017 Manchester bombing – It's in line with the other two articles about bombings in the same city (1992 Manchester bombing and 1996 Manchester bombing). This is the only notable bombing in Manchester this year. Jim Michael (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - instead keep name as 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. We should keep the current title since the attacks took place inside of Manchester Arena and not out in the city proper. I also oppose dropping the date as Neutrality suggests. Saved by God's grace (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - instead rename to Manchester Arena bombing. We should keep the "Arena" but drop the date per WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. This seemed to be the direction people were headed above. It is consistent with our past practices, for example Harrods bombings, Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings, London Hilton bombing, Boston Marathon bombing, Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting. We only use the date where there could be realistic ambiguity about what is meant, and that's not the case here. Neutrality^talk 14:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose to your statement as well. Normally we do put a time stamp on it. 2016 Berlin attack or 2017 Stockholm attack. Terrorism has gotten very normal today, so it makes sense to have a time stamp on it.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• No, we only put the year when there are multiple attacks at the same location, as in the Berlin and Stockholm attacks. When the specific place/target is named, there's no need for the year, and we don't include it. For example, Charlie Hebdo shooting (no date). Neutrality^talk 14:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose to removing the year. There is no universally agreed upon standard, and given the scope of the arena of second largest city in Britain, especially in contrast to Hebdo, it's best to future-proof. sarysa (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• See Second City - Birmingham is generally agreed to be the second-largest in Britain. Sorry and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Whoops, but it doesn't diminish the future-proofing point. There is far more potential for something to happen in a big city's arena in the future than there is at a publishing company. -- sarysa (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Future-proofing isn't needed, and per WP:CRYSTAL, is discouraged if not necessary. There may be potential for it happening again, but that is not for Wikipedia to speculate, only to address after it happens. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well, the other concern is that it is similar to two other attacks in Manchester, although those weren't at the arena. The immediately added context from five words to the title may outweigh WP:PRECISE. Fair criticism about future-proofing, though. Sometimes I forget that encyclopedias aren't programs. -- sarysa (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose- The prior Manchester bombings were carried out by the IRA. We don't want to standardize this article with unlike articles. I think the name is fine currently. Any changes should wait. The fact that it occurred at an arena is a significant aspect of the event and is something that people will remember and search for.El cid, el campeador (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support "Manchester Arena bombing" per Neutrality; it differentiates the article in the way that most people will likely be searching for it. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Manchester bombing sounds like someone flew over England and bombed the population. It was at the Manchester Arena, so I think we should have it that way.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Mostly per El cid. Honestly, this event is less than 24 hours old. It's too soon to get all picky about the article title. I'm willing to entertain it after some time has passed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: And suggest speedy close. This name is good enough for now and the tendency on recent UK events is to include year, especially as this event is not THAT unique. Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think the current title is better as it's more precise. Skemcraig (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose: The current title is fine as it is. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: The previous bombings you listed were large enough that they started from the streets or curbs and damaged multiple buildings - listing the city only for those names was necessarily broad. The damage from this bombing was kept entirely within Manchester Arena, and the article name should reflect that. 184.4.75.254 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose but Support "Manchester Arena bombing" --Deansfa (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I don't really care about the title here but this move request looks to be a WP:SNOW case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - sensible thing to do for continuity with the 1992 Manchester bombing and 1996 Manchester bombing. There are two other bombings that have occurred in Manchester so we must be aware of this so it's clear for readers. Including the Arena in the name is up for debate as it appears the bomb may have been detonated on public land between Manchester Victoria station and the arena itself. Stevo1000 (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment As much as I do think it would be a good idea to keep the trend of '2017 Manchester Bombing', this page's name has been changed WAYYY too many times, and doesn't need changing any more. DanielEnnisTV ✉ 16:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most readers will know this attack as something that happened at or was connected with the Manchester Arena. Everything I've seen - all the video footage, all the news reporting on TV and in newspapers and in various media - they all have stated the location as being at the Arena, not as just happening in an alley somewhere in Manchester. The attack was specifically directed at people leaving the Arena, specifically directed at people leaving a concert there. Leave the title as is for now. (I do think the year should probably not be in the title but that issue + the various redirects can be re-visited later.) Shearonink (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This event happened specifically at the Manchester Arena. Changing it will make it sound like it happened in a much wider region. Jayden (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. This terrorist attack occurred at the Manchester Arena and not Manchester itself. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Manchester on a worldwide scale is quite small. It's not New York or London where it is too huge and therefore vague to just say "London" or "New York". Some people need a reality check. There is no need to specify especially since this is the only Manchester Bombing of 2017. What next? "Central Manchester Arena Attack, Manchester (UK)"? Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Manchester Arena is in Manchester - it's not separate. We don't usually include the name of a building in an article about a terror attack. People wanting to know about this years in the future might not know or remember that it took place at an arena. Jim Michael (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Arena" is a key term. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as too imprecise. Support Neutrality's suggestion of Manchester Arena bombing. Disambiguation with the year is not needed. - MrX 17:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Superfluous to have arena in there as parts of the building are public access. It is therefore more meaningful to list it as <year><place><event>. --AlisonW (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  @AlisonW: - I think you placed your comment in the wrong section? It makes sense in the move request, but not in this RfC.- MrX 18:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  @MrX: - Ah, thanks. There was an edit conflict originally so I must have misguided my re-paste. Ta. --AlisonW (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Why though? The proposed title you want seems too broad. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

How so? It's in line with the other two articles about bombings in the same city (1992 Manchester bombing and 1996 Manchester bombing). This is the only notable bombing in Manchester this year. Jim Michael (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It makes sense to be as specific as possible? I think if people look back they will remember that an arena was bombed and search for it in that way. I don't know the full precedents though. El cid, el campeador (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You have a point, to start a requested move though you have to go through the WP:RM process. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be in line with the titles for the 1992 and 1996 Manchester bombings. I don't know how to format the RM correctly - someone who knows how to, please do so. Jim Michael (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Done, you may tweak the reason for your move if you'd like I just copy/pasted your rationale. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Tagging those who commented under the date section above: WClarke, Gamebuster19901, Shearonink, InedibleHulk, Scott Davis, Blaylockjam10, Ianmacm, Aiken drum, Octoberwoodland, Wikimandia. Neutrality^talk 14:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what I am supposed to respond to here... The various discussions are getting confusing. Shearonink (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Saying that it's unlike the previous bombings doesn't make sense. The only difference is the ideology of the terrorists and the death toll. Jim Michael (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Can somebody edit the move template at the top to say "2=Talk:2017 Manchester Arena bombing#Requested move 23 May 2017 (2)"? At the moment, it's pointing to the wrong discussion. 95.44.50.222 (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no point in the title being longer than necessary. This is the only bombing at in Manchester this year, so why should the title specify the exact location? For example, 2017 Milan attack is sufficient. Jim Michael (talk) 15:07, 23 May 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.

Personal background updates

"Reports described the family as being devout and well-known to be against Isis and Islamism. Abedi's father, knwon as Abu Ismael, was described in glowing terms at the Didsbury Mosque where he and the family worshipped." Also, "[Abedi and his brothers] learned the Qur’an by heart."[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.234.86 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think his family's opinions are relevant here? Obviously he didn't share those peaceful beliefs. And including evidence of good character is simply a way to open the door for people to include evidence of bad.El cid, el campeador (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comparison to other attacks

Winsocker, I'd quite like to hear your logic in including the 1992 and 1996 IRA attacks in the lead. You say they are that this attack is the "worst" one since then, but you provided no reliable source, and "worst" could mean many different things in this context Quasar G ^{t - c} 16:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I just added the other two attacks which should be included, we can remove the word "Worst" if it helps

As I said above this is a WP:COATRACK issue, there is no reason to place this in the lead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Quasar G and Knowledgekid87 that it doesn't belong in the lead. That said, a carefully worded note of it being the third such attack in Manchester might be noteworthy as it would add context. Even then, it should only be a single sentence, so as to not disrupt the flow of the summary. -- sarysa (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It really does belong in the article. There is no point of using other attacks like in 2005 and not including this one. In this logic, the 2005 attack would have nothing to do with the 2017 yet its being kept

A coatrack of comparisons, particularly with the IRA attacks in the 1990s, isn't really necessary. It is notable that it is the worst attack since the 2005 London bombings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the working definition of a COATRACK here. To me it seems that accusation of something being a COATRACK like this is supposed to be a COATRACK could be used against all of Wikipedia if you just choose to plainly not see a connection because you want something out. I fail to see how the graveness of a terror attack (in death toll) in relation to similar events in recent history in both the city and the country is "not relevant" or not "notable". In fact, noting how the current attack is the gravest since X and Y provides vital context. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that comparions with other Manchester events are valid, regardless of whether the IRA or 'the Hun' were responsible, though probably not lead worthy.Pincrete (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Katie Hopkins

There seems to be an edit war over a tweet by shock jock Katie Hopkins. I'm not going to continue past one revert so I will discuss here.

First, although WP:NOTCENSORED means we can't hide opinions because they are possibly attention seeking, there is no way on Earth that she is notable enough for her view to be mentioned here. Put it on her article.

Also the text was loaded, jumping to conclusions and reading between the lines to put a serious BLP claim in Wikipedia's voice. I see Bencherlite previously reverted it for that reason. This edit war needs to be settled while this is on the main page Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I have warned Esnertofidel about the 3RR rule. As has been mentioned above, we simply cannot include everyone's comments in the article and that one commentator has said that another commentator's tweet about the event is a call for "ethnic cleansing" is simply irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Bencherlite^Talk 12:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The entry is directly relevant to the article subject, is well-sourced by numerous secondary sources - one of which explicitly refers to her remarks as a call for ethnic cleansing - and is neither OR nor BLP. Every objection raised to the inclusion of this entry has been based on misrepresentations of Wiki guidelines. Esnertofidel (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be left out. It seems sensationalistic and gratuitous.- MrX 12:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Katie Hopkins making a sensationalistic comment about a tragedy is not noteworthy. She makes objectionable comments about everything, and everyone will object to them because they are intentionally designed to be so. As has been noted before, if relevant, it can be possibly added to her page, but it doesn't belong on here; it's just another attempt to divert attention towards her and away from those who deserve it. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It is being covered by several mainstream media outlets, who each link it directly to the incident in their reporting. Its relevancy to this article is beyond reasonable doubt. Esnertofidel (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Esnertofidel. In addition to which, comments such as Sauske Sarutobi's ("...diverting attention way from those who deserve it...") is not encyclopediac. Wikipedia does not make moral judgements about who 'deserves' attention. We report what is reported in reliable srources. Amisom (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed about my comment; that was my personal opinion. Nonetheless, her controversial pronouncement is as unsurprising as condolences being sent by world leaders, and likewise adds nothing to the article. And I agree about us reporting what is in RS, but I think it is important to note while not being in RS automatically excludes something from being added to Wikipedia, being in RS does not automatically include it. An editorial judgement needs to be made as to what it adds in information. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Right but this has been widely reported in most RSes through tht eUK. Amisom (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Her comment is being widely reported in the UK mainstream media, prompting response from media commentators as well. Funkinwolf (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In which case, I'd agree that the current version's wording (a single-sentence mention) is appropriate. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that one-sentence is sufficient. Any more would be excessive at this point.VR _talk 14:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is no consensus at all to include it. It is irrelevant to the article. Sure it's well sourced, because she said it publicly. And sure it's on topic, because she made a comment on the topic. Neither of those facts make it worth including. You can't include the comment of every political analyst, so why include this one? Getting news coverage doesn't make something encyclopedic, far from it. It makes no sense to include it, other than to draw attention away from the actual event and be apologists and make Muslims the victims. This isn't about stopping Islamophobia it's about a bombing which occurred. It's absurd to include it. El cid, el campeador (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

How can you say it's not relevant to the article? That's just silly. Amisom (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Remove reference to Hopkin's comment, per El cid. It can be included in Hopkin's own article where it belongs, but we can't include every comment that's made, and ones made by world leaders and British politicians are far more relevant. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  Has any other person's comment been as widely reported? Happy to look at any links you can provide. Amisom (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Remove. She is paid to write stuff that sells newspapers and to say controversial things. That is her job. She is not a serious commentator. Her views are trivial and irrelevant. It is embarrassing that anyone here thinks they should be mentioned. They should be removed from the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: the sentence about Hopkins has been removed, and Esnertofidel has been blocked for 48 hours for reaching 9RR in attempting to keep it in. Bencherlite^Talk 21:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Images in the article

Re this edit: I reverted it because it isn't a particularly good image and doesn't add much to the article. We're having problems with finding images that have good WP:IMAGERELEVANCE at the moment, compared to 7 July 2005 London bombings which has a range of images. The problem is that the images should be copyright free to avoid WP:NFCC problems. I had a look on Flickr but no luck. Please keep looking for suitable images.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Fake missing people images

Should this: #MissinginManchester: The fake images circulating online, be included in the article? More refs:

• Manchester attack: Twitter and Facebook users maliciously share fake images of missing people
• Manchester attack: Social media trolls spread fake posts about missing children

 Seagull123  Φ  22:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really, per WP:NOTNEWS. There are some silly people in the world, but it doesn't seem like a major issue with WP:10YT notability at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Dispute of source of ISIL claim

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.

---

To the person arbitrating our WP:3O dispute, welcome. The edit in question is this one. The reason I keep adding it back is explained in this diff. There are actually two discussions in this section, but my concerns are that the motivations for Winsock's edits are a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. Thank you. -- sarysa (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC) (withdrawn)

The NYT source states that the claim came from ISIL/ISIS, as does the Independent over at the other article. People, mainly (removed) and User:Winsocker are making claims that it coming from ISIL is unconfirmed. The evidence suggests otherwise. We need to put this to rest for the sake of ending this edit war.

While I'm at it, Winsocker keeps removing the details of ISIL's boast on the other page. I have WP:NOTCENSORED on my side but I'm about to hit my second revert. -- sarysa (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not make any such claims? I think you might be confusing me with someone else.El cid, el campeador (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your edit! -- sarysa (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty much a side issue at the moment anyway. "ISIL claims responsibility for foreign terrorist attack" is a headline very similar to "Pope is Catholic". The British police will be looking at Abedi's links to any form of extremist group, but ISIL's influence outside its strongholds in Syria is limited. They are just big mouths.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

ISIS isn't like a normal state, there is no such thing as an 'official' line of communication, one might as well say 'a Mafia spokesman said ...'. It is never surprising when they claim responsibility, what is surprising is that journalists (and WP editors?) are happy to believe and repeat and amplify their claims, even though said journalists (and editors?) would give no credence whatsoever to anything else they said. If ISIS claim to be responsible for the weather, we should record such claims and otherwise remain sceptical as to whether this is anything more than self-aggrandisement. Pincrete (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Winsocker (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)First of all: its an unverified claim so why are you adding details to an unverified claim. Not only are you spreading a wrong definition, you are now intensifying a situation with the wrong definition and giving them fame on something they may have never done. Remember, the users reading this are not as tech savy and do research as us and may want to just skim the page. Wikipedia should be accurate and adding random information from an unverifiable claim is no good.

@Winsocker: Let's keep it here and off my talk pages. You can't simply use that questionable logic (multiple reliable sources have confirmed it, but this is irrelevant) to select parts you don't like. You are censoring parts of a reliable source. Either it's all included or none of it is. -- sarysa (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Winsocker (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Adding this, a "khalifa" means a successor. If hes not even part of the group (there is no confirmation from official authorities) than what is he succeeding? Not to mention that ISIL is a disorganized group. Please, lets be accurate and remember that people take things on Wikipedia literally (even though they technically shouldnt). Lets keep Wikipedia as accurate and to the point as possible. I understand that some may claim it as "censorship" but how can you censor something that not only we dont have much detail about but may be untrue overall?

@Winsocker: So because one word was incorrectly transcribed from the article, you continue to nuke the entire block? Why didn't you just change it to "caliphate" instead? I think I've hit the revert limit on your nonsense so if someone else could change the entire block under this section to what's below, it would be helpful. Or perhaps you could show a bit of neutrality, Winsocker, and do it yourself:

Code

* {{Flag|ISIL}}: The [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]] made an unconfirmed claim of responsibility for the attack,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Yeginsu|first1=Ceylan|last2=Erlanger|first2=Steven|title=ISIS Claims Responsibility for Manchester Concert Attack; Toll Rises to 22|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/world/europe/manchester-arena-attack-ariana-grande.html|accessdate=23 May 2017|work=The New York Times|date=23 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Samuelson|first1=Kate|title=ISIS Claims Responsibility For Manchester Concert Terrorist Attack|url=http://time.com/4790201/isis-manchester-concert-terrorist-attack/|accessdate=23 May 2017|work=Time|date=23 May 2017}}</ref> describing the attacker as "a soldier of the [[Caliphate]]".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manchester-arena-attack-isis-responsible-claim-suicide-bombing-islamic-state-ariana-grande-concert-a7751221.html|title=Isis has claimed responsibility for the Manchester Arena attack|date=23 May 2017|work=The Independent|last1=Dearden|first1=Lizzie|accessdate=23 May 2017}}</ref>

Absolutely ridiculous that this is a thing. I hate to have to escalate this, but I will if necessary. Also where you posted your message makes it clear that you're ignoring my arguments. -- sarysa (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Winsocker (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Fine, just to show i am not being "biased". Im not removing things I dont like, Im making sure what is being posted is correct and we do not post things that have yet to be confirmed.

@Winsocker: Please put the ~~~~ in after your comment. Also, please be careful not to add your signature to a post that isn't yours. I've had to fix that twice now. — Gestrid (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Winsocker: Actions speak louder than words. Going to call in WP:3O. -- sarysa (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sarysa: You can add a third opinion but didnt we just settle this? I decided, to show im being unbiased, I would add the source code you posted, which I just did. Winsocker (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Winsocker:The location in question is here. It's actually a little more justifiable to exclude it in 2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing since it's intended to be more concise. Shady, but justifiable. -- sarysa (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sarysa: So as requested, ill take the statement off from the main page and add it to the reaction page Winsocker (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Winsocker: Thank you. Withdrew the 3O. -- sarysa (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my WP:NOTCENSORED concerns stem from this edit, where Winsocker stated, "Last thing we need is to list whatever propaganda they say." I'm no fan of giving them a voice either, but we didn't censor their response to the Orlando shooting either. -- sarysa (talk) 20:44, 23 May 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.

Broken cites

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.

---

Still problems with broken cites and the awful cite format breaking up the references section, after the sentence, Condolences were expressed by the leaders and governments of over two dozen countries.. Sagecandor (talk) 16:54, 23 May 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.

Condolences were expressed by the leaders and governments of over two dozen countries

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.

---

Ref at end of this is breaking up coding in references section ? Sagecandor (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the References section looks awkward. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks awkward, but it seems to work fine. Is it actually functionally broken for either of you? sarysa (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is visually awkward and functionally bad. Sagecandor (talk) 16:30, 23 May 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.

Death toll issue

Can we please not add the suicide bomber as part of the overall death count? Seems rather disrespectful to the victims to treat the attacker as "just another body". It can be put as 22 victims + 1 suicide bomber, or something. --84.100.78.182 (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrators are always included, just not counted as a victim. WWGB (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

7 July 2005 London bombings says "56 (including the 4 perpetrators)". 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting says "50 (including the perpetrator)". This is fairly standard wording in Wikipedia articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Now it says in the 1st para of the main body "killing 22 people", but in the infobox "Deaths 23 (including the perpetrator)", which seems to me an inconsistency. 93.89.131.57 (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It' still early days and the death toll may rise. Current news reports suggest that 22 people attending the concert were killed, although this does not include the attacker.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, now the two figures, as well as the 'In the news' link on the homepage, are at least consistent. What is still unclear is whether the 22 does or does not include the attacker. But given that there is real possibility, perhaps even probability, that the number will change, I guess we can park that debate for now. 93.89.131.57 (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The youngest killed was 8 years old Coltongoertz (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Islamic Human Rights Commission Calling on Met to Prosecute Hopkins

Hi there, The Islamic Human Rights Commission (UK NGO) has put out a press release calling on the Met to prosecute Katie Hopkins can we add the link to the references on Hopkins' comments on the page. 81.156.85.96 (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that Ms Hopkins has put her foot in it yet again, but it has WP:TOPIC issues here and would be better suited to her article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Nearly every domestic political commentator has given their response, so why should only Hopkins' be included? It seems WP:UNDUE, and likely a WP:COATRACK for criticism of Hopkins. I recommend simply removing it. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

For reasons given above Amisom (talk)

This is just drawing away from the actual issues. It's political, just like all these sort of articles become-- but it should not become that way. Include it in the reactions article and on her page, this is about the actual event, not every comment made on it.El cid, el campeador (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest putting it in the relevant section of the Katie Hopkins article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Split Ariana Grande reaction from International reactions

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 feel that splitting her reaction from those of world leaders is merited, as she is deeply tied to the event (it was at her concert), it's likely to expand over the next 24 hours, and it otherwise does not fit the mold of other reactions. Thoughts? -- sarysa (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It looks weird and out of place as is. Not quite sure how best to do it, though. TompaDompa (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm figuring that it should just be a third subsection. That seems to be the standard when an entertainer is sucked into these tragedies, but I can't remember where I last saw it. -- sarysa (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe put it above the Domestic-section as plain text without being a subsection? JoeriB92 (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it should at least be the first paragraph in the domestic section, seeing as it was her concert. Then followed by reactions from other domestic bodies. Wes Wolf ^Talk 17:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Would that not get confusing having her comment under domestic considering she is American and lives in the States? Jayden (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I echo Jaydenkieran's sentiments. She's a US citizen. -- sarysa (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks better in a section of her own. But wouldn't having that placed first (followed by domestic and international) be more prominent than having domestic, international, and then Grande's reactions (which is the current order). Wes Wolf ^Talk 17:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say move it above both of the domestic and international sub-sections, use it as the opening paragraph to the whole section. Jayden (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No opinion: I'm more or less neutral about this. Maybe a little biased to the end because it's what I think I've seen in previous incident articles. -- sarysa (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The way I look at it, and this is only a matter of opinion, is that time-line and/or chronological ordering is normal practice; a bit like a family tree. As this is about an attack at a venue that was hosting a concert of an artist; then I would (personally) list reactions in order of 1) Arena (where the attack happened); 2) Ariana Grande (singer); 3) Domestic (UK notable bodies); 4) International (foreign bodies); 5) any other that do not fit into the previous categories (I.E. public reaction) if necessary. It would make more sense if listed in that order. Although I'm merely throwing ideas into the pot here. Wes Wolf ^Talk 17:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I can get on board with this. I feel like this is definitely the correct order and should be implemented. Jayden (talk) 17:54, 23 May 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.

Deletion of the REACTION ARTICLE

Hi, I just nominated the reaction article for deletion. If you have arguments, please write them here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. I just don't think it is relevant to have an article with a lot of flags, saying "country X condemns terrorism". It's like a Facebook wall and not an encyclopedia, in my opinion. Do not argue with me here, but argue at the given link instead. Thank you.--Rævhuld (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why the reaction needs to have a separate article, but it's definitely worth tracking, and if the consensus is to have it as a separate article in the immediate aftermath (for practicality) I see no reason to oppose that now. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Some people love to waste their time adding the dreary and utterly predictable politician and bureaucrat pablum of "we stand with..." while doing nothing about the actual issue. Let them record that the public relations bureau of the second undersecretary of the Hot Air Ministry of Uganda "condemns" the terror. I see nothing wrong with these sort of useless pages, so long as the pap is kept out of the actual encyclopaedia article about the terror attack itself. Anyway, it is not as if the Wikipedia is running out of space or anything. XavierItzm (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Attacker's full name

Re this edit: It is Salman Ramadan Abedi.[2] His UK birth record is here and it says that he is still alive, which he now isn't. I hope some people don't remove the Ramadan part unnecessarily.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 00:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Who cares either way? It doesn't add or remove substantially to the article. It's a silly thing to get worked up over.--v/r - TP 00:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm cool either way and didn't say or imply that I was worked up. It's unclear why the middle name was removed as the user did not give a clear explanation, or indeed any explanation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 00:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Meh, I wouldn't worry about it. Editors have quirks. Some don't like middle names except in the first sentence of the article.--v/r - TP 00:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The middle name seemed unnecessary to me. The US media (where I am) hasn't been using it. If the UK media is using it, I'm fine w/having it in the article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Must be whatever news sources you are watching, mate. I'm in the U.S. and all news articles and tv news reports I've watched here in North Carolina all have used his full name . . . HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Always better to be specific. American media has long given killers middle names, so similarly-named people don't get confused bricks through their windows (and the like). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Was this attack linked to Libyan mess in 2011?

I guess Salman Ramadan Abedi, who caused this hubbub, could be the "blowback" from NATO's 2011 military intervention in Libya which took Gaddafi down. Was this even right? --Supreme Dragon (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's yet more speculation. Investigators have not declared that they have found any videos, online postings etc in which he explained his actions. It's reasonable to assume that it is part of the murky world of Islamist extremism, but the fact that he is of Libyan descent is being overplayed by some sources. He was first and foremost British born, like three of the four attackers in the 7 July 2005 London bombings (the fourth was born in Jamaica, an area not known for Islamist extremism).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

Should Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) be included in this article? As far as I'm aware, it has not been determined that the attack was Islamic terrorism. I removed the template once but CadAPL restored it. - MrX 18:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC), - MrX 18:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

See the thread immediately above. It's a definite nope on this until investigators give some hints as to the motive. Otherwise we are going along with the usual round of media speculation, or WP:OR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you still arguing about the motives?! How sad !! CadAPL (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is it sad CadAPL. Are you aware of sources that say the bombing was Islamic terrorism? I thought it was still being investigated.- MrX 19:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It happened in the European country, IS claims responsibility. Attacker is refugee from Libya. What other motives could he have? There are things that are obvious.--TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's that obvious, it should be possible to find a cite from a reliable source saying it. The claim of responsibility from ISIL is largely discounted as their usual big talk. "He's from Libya" is racial profiling. He is British born, which is one of the depressing things.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hm... Hmm ... I do not know ... Probably, he visited Lybia as a tourist and after the visit he so disliked Ariana Grande that he decided to blew himself up! Or he read Farage and became a far-right extremist. Very, very naive. I understand that we need facts. But, as I said, there are things that are obvious. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/libya-terror-link-swtp7mhtx --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Some newspapers are quoting unnamed intelligence service sources which say that he visited Libya before the attack. So what? The sources are concerned that he may have met extremists while he was in Libya, but due to his background he could have visited Libya for a range of reasons. It's peripheral speculation at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The murderer was not a "refugee from Libya." He was born in the UK. ISIS would claim responsibility for a toaster if it blew up. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Navigation templates?

I'm pretty sure earlier versions of this article had a couple relevant (I believe terrorism/ISIL-related) navigation templates at the bottom of the article, which seem to have been removed somewhere along the way. Do editors think there are some helpful navigation templates to include, specifically Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) and/or Template:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It was taken out. See #Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present). As far as I know, (reliable) sources have not determined that is was ISIL terrorism.- MrX 03:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Should this article be removed from the 2 aforementioned templates, then? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, for now. I have already removed it from Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present).- MrX 03:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been re-added by AusLondonder without so much as an edit summary. I would like to see the sources that say this bombing is Islamic terrorism.- MrX 11:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Why does the article say "The attacker has not yet been named" when he was named quite a few hours ago?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/world/europe/manchester-arena-attack-ariana-grande.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40020168

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/23/salman-abedi-manchester-bombing-ariana-grande-concert/102050326/

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/23/europe/manchester-terror-attack-uk/

71.182.248.118 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing at the moment. According to the BBC, police have named him as Salman Abedi, but he has not been formally identified. I was a bit wary here because of what happened after the 2017 Westminster attack with Abu Izzadeen, but the police are saying that they believe the bomber was Salman Abedi. We'll blame them if it's wrong:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's now clear that the British police knew within hours that Salman Abedi was the attacker, but they were annoyed when an off-the-record briefing to US government officials was leaked to the US news media.[3] Some US diplomats in London may have very sore ears after a telling off over this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism? Ready to lock

So there was lots of vandalism on the main page and now on the talk page. Are we ready to lock?

It's been fairly well behaved on the article and talk page so far apart from a few idiots. So I don't support editing restrictions at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@ianmacm Might wanna look at the post history Winsocker (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think is necessary ,especialy regarding vicious Vandalic IP edits.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/173.239.236.87Mr.User200 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Casualty Figures

There has been some backwards-and-forwards with the casualty figures in the infobox and the article due largely, I suspect, to inaccuracies in the media. There were 59 people hospitalised as a result of the attack and the authorities stated that they had treated "around 60" walking wounded on site. In addition, there are reports of people going home after the incident but later reporting to hospital with injuries. Many of the references cited give the number of "injured" as 59 but that is clearly wrong - not being hospitalised is not the same as not being injured!

The infobox gave the number of injuries as 59, but the two citations attached both said 120; within the article there was reference to both 59 and 64 with links to media stating 59 or 120! I have replaced some of the citations to articles that report the total number of casualties rather than just the walking wounded and have amended the figures in the article. Misha An interested observer of this and that 13:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Arrests related to the case

It's not a big deal if the police arrest people. They have to do this to comply with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. If they did not do this, the evidence would be ruled inadmissible in court as the person had not been advised of their rights. It's WP:NOTNEWS to report arrests unless someone is actually charged in connection with the incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Search warrants can be executed without arresting anyone, and evidence obtained. Likewise, people can be questioned informally or formally under caution, including voluntarily at the police station (etc.) without the need to arrest them. AFAIK all such evidence can be admissible, as long as proper procedures have been followed. So I'm not quite sure I agree that "it's not a big deal"; however, that's probably largely moot. What I wanted say was that the BBC is now reporting that the 23-year-old arrested yesterday was the attacker's brother - if that's true, that probably is material to this? 93.89.131.57 (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

IANAL, but the British police nearly screwed up the prosecution of Christopher Halliwell because they failed to comply with the PACE requirements. The police would have to arrest someone if serious charges were likely, something which Steve Fulcher failed to do. People still argue over whether his actions were justified.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing sourced material

This edit not just removes sourced material but also inserts a bad faith comment: "Islamic apologism. Spare the article that". I take offense to that. I really hope we can discuss the merits of an edit without making assumptions as to the users motivations.VR _talk 14:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah the edit summary is in bad taste here. It is worth a mention as they are a notable group in regards to the attack. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Reaction from Muslim Council of Britain

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.

---

As this is at risk of becoming an edit war, I'm starting this discussion regarding the repeated removal of the blurb below by User:El cid, el campeador, initially with the comment Islamic apologism. Spare the article that.:

The Muslim Council of Britain strongly condemned the attack.(two refs, see code below)

Code

The [[Muslim Council of Britain]] strongly condemned the attack.<ref>{{cite news|title=Muslim Council of Britain 'horrified' at Manchester attack|url=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/muslim-council-of-britain-horrified-at-manchester-attack-35746579.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Islamischer Staat bekennt sich zum Attentat|url=https://www.nzz.ch/international/england-tote-bei-explosion-auf-pop-konzert-polizei-geht-vorerst-von-terrorakt-ld.1295955}}</ref>

Though it should be obvious that the quote is legitimate as it a domestic reaction from an organization in Britain, I seems we have to have a discussion about it. Something to link to if it's removed again. It is not a statement of fact, merely a reaction as is section-appropriate. Removing it, especially for the reason stated, is an exertion of individual bias. (WP:POV) sarysa (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I have already mentioned the issue to an admin, hopefully there can be an intervention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If it does turn out to be some loser who has been politically indoctrinated into believing that this type of behaviour is a surefire way of collecting 72 virgins, then this reaction is important, more so than some of the routine international reactions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• FYI, this was also discussed above: Talk:2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing#Removing_sourced_material. Though, I don't mind discussing this here.VR _talk 15:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Whoops, sorry! I don't know how I missed that. sarysa (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Entirely legitimate inclusion. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Include Notable reactions should be included. If the media considers this a notable reaction and it is covered multiple times in the media, then it should be included.--v/r - TP 15:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Include I'd like to point out that the MCE has been discussed before regarding a similar situation at Talk:2017 Westminster attack/Archive 2#Muslim Council of Britain. Claims were made according to their alleged "non-notability" or supposed "Islamic apologism", but the final overall consensus was that they're very notable and that it's not "apologism". --79.242.203.134 (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Include As I said above, a notable group that fits the context of this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Include but omit "Strongly" Notable reactions should be included, but we should omit the editorializing and just stick to the fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include - If you're going to include reactions (which I generally disfavor), include the notable ones. This is notable per RSes. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include - As other editors have said above, if we are including reactions, then the Muslim Council of Britain is certainly notable, as it is one of the main organisations in the UK representing people of the Islamic faith. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Don't Care - I'm obviously outnumbered. It is apologism (and it's not offensive to say that and I'm not insensitive to any demographic). This is an act of Islamic terrorism, and the only reason to include that type of commentary is to say 'not all Muslims are like this.' Which is true but irrelevant to an article about a terrorist attack. The article doesn't list the reactions of every international entity (combined into one), or every domestic entity. Why not include the reactions of all British political parties? This should be an encyclopedia, not an oped piece. But, alas. El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC) btw, arguing that it is 'well sourced' is irrelevant, arguing that the press covers it is even more irrelevant. But, again, alas.El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is considered a violation of WP:AGF, but complaining that we're supposedly trying to say that "not all Muslims are terrorists" reeks too much to me like one would fight it tooth and nail if somebody said that "not all Muslims are generally peaceful". Believe me, I'm trying to discuss the editor's rationale here as to how we're supposedly making Wikipedia look to the reader, not the editor as a person. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I love how everyone on wikipedia is so enlightened. And why are you an IP address instead of an account? Let me know.El cid, el campeador (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In any case, I can assure you it's not because of anything that's related specifically to the UK, terrorism, or Islam. Many, many years ago, while I was having a quiet Wikibreak for a few days to not get a heart attack, I was accused of "gaming the system" behind my back because I'd taken part in debates other people had started. So while I was not even around or knew anything about it, my account was temporarily blocked only to start some kind of tribunal against me. Within a few days that I was away, 500 admins I hadn't even heard about or seen anywhere before attested to the perceived fact I was guilty of having "gamed the system" for simply adding my voice in other people's debates. Pretty much the same amount of other people (that I'd actually seen before, many of them admins as well and complaining about the fact the other side had blocked me before the tribunal had even started so I couldn't defend myself even if I'd've checked WP during that time) stepped up to defend me as "a young editor who, when we'll give him time to grow, will become a valuable asset to the community". The irony was that both groups mostly consisted of people, including most of the admins on both sides, whose accounts were hardly half as old as mine. The closing admin said, "The numbers are roughly even, but I'll just stick with WP:Ignore all rules and make it a perma-ban." I only found out about the whole thing afterwards when I checked my e-mails where one of the sympathetic admins told me in private that Jimbo himself had asked to get me perma-banned because "he was afraid that public financial sources vital to the survival of the Wikimedia Foundation may dry out" if my contributions to debates (not even articles, as I hadn't even touched any regarding the issue!) were allowed to stay on Wikipedia. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Don't Care - (Redacted) CadAPL (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• User was blocked for disruption, redacting inflammatory comment. Fences&Windows 20:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Are they notable enough? It's a form of stereotyping to assume we need to include this groups view as if they are somehow responsible. The bomber seems unconnected to this group. Would this group's opinion have been included if it were the IRA? Religious leaders of note, like the Pope, would have a notable opinion regardless of the perpetrator and their religion. It seems to be a form of soft racism of lowered expectations to need to include statements like this. There are a billion muslims in the world and hundreds of thousands of mosques and their view is not particularly notable and seems like including the condemnation statement is out of the belief they share responsibility. They don't share responsibility and linking them is not needed. I'm sure the Church of England also condemned it but it's not notable. --DHeyward (talk) 23:33, 23 May 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.

Fake news

Experts spoke about a new "dimension" of fake news. It's normal that fake news spreads after attacks to make the chaos bigger and out of political motives. But this time, the fake news dimensions was bigger and broader.--Rævhuld (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It has WP:TOPIC issues and would be better over at Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. This article should stick to things that are related to the bombing itself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Aftermath Operation Temperer

Hello. Sorry that as a new editor I don't feel confident to actually make changes and so am asking lots of questions.

This is an edit request on the Aftermath section re Operation Temperer. While the operation allows for "up to 5,000 troops" to be deployed, at the moment the actual number deployed is 980.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-manchester-40007967

I can't find a separate article reporting that, but it's in the updates at 16:22.

Suggested wording: "Operation Temperer was activated for the first time, allowing for up to 5,000 soldiers to replace police officers on guard duty at high-risk locations. An initial deployment of 980 troops was made."

SkagwayEntropy (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Assertion about Perpetrator

In the "Perpetrator" section I read "He had drawn attention to himself in 2015 by complaining after a sermon against terrorism and about the sanctity of life." The source requires a subscription. Is there another source that is more readily accessible supporting that assertion? Bus stop (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A trick you can use for viewing that source is to Google its title and then look at the cached version.[4]- MrX 15:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Where is the support in that Financial Times article to the assertion we are making? We need a source in support of our assertion that "He had drawn attention to himself in 2015 by complaining after a sermon against terrorism and about the sanctity of life." Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

If it fails verification, remove it per WP:BDP. TompaDompa (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the victims be named?

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.

Clear consensus against naming the victims. TompaDompa (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Should the victims be named in the article?- MrX 13:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• No. It is perhaps worth revisiting later on, but right now, there will not have been enough time to notify next of kin and other loved ones of the victims. For the sake of respect for the victims, there should be no list right now. Perhaps we can revisit it later, but right now, we should be respectful for those involved; I would hate to imagine anyone finding out about something like this through Wikipedia. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes because this is an encyclopedia. The victims' names and photographs are spread across the entire UK news media. The reason only a couple have been named so far is because the police notify next of kin before the press. So there's not a sensitivity issue. Amisom (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• No - There's no encyclopedic value to including the names of non-notable people. WP:BLPNAME advises against it, specifically "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." (emphasis added) - MrX 13:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• No - The victims should be broken down by nationality though if they aren't all from the UK. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• No - The names even when released by the authorities may not be correct (mistakes have been made in similar situations before); the list will not be complete for a very long time; virtually none of the names would mean nothing to the vast majority of readers; and generally, listing the names here adds nothing useful to the article. 93.89.131.57 (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• No since Wikipedia is not a memorial. An exception is if an individual played some important role in the event. At United Airlines Flight 93, individuals are mentioned only if they played some role other than being a victim. For instance, someone might have reported the bomber to authorities or might have warned people to get back from him before the explosion, or might have saved lives after the blast in some way. If a victim list is included, it should not be until a complete listing is released by authorities, to avoid fragmentary and incorrect information. Edison (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment Depressingly inevitable mis-use of WP:NOTMEMORIAL noted. That policy is about editors creating person subject pages of non-notable individuals as memorials. It has nothing to do with listing victims of a notable event, despite how many editors mis-represent it as such. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment Nick Cooper stated that WP:NOTAMEMORIAL does not apply to victims of a notable event, but in "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." "Victims of notable events" fall under "others who do not meet such requirements." Notamemorial is not limited to "friends, relatives, acquaintances." Edison (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Right. It applies to subjects of articles. Nobody has suggestesd creating an article for any of hte victims. This is about listing their names in a page about the event: see also Passengers of the RMS Titanic#Passenger list. Amisom (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• No - see 2007 London bombings for guidance on how it has been done historically. The caveat being if someone who has died was notable for something else on Wikipedia (which also includes any notable injured people too). The joy of all things (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• No --v/r - TP 13:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• No, unless there is an already wikinotable person amongst the victims, names should be left out. Mjroots (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Previous attacks have gone either way (those claiming historical precedent or that only notable people are listed is untrue). But in due time I think we should include a list, since many of the victims will likely prove to be children. It is a way of honoring them, I think.El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphinarium_discotheque_massacre exampleEl cid, el campeador (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• No Per Sasuke Sarutobi. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• No - There's no encyclopedic value to including the names of non-notable people. Nationality and possibly age and gender is enough. It honours no one IMO (even if that were our purpose). Pincrete (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• No for now. Doing so would violate WP:NOTNEWS. If reliable sources deem such material notable, we can add it at a later time.
• No - Not at all necessary. As someone said earlier, Wikipedia is designed to report how the event occurred, not exactly who has died. Danielennistv (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• No. At least not at this time, the situation is too fluid. Shearonink (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• No EvergreenFir (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Not for now - Wait until mainstream media announced or compiles a list of victims. There are very few announced victims currently that it would be meaningless to add them to the page. Jayden (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, but with another suggestion Dolphinarium discotheque massacre, the closest example, names all victims. Otherwise, there is 2011 Norway attacks, which in the absense of naming all victims, states their ages. I think most of the victims will be British nationals of a young age, so the ages might be most relevant. JackWilfred (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, of course - If the information has been published by WP:RS, it is inherently encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. Ages should be included as well. XavierItzm (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• No I'm against this at the moment. It has WP:NOTNEWS issues and is similar to WP:NOTMEMORIAL, although there are some articles where all of the victims are named.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• No Listing them comes across as being disrespectful to the families and friends of the deceased. Such information would be on here for a lifetime, and could cause distress to those closely connected to the deceased. Wikipedia is not an obituary. Wes Wolf ^Talk 20:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• No. I'm aware that some other articles include a list, but those should be removed as well unless there's a specific reason to include them. Although it doesn't have the force of policy, WP:Victim lists is sensible advice that should be followed unless there's a strong reason not to do so (which will generally be those rare instances where the victims are potentially notable in Wikipedia terms independently of their involvement in the incident). ‑ Iridescent 08:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Wait for reliable sources to name the victims and give their names. We should only essentially mirror what the reliable sources say on the attack, which includes the victims. Though we should also be sure that doing such does not violate WP:BLP if we go down that route. If the vast majority or even majority of RS are naming all the victims, we should do so too, giving deference to WP:BLP if it's contentious. Tutelary (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Example from another article: 2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Casualties. @MrX: is there a reliable source for a list right now? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  There are two references in the article for two of the already identified victims, but I don't know if any sources have compiled a list. I'm almost certain some will at some point.- MrX 13:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the identities of the 2 victims. Direction of the survey supports this and we should respect the privacy of the victims. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I was one of those taking part in the Orlando discussion, the argument that appeared to 'win the day' there was that some previous outrages had listed names, "what was so different about the victims of Orlando?". I hope people here will ignore such considerations and ask what useful informational purpose 'naming' does - also - I hope we do not imagine that if someone you know has died at Manchester, that having WP list their name will decrease the pain and loss by even a smidgeon. It is not our purpose to honour the victims, nor do we have any material power to do so. Doing so might make us feel better, but otherwise it's valueless. Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"other stuff" can end up being a standard as well, I was just showing that as an example, another editor above mentioned Dolphinarium discotheque massacre. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• A few points:
  • (1) Nick Cooper is right that 'WP:NOTMEMORIAL' primarily applies to people creating articles on individuals as a memorial to those individuals (the fact that someone above said 'not an obituary' exemplifies this misunderstanding - a list of victims is not an obituary - the distinction here is between an account of a person's life, and a list of people who have died - the latter is not the former). i.e. lists of victims is a different topic, a subtlety that gets missed sometimes.
  • (2) There are instances where lists of otherwise non-notable victims are acceptable, almost invariably where there has been a reasonable level of sustained discussion in reliable sources about the victims (the Titanic passenger lists mentioned above is a good example). Lists of people listed on memorials is another example (such as this list relating to a memorial). In the case of the Manchester Arena bombings, a list of the victims is not suitable for Wikipedia (as an aside, Martyn Hett may be borderline notable, not sure about that).
  • (3) Sometimes a picture of a memorial that is erected later will show the names of the victims (example from the London 2005 bombings). Also, victims do get mentioned in the running text of articles if there are not very many - 2017 Westminster attack is a good example where all (four) victims are named in the text of the article, but not in list form.
  • (4) The final point is that people come to Wikipedia looking for information - if they want to find the names of the victims, we should at least point them in the right direction - an external link or footnotes pointing to external articles about the victims or (later) a list of the victims, should be acceptable.

    Carcharoth (talk) 11:39, 24 May 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.

"...a 22-year-old British citizen of Libyan refugees..."

Now that sounds a bit odd. --105.5.210.70 (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The current wording in the article is "He was born in Manchester on 31 December 1994 to a family of refugees from Libya who settled in south Manchester." I can't find the wording that you've mentioned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Referring to Islamic terrorism/radical Islam

User Winsocker has reverted two edits made to the article with specific regard to the affiliation of the bomber with Islam. I did a little digging and found that he also made changes to the 2004 Madrid train bombings article and changed the motive from "Islamic extremism" to "Terrorism". I believe that Winsocker is acting in bad faith with these revisions and is trying to remove as much information as possible on this article that links the bombings to Islamic extremism.

I believe including that the bomber was a Muslim (and, per source, a radical one) is material to the article. Happy to hear what anyone else has to say.118.210.154.206 (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because we have specifically stated in the talk page that it was not Islamic terrorism and we decided to keep it at "terrorism". Start reading because this was discussed before. I feel you though are acting in bad faith as you failed to read the discussions above. Also, just by googling your IP address, you are using a proxy which is already suspicious. Winsocker (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it isn't. How do you think people edit on their lunchbreak when Wiki is firewalled? Use your head before you post.50.111.4.57 (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Given your selective editing of dated articles to change 'Islamic extremism' to just 'terrorism', it's quite clear you have a vested interest in the distinction between the two. The source provided states quite clearly that the bomber turned to radical Islam later on in his life - this is highly material. Additionally, I'm from Australia, where dynamic IPs are used - I'm not using a proxy, it's just the way we're assigned protocols from our ISPs. You may not like the fact that a large number of terrorist incidents in the last few years have been committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. Removing material information in an article is akin to Vandalism, please stop it.118.210.154.206 (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)