Talk:Manchester Arena bombing/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

remove protected on november 1, 2019

|Manchester Arena bombing|answered=yes}}--114.108.246.153 (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected until March 2020. Unfortunately, many of the IP edits were not constructive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"Islamic extremism" as the motive: isn't this simplistic?

From the article itself:

On 23 May, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, via the Nashir Telegram channel, claimed the attack was carried out by "a soldier of the Khilafah". The message called the attack "an endeavor to terrorize the mushrikin, and in response to their transgressions against the lands of the Muslims."[19][20][21] Abedi's sister speculated that he was motivated by revenge for Muslim children killed by American airstrikes in Syria.[22][23]

At best this looks like the word "mushrikin" and mentions of Islam are tertiary to the actual motive, which is revenge for American and British intervention in Syria. Finsternish (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Abedi didn't leave behind a video ranting about his motive, as the attackers in the 7 July 2005 London bombings did, so we'll have to guess to some extent about why he did it. It was probably the same mishmash of Islamist and political extremism that drove the 2005 bombers. The Syrian Civil War angle is plausible but speculative. Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of the 2005 London attackers, cited Western intervention in the Middle East as one of his motives, and this is a recurring theme.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Not only that, but Western bases on Saudi land were the motivation for Osama bin Laden to found Al-Qaeda, and the primary recruitment tactic for ISIS is opposition to the devastating effects of Western imperialism on the lives of Middle Easterners, even if the answer they propose to it is an Islamic caliphate led by them. If anything, Islam is just the solution ISIS has proposed to the motivating problem of the way more powerful countries have used the Middle East as their proxy battleground since World War I, and the obvious devastating effects this has on the lives, families, hopes, and dreams of Middle Easterners.

To reach much further back in history, you could say the Bar Kochba revolt was an instance of Jewish extremism, and in a certain sense you'd be right. But you'd also be ignoring the way Rome had turned Judea into its puppet kingdom, going so far as to install its own line of client kings (similar to how America restored the Shah as an absolute ruler in order to oppose Iranian democracy that would be contrary to its interests).

Calling the motivation for things like this "Islamic extremism" is one of the reductionist idiocies of the nuance-free time we live in right now, and of the tendency for so many people in the West to dismiss as "political correctness" everything that doesn't portray the West as innocent victims of evil Muslims. It's also shifting all blame away from the West and acting like these attacks happen devoid of context just because someone read in a holy book that they had to bomb an arena. I think this technique was first made popular by Israel in its attempts to dismiss the Palestinian cause (as it simultaneously funded the group that would become Hamas as a way to counter the PLO). Finsternish (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

You make a very good point. Clearly, only non-Muslims and/or white people are truly guilty of wrongdoing. Any violence committed by a Muslim results either from mental illness (often brought on by Islamophobia) or they clearly aren't true Muslims. And besides, are we really saying that those dead and injured girls were totally innocent of prejudice against Muslims and people of colour? The only way to gauge the situation accurately is to read The Guardian, I've found.

Saying that the children who are victims of terrorism are not innocent of wrongdoing against the perpetrators of the terrorism is obscene. Killing children is never justified by insisting that the children deserved it because of crimes they perpetrated before they were born.204.155.231.3 (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2020

I believe that in the 'Kerslake Report' section, the information regarding the Manchester Fire & Rescue Service should be expanded on, that singular quote is the only reference to the issues related to the GMFRS in this Wikipedia article and there was a large number of problems on that night. I've read the Kerslake Report, and I believe that there are key issues that should be clearly stated, rather than just stating the GMFRS was paralysed.

The Fire & Rescue Service took 2 hours to arrive on the scene of the bombing, even though they had firefighters on call who heard the explosion from their station. The report makes a specific point that specialist stretcher and extraction teams of the GMFRS never arrived, even though the greater manchester police activated the operation they were specifically created for, granted, the greater manchester police failed to share this information with the NWAS and the GMFRS. By the time the greater manchester fire & rescue service arrived, all casualties had already been removed without the help of their useful spine boards & stretchers. Firefighters had an exclusion zone of 500 meters around the explosion, giving them zero access to the scene of the explosion. This was due to the fact that command had no information from other services on the status of the situation, and presumed it was a "Marauding Terrorist Firearms Attack". Ultimately, there was a paralysing lack of information coming out of the police service to the fire & rescue service which led to both a failure in the deployment of the operation PLATO warranted teams and the complete failure of deployment of any fire & rescue service personnel. After just under 2 hours, the fire service was made aware that the police had declared a marauding terrorist situation (operation PLATO) due to overhearing it at the force headquarters, which sounds like a scene out of a dramatization, but is fully true to life. The section of the report states it was "fortuitous" that the NWAS was unaware of the issuing of Operation PLATO is true, the ambulance service provided the assistance they would not have been able to if the situation was declared as a Marauding Terrorist Firearms Attack, but this is not true for the Fire Service, who took a presumptive stance on safety and did not deploy pumps, whilst at the same time did not deploy specialist Operation PLATO teams. Therefore I believe that the contrasting view of the failure of communication should be stated so that the positives of a communication error are not the only stated mentions in this article. Not to mention, imagine if there was an active shooter, and the police had not communicated this order.

These three services, like many regional emergency services in the United Kingdom, depends on a joint emergency services approach revolving around the use of officers liaising with other services. At a major incident like this one, there is no room for communication error, the smallest error in communication between agencies can cause an entire service to be rendered useless.

I believe that "On 27 March 2018, the Kerslake Report, "an independent review into the preparedness for, and emergency response to, the Manchester Arena attack on 22nd May 2017",[5] was published; it found that the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service was "brought to a point of paralysis".[5]:5.155

The Kerslake Report "largely praised" the Greater Manchester Police and British Transport Police, and noted that it was "fortuitous" that the North West Ambulance Service was unaware of the declaration of Operation Plato, a protocol under which all responders should have been withdrawn from the arena foyer.[5]:5.40"

Should be replaced with something along the lines of this:

On the 27th of March 2018, the Kerslake Report, "an independent review into the preparedness for, and emergency response to, the Manchester Arena attack on 22nd May 2017", was published; It found that several errors in communication crippled the responding services joint agency approach, ultimately bringing the Manchester Fire and Rescue Service "to a point of paralysis". Kerslake, Bob (2018-03-27). "Kerslake Arena Review (The kerslake report)" (PDF). p. 167.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Operation PLATO was a joint plan between the Greater Manchester Police, the North West Ambulance Service and the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. This operation would be executed in the case of a "Marauding Terrorist Firearms Attack". Essentially, an active shooter situation. All Ambulance Service teams would be moved away from the scene to preserve their lives and the Fire and Rescue Service would withdraw to the outside of a 500 meters exclusion zone Kerslake, Bob (2018-03-27). "Kerslake Arena Review (The kerslake report)" (PDF). p. 96.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)whilst deploying specialist teams designed for the execution of Operation PLATO with advanced 'Sked' stretchers designed for this scenario for casualty extraction from active shooter zones Kerslake, Bob (2018-03-27). "Kerslake Arena Review (The kerslake report)" (PDF). p. 149.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link).

The Greater Manchester Police did initiate Operation PLATO and declared a "Marauding Terrorist Firearms Attack", however, failed to inform their partners at GMFRS and NWASKerslake, Bob (2018-03-27). "Kerslake Arena Review (The kerslake report)" (PDF). p. 96.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link). Luckily, this initiation was based on false intelligence and there was no active shooter situationKerslake, Bob (2018-03-27). "Kerslake Arena Review (The kerslake report)" (PDF). p. 168.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link). The lack of informing the other services was noted as "fortuitous" in the report in regards to the North West Ambulance Service, as without Ambulance Personnel on the scene aid would not have been as effectively rendered to the victims. However, in regards to the Fire and Rescue Service, the lack of communication regarding the initiation of Operation PLATO led to the "paralysis" of the Fire Service on that night. The Inter-Agency Liason Officer opted to be precautious and enforced the 500-meter exclusion zone Kerslake, Bob (2018-03-27). "Kerslake Arena Review (The kerslake report)" (PDF). p. 96.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link), presuming an active shooter situation. However, due to lack of knowledge regarding Operation PLATO, the Fire Service never deployed their specialist 'Sked' stretcher teams for a situation like this, whilst enforcing the 500-meter exclusion zone. The Inter-Agency Liason Officer attempted to contact the Greater Manchester Police Force Duty Officer to get information regarding Operation PLATO, but could not reach them on the phone Kerslake, Bob (2018-03-27). "Kerslake Arena Review (The kerslake report)" (PDF). p. 96.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link). No Fire & Rescue personnel arrived at the scene of the explosion until 2 hours after the explosion, even though the explosion could be heard from one of the GMFRS stations nearby.

Overall the report "largely praised" the efforts of the Greater Manchester Police and the British Transport Police. The report concludes by providing dozens of recommendations to prevent such issues from arising in future major incidents. MatthewsInput (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@MatthewsInput: I appreciate the summary of the long report, but it's a little too long and in detail for its entire inclusion. I've condensed it into a few sentences. Take a look and let me know what you think. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

IED?

Wikipedia should have a bot that scans all articles and changes "Improvised Explosive Device" to "bomb". It's a bomb. IED is offensively patronizing terminology of "expertism". Nobody who wants to be objective and encyclopedic will refer to a bomb as anything other than a bomb. Did anarchists use an IED at JPMorgan's office? No. The first use of the term "IED" is in reference to hostilities in Northern Ireland in the 1960s or 1970s. Up until that time calling a bomb a bomb was working just fine. So why the change? I believe it was an attempt by those in positions of power and influence to reserve the word "bomb" for something in the hands of military personnel sanctioned by officially recognized governmental authorities. "When WE blow something up with something that our government paid a factory for, it's a bomb. When YOU blow something up with something you made from nails and gunpowder in your basement, it's an IED." So, if the killing, maiming, and destruction are authorized by a government, it's one thing, and if the killing, maiming, and destruction are authorized by an illegal group, it's another thing. Now, I don't disagree that blowing up Hamburg to stop Nazis from blowing up the U.K. was moral. I'm just saying I would never play the "bomb"/"IED" semantic game. I don't believe that we use different words for "gun" depending on whether it was used justifiably by a good person against a bad person who deserved it (i.e., by their bad conduct gave the good person no other choice that would be moral towards potential innocent victims) vs. used by a bad person against an innocent person who did NOT deserve it. A gun is a gun is a gun. So a bomb is a bomb is a bomb, no matter who made it or why they used it.204.155.231.3 (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Improvised explosive device is more specific. All IEDs are bombs, but not all bombs are IEDs. Jim Michael (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Racism edit

AllSaintsNext Re this edit: the headline of the BBC source says "Security 'did not approach bomber over racism fears' while the full quote is "I did not want people to think I am stereotyping him because of his race. I was scared of being wrong and being branded a racist if I got it wrong and would have got into trouble. It made me hesitant. I wanted to get it right and not mess it up by over-reacting or judging someone by their race." I think that you are producing WP:OR by making the source say what you would like it to say rather than what it does say. It is very clear that the security guard was worried about being branded racist if he was wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it’s quite clear he was afraid of being wrong, and therefore being called a racist if the perp was innocent. Therefore the primary cause of inaction is him being afraid of being wrong, saying “he was afraid of being racist” is fine, if you precursor it by saying that he was only afraid of being racist if he was wrong. The source says exactly this, while focusing a lot on the “racism” part, they still say quite clearly that the individual was afraid of being wrong, that was his main cause of inaction. It therefore seems reasonable to me to say that he was afraid of being wrong, and therefore being branded racist, rather than just “he didn’t intervene because he was scared of being called racist”, which implies on its own that he simply saw that he wasn’t white, and therefore ignored him, rather than acknowledging concerns, and being in fear of being wrong.AllSaintsNext (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy to change the wording to something like "he was afraid of being branded racist if he was wrong." However, the racism angle cannot be removed entirely, because the full quote is very clear that he was afraid of being branded racist if he turned out to be wrong. Anyone can make a mistake, but the security guard said three times that a key factor in his decision was a fear of being branded racist.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I would concur that is a good edit, something like “he did not intervene in case his concerns about Abedi were wrong, and that he would be subsequently branded racist.” Does that work for you? AllSaintsNext (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

That's ok, although the word "subsequently" isn't really needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank youAllSaintsNext (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021 (2)

louis01 (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC) {{edit semi-unprotected|Manchester Arena bombing|answered=yes}}

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This account is a sockpuppet, see here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"In popular culture" section

Re this edit: I'm unsure about whether this is worth mentioning in this article, as it isn't really about the bombing itself and runs into WP:TOPIC problems. It is definitely on topic at Music to Be Murdered By where it is covered in more detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

I would like to change the words used to identify the bombers and there group.They are not Muslims.Islam is not about what they preach they are extremists.I would like to remove the words Islam as it misinforms people about what Islam is about.It’s harmful and adds to further discrimination and prejudice please change this as a Muslim myself I would really appreciate it if it could be edited not just for this page but for past pages and future ones.This is a bad stereotype to set and it misinforms the ignorant.Please stop this and remove it.Again I am saying to remove ISLAM associated with extremists it is NOT true to the religion and is HARMFUL and further spreads IGNORANCE,PREJUDICE,RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION Truth000001 (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Abedi was motivated by a mixture of political and religious extremism. This is well sourced in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Death of fan at concert in July 2021

Re this edit: it is in the Manchester Evening News today.[1] The problem is WP:CRYSTAL, because we don't know if her death was linked to the concert. Many of the fans suffered with health problems such as PTSD, but it's too early to speculate here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: I removed it because DailyMail is a deprecated source and is unreliable, per WP:DAILYMAIL. Since this involves a living or recently dead person, WP:BLP applies, which means we have to reliably source all information that is added into the article. The source you provided does not say that the death was related to PTSD or the Manchester attack at all, so we shouldn't add anything unless it's confirmed in a reliable source. As well, CRYSTAL does apply here. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Number and type of injuries

Re this edit: The figure of 1,017 people injured is given in various news articles, eg here and in the text of the inquiry[2]. It doesn't say that 239 were physical injuries, which is what it says here. There is a risk of creating WP:SYNTH by combining the two sources. The National Library of Medicine source could be included, but in a way that does not combine in with and contradict the other sources. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it's incorrect to state "1,017 were injured, 239 physically." It's similar to "x amount injured, x amount hospitalised". It's just additional information, the UK often includes mental trauma as injured, and at present that's not clear in the article, one would assume that 1,017 were injured physically by the bomb, which is incorrect. It's just adding context. AllSaintsNext (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the best way around this, but it is important not to combine the two sources in a way that is not explicitly stated by either of them. Some of the psychological injuries may not have become obvious until weeks or months after the attack. The National Library of Medicine source says that the people involved were screened at 3, 6 and 9 months after the incident. The sourcing doesn't say that there were 778 psychological injuries, this involves combining information in a way that neither source says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The Source does however state that 239 were physically injured, while the psychological injuries are obviously included in the total, there is no tally for this like you say, hence why I am proposing "1,017 were injured, 239 physically.". Which is supported by both sources.AllSaintsNext (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Injured 1,017 (239 physically injured,[1] 112 hospitalised)[2]"

wtf does this mean? 216.164.249.213 (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

This is in the infobox. The article text makes it clearer that hundreds of people suffered psychological trauma relating to the incident. Not all injuries are physical.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Well it's extremely misleading. Is there a precedent for the use of this kind of language? 216.164.249.213 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This was previously discussed at Talk:Manchester_Arena_bombing/Archive_6#Number_and_type_of_injuries. The infobox isn't the ideal place to go into details, but the text of the article makes clear that in addition to the physical injuries, hundreds of people suffered psychological injuries resulting from the bombing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. As long as it was discussed it should stay, even though I personally disagree with the decision. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Ancestry

It feels unnecessary to point out that the attacker’s ancestry, especially as he is defined as a “local man”. Would the same be done for a white terrorist (“a local man of French origin”)? 82.42.202.233 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

He is described as reliable sources describe him, and all that background seems pretty relevant. Not addressing your straw man. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It is relevant because Salman Abedi travelled to Libya and became involved with extremists there.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

"Wendy Fawell" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wendy Fawell and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 27 § Wendy Fawell until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the bombing section, please get rid of the “about five minutes” wording. 22:15 to 22:31 is 16 minutes so please clarify this. 2600:100C:A21A:B5A1:A9F0:3F38:A1B1:30BF (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done I changed the wording from "about five minutes" to "about fifteen minutes". Would not be opposed to the phrase being removed altogether, either. SkyWarrior 23:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Re edit: The previous edit introduced a large number of changes and removed sourced content without any discussion. This resulted in a net loss for the article. This should have been done gradually and with discussion, not in one fell swoop. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you detail this net loss? I specifically copy and pasted chunks wherever possible and added to sections. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2023

Under the "Bombing" head, The final line of "The station was evacuated and shut down until 30 May due to damage from the arena's glazed atrium roof, which was found to affect the vibration of train movements." is incorrect, the cited PDF says the roof was [in danger from the vibration of trains], not that the trains vibrations were affected by the roof. XXx HAMPHREY xXx (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AnnaMankad (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done: I've tried to make the wording of this a bit clearer, but it may be an unnecessary detail per WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

Change "At exactly 10:31 p.m. (21:01 UTC)" to "At exactly 10:31 p.m. (21:31 UTC)" - this is because BST is only 1 hour ahead of UTC and not 1.5 hours ahead. Pragh (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pragh  Done! Thank you for your contribution! NotAGenious (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Why no infobox for Salman Abedi?

Just why not... Clearly an essential figure to the article Thecheeseistalking99 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Cell phone

The following is inappropriate: 'Abedi was noted using his cell phone' Cell phone is a US term, and this is clearly a non-US subject. Would someone with editing access change this to mobile phone, or just phone. Thank you. 80.136.206.174 (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)