Talk:Parsons Green train bombing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Delete discussion

Hi, I just proposed a deletion. Why? Because the Germans deleted their article. Their argument: placing a bomb could just be an accident. That it is treated as terrorism by the British government and mass media is irrelevant to them - because the German government didn't called it terrorism yet. Furthermore, they claim terrorist attacks in Great Britain is irrelevant and should only be placed in tabloids (maybe because of Brexit?). At the end of the day, they claim that there is no victims involved in this terrorist attack - I mean "accident"; meanwhile they are ridiculing the injured people. So I just thought, hey, if the German Wikipedia doesn't think this article is important: why not just delete the English one as well. After all, the encyclopedic standards are international.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you're making a WP:POINT as your article was redirected. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

He is a German, who wanted to delete it. Funny how silent they got with their ridiculous claims, when we got into the English Wikipedia. Making fun of British victims is just funny when no one understands it, right? And that my article was redirected is fully ok with me ... why you talk about it is quite astonishing.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that a British terrorist attack should be deleted because... "the German government didn't called it terrorism"?! Smithr32 (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you not think that a bombing in London might be more important in England than it is in Germany? Britmax (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion Britmax,I have re written my comment to avoid confusionSmithr32 (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Really? Who else other than the British police or government can credibly confirm anything in the UK as a terrorist attack..? The German government governs Germany. Futhermore, what has "Brexit" got to do with the deletion of this article? This seems far more like the nom is personally disgruntled than concerned about enwiki policy. It may be worth noting that they are blocked at dewiki for personal attacks. –72 _(talk) 13:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Really? Who else other than the British police or government can credibly confirm anything in the UK" Well, ask the Germans. And I was blocked in the German community, because they are trolls.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Major updates and vital background information

-- 92.20.203.168 (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Reactions

As sure as night follows day, this page swelled with "reactions". While we can agree that the mayor of London, the prime minister and the Foreign Secretary are notable in the event of a terrorist attack in London, the leader of the Liberal Democrats or the MP for Putney are not. Can editors keep an eye out for when this comes back onto the article after I removed it? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Good work keeping it to this level. I'm not sure why the Foreign Secretary is notable for a terrorist attack in the UK? Isn't terrorism on British soil part of the Home Secretary's remit? Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Snow close at ITN, speedy keep at AFD and a reactions section which is longer than any other. This whole thing should be a section in Attacks_on_the_London_Underground. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thryduulf perhaps more tenuous to mention the FS, but counter-terrorism is a well-known part of international relations in the current era. Certainly more relevant than the Greens or Lib Dems Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

News article

This is simply a newsarticle. For news we have Wikinews: and here is the article:Parsons Green: 'Explosion' reported on London Tube train. Why is this project packed with news articles, if there is a special sister project. An encyclopedia should describe the facts after the incident, and not during the incident. --Livenws (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@LIVE NIEUWS: - whilst your criticism may well have been valid at the time you posted it, there is a big difference between Wikinews and Wikipedia. Wikinews articles are quickly locked, so that they remain news articles. Wikipedia articles grow as the story develops. Take a look at the Grenfell Tower fire article and see how that has grown in the three months since the event. This article is growing, and will continue to grow. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Image of device used

Could someone please put this in? I don't really know how to put pictures in articles.

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/pri_53006823-e1505467462723.jpg?w=620&h=417&crop=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GinnyFan (talk • contribs) 09:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

To upload files, you need to use the Wikimedia Commons Upload Wizard but it needs to fall in line with the copyright license. Hope this helps! :) ZendrickBuchan (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely that the image will be allowed to remain in the article under fair use rules. It could be linked to as part of an "External links" section though. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Number of injured

The BBC have increased the number of people injured to 30.[1] It's also (previously) stated that 29 were treated in hospital (or the emergency unit), but I personally think it's highly likely that some received minor injuries and/or were only treated at the scene. Given the change by the BBC we should probably consider changing the article, despite the existing sources. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Searching this on google yields conflicting results: BBC, The Times and a few others say thirty. The Independent, Guardian, Telegraph and a few others say twenty-nine. Probably best to wait and see? –72 _(talk) 12:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually it seems that the officials (the Met) have updated this to thirty[2] from the twenty-nine they had earlier[3]. Probably best to add this then –72 _(talk) 12:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Claim of responsibility

ISIS have claimed responsibility for the attack. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

ISIL claims responsibility for everything. Can we at least wait for more information on the suspect(s) when/if they are captured or identified? That way sources can determine for us a definitive ISIL connection.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand... Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick:Please don't remove sourced edits. The claims from ISIS are being reported by the press and its proper to report it in the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland wait for the investigation to substantiate those claims or at the very least wait for information on the suspects. Per WP:RSBREAKING, the press is not a reliable source, especially in the early parts of the investigation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

ISIS has publicly claimed responsibility. It is reported in reliable news agencies. This is your POV edits but consensus from other editors is to report it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I see you have decided to edit war rather than go with the consensus of other editors and discuss it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland what consensus? Mjroots brought it up but then provided another source that discredits the claim. Where is the consensus?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

PS, did you read WP:RSBREAKING or nah?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, but it does not justify you WP:OWNing the article. The ISIS news agency claimed responsibility. That's the end of it. It is irrelevant as to whether or not the suspects are identified -- the ISIS claim stands on its own and is not related to the UK Police finding the suspects. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• It certainly would not; good thing I am not assuming ownership with my whopping four edits. If you read the policy and still do not understand the problem, then seek consensus. Some editors may disagree with assuming ISIL is a reliable source...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The WP:RS is not the Islamic State. The source is a major British newspaper. Please desist from your edit warring. XavierItzm (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on material is not edit warring. Alas, another poor edit by XavierItzm on a major recent event.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You cannot simply ignore 3 WP:RS and delete them because you don't like them.XavierItzm (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely too much on that second source I provided. It was an attempt at humour.

As for ISIS, just because the claimed to have done the deed, it doesn't mean that they did it. The article shouldn't say that they did it, but it can say that they claimed they did it, as that has been widely reported by a number of sources. If the Metropolitan or British Transport Police or senior UK politicians state it was ISIS, that is when the article can do so, not before. Mjroots (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've been invited to comment here after making one edit to this section. I've no strong opinions on whether this information should be included or not - reliable sources are never sufficient for inclusion, but if it's mentioned it should be at least be accurate and put into context.[4] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The disputed claim should be included, but "IS claim" does not mean "IS did". Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Terror v Terrorist

Given the hidden comment and reverts (here and on related articles), are we describing this as a terror or terrorist attack? Mainstream media, as well as government officials, are calling this a "terrorist" attack currently. Admittedly the "terrorist" point is moot until a group or individual claims responsibility, and it's way to early for that -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are now explicitly using the term "terrorist attack". So, for now, the issue is resolved. If it turns out the attacker is an unaffiliated individual, necessary terminology may need to change again. Philip Cross (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

'Terror' tends to be used before officially designated -ist, rather than before it is known who is to blame. 'Terror' is evasive and unclear as a term IMO, it implies much and says little. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Wave of terror

User:GinnyFan, the phrase Wave of Terror in Europe was invented by a WP editor, it is pure OR and so is the date 2014 (2015 + 16 was the very bad period in France), it is also highly disputed as to which events are or are not in any way connected with 'Syria' or the migrant crisis, therefore the following is entirely WP:OR and off-topic unless a connection to this event is reliably made:

These recent attacks on Britain have emerged in the geopolitical contexts of the spillover of the War in Syria, the European migrant crisis as well as the Wave of Terror in Europe since 2014. The latter includes various terrorist strikes such as the November 2015 Paris attacks, the March 2016 Brussels bombings, the July 2016 Nice attacks and the August 2017 Barcelona attack.

I think that it would probably be easy to source that part of the recent European background is 'Barcelona', without implying conclusions as to causes in the way the above text does. Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

We have a user persistently taking a citation, and removing four words from the citation, because that editor does not like these four words. The issue has been discussed in TP, resulting in refinements to the text, yet the user ignores the discussion. I think we are at the vandalism stage, here. XavierItzm (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A compromise with yourself, I suppose? XavierItzm I'll give you one last chance to cease your personal attacks. It takes a certain level of compentency to edit here and unfortunately you have not demonstrated that you understand that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There is already discussion above, so creating a new section is unhelpful. However, firstly text that is so vague as to be meaningless is in no one's interest (lots of incidents occurred in Britain recently, my neighbour fell off his bike). Secondly one source - the one you like - is not sacred, we are entitled to summarise what the balance of RS say and few that I have seen have thought the 2017 Buckingham Palace incident important enough to mention, the other 3 (or 4) recent UK incidents are mentioned widely by UK news as 'background', so probably is 'Barcelona'. Thirdly, the compromise appears to be one you reached with yourself in the discussion above. Why is the Buck Pal incident even worthy of mention here? It is given zero weight by most sources and leads to distorted text. Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If some editors are not very careful, the will either find themselves at WP:ANEW, or blocked before long. WP:3RR is not a right, people have been blocked for less. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Updates

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-attack-parsons-green-tube-bombing-sunbury-on-thames-surrey-arrests-isis-investigation-terror-a7950536.html92.20.196.47 (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing new here, but thanks anyway. Pincrete (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Can we please only use reliable sources in the article? Specifically, this means The Sun, the Daily Mirror, The Star and the Daily Mail are not used as sources. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

There's an edit filter that will stop dailymail.co.uk being added in mainspace, but it's not turned on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

And the sources for The Sun, the Daily Mirror, The Star not being WP:RS are...? XavierItzm (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: - long established consensus, example at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 222#All newspapers that publish in tabloid format are not reliable sources?, which neatly covers the difference between tabloid format and tabloid journalism. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A bit of a stretch, it looks like. A conversation which went nowhere and where at least half the people simply dismissed the simplistic assertion that the print format of a periodical should disqualify it? Sorry, no cigar, and no reason to expunge major British media. XavierItzm (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not about the size the paper is printed on. It is about the quality of the journalism. Additions of non-reliable sources will either be removed entirely, or tagged with {{reliable source}}. Mjroots (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with ensuring only WP:RS. I still see no policy-based evidence for censoring The Sun, the Daily Mirror, nor The Star. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I was going to suggest WP:TABLOID, but that relates to something different. If we don't have a policy on this somewhere I'd be surprised, and if we really don't then we should think about devising something, as the use of tabloid newspapers in articles such as this is strongly discouraged. This is Paul (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources#News media says "In general, tabloid newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail (see also the February 2017 RFC discussing its validity), equivalent television shows, or sites like The Register, should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims. The Daily Express and Sunday Express should be treated with even greater caution." Joseph2302 (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, there we are. No ban on The Star, nor automatic censorship on The Sun nor Daily Mirror: merely to be used with caution, especially if with sensational claims. But if the claims are not sensational, well, just use caution, which frankly, should be used with all media. Cheers to all! XavierItzm (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If something is only mentioned in Sun or Mirror, that's a red flag over its reliability. If it's mentioned in a better source, avoid being challenged and use the better source. Works every time Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

We've gone from «please don't use The Sun, the Daily Mirror, The Star»... to... «avoid being challenged [if one uses them]». The good news is, The Sun, the Daily Mirror and The Star remain unblacklisted. XavierItzm (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood me. By "challenged", I meant this very discussion, which would not have come up had the most reliable sources been used. While names like Daily Mail, Sun and Mirror sound like newspapers, they are tabloid journalism, which as described above is not related to their page size but an ethos on unconfirmed and sensationalised stories as a way to generate profit. The Sun had a famous headline alleging a comedian ate a live hamster, for example Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it's alright. The New York Times, perhaps as a way to generate profit, had a famous headline (Russians Hungry, But Not Starving) denying the Holodomor took place. Yet it fortunately remains an unblacklisted WP:RS, just as much as The Sun, the Daily Mirror, The Star, because one headline does not turn a journal into a blackballed source here on Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The 18 yr old is not confirmed as an Iraqi refugee

This makes explicit that the nationality and other details are unconfirmed officially. If you look at refs they say things like "is reportedly an Iraqi orphan who moved over to the UK as a refugee three years ago, a community leader said today" … … "The Standard put the claims to the Met police .... but a spokesman could not confirm or deny the reports. He said the force “would not comment on any details surrounding the suspect’s identity”. Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

First, the Guardian says: « However, officials at the Iraqi embassy in London said they had had no contact from police following his arrest, and were unsure of his nationality.» Since when does positive ID rely on what a foreign embassy says? If you follow these sort of incidents, you know the foreign embassies are often the last to either know or (for whatever reasons) acknowledge the nationality of the attackers.
Second, the Guardian says: «There have been unconfirmed reports that this man is Iraqi.» Well, the "unconfirmed reports" include the BBC as well as all other news sources, with for example the following BBC subheadline and text:
«Orphan from Iraq
The 18-year-old arrested man is thought to have lived in a foster home owned by Ronald and Penelope Jones, in Sunbury-on-Thames, Surrey.
He is thought to have moved to the UK from Iraq aged 15 when his parents died.»
On the Wikipedia, we go by what the sources say, as they put their name on the line, even if their sources were unofficial. Heard of the Washington Post, and Watergate, much? Were the WP and its sources "official"?
It is perfectly fine to add "unconfirmed reports" that the teenager refugee is Iraqi, but not to obliterate the well-sourced content. XavierItzm (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No sourced content was removed, the text was modified by me to make clear that the identity was at that time unconfirmed. I amended "Kent Constabulary announced that a suspect, an unnamed 18-year-old male Iraqi refugee,", which the source used explicitly contradicts to, the 18-year old was "believed to be an Iraqi orphan refugee". I left an explanation here because others might have thought his identity was rock solid - which it is not. Please check the edit history before making inaccurate comments about other editors. Pincrete (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Renaming article title

Just a suggestion but I think it might be better if the page was renamed to "2017 Parsons Green bombing" or something similar. September 2017 London Underground bombing is lengthy and "London Underground" refers to all tube stations and the tube lines. But just a suggestion! HectorBrockerbank (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Although this was probably a good idea, its worth waiting for someone to respond to the question of if it should be moved before deciding to move the article -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The target wasn't the station itself, it was the Underground network. The station has no significance in and of itself. Therefore I think it should be kept as it is.GinnyFan (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I take it that GinnyFan is suggesting a move to September 2017 London Underground bombing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes - wasn't aware the move had occurred already when I wrote the above here.GinnyFan (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The bombing did not occur in the station - if it did, then the page would have been called "2017 Parsons Green tube station bombing" but the reason why it was renamed was because it occurred in the Parsons Green area of London. HectorBrockerbank (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That title is far too long, with unnecessary disambiguators. In addition, many people unfamiliar with London won't know that 'tube' means the London Underground. Unless there's been another bombing in Parsons Green, a better title is Parsons Green bombing. Jim Michael (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That title is alright Jim and thank you for suggesting it. I do think however "2017" should be added. Terrorist attack pages have the year it occurred in the title (e.g. 2017 Westminster attack, 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, June 2017 London Bridge attack and 2017 Finsbury Park attack) so I'd suggest adding 2017 to the title as well.HectorBrockerbank (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Enough with the move warring. Let's concentrate on writing a decent article shall we? Mjroots (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. But the article should remain as "2017 Parsons Green bombing" HectorBrockerbank (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it will. I've move-protected that article at Admin level. Mjroots (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Mjroots! :) HectorBrockerbank (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Year and type of attack in title

Terror attacks don't always have the year in their titles. The reason that most do (such as 2016 Berlin attack), and some also have the month (such as November 2015 Paris attacks) and in some cases the day as well (such as 27 January 2011 Baghdad bombing), is to disambiguate between attacks that happened in the same location on different occasions. This is the only bombing that has happened in Parsons Green, so there's no need for the year. Jim Michael (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There was no previous attack in Westminster prior to the 2017 Westminster attack and there was no previous attack at Finsbury Park prior to the 2017 Finsbury Park attack as well as the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing or the June 2017 London Bridge attack and yet the year they happened is in the title of the articles, so would you want the years taken away from these articles as well? The article move title has been locked and should be kept as "2017 Parsons Green bombing" and as Mjroots rightly suggested, let's focus working on the actual article and not continue to debate the title of the page as it has been decided. HectorBrockerbank (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Attack is a much broader term than bombing. There certainly have been many attacks in each of those London locations. I don't know how many of them are notable, but this one, in Westminster, certainly is. There have been other bombings in Manchester, in 1992 and in 1996, so the 2017 article should be called 2017 Manchester bombing or Manchester Arena bombing. We only add the month (and less often the day) as a disambiguator, so it's bizarre to have the year when not needed. Jim Michael (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

But the Parsons Green incident was a bombing, it has been identified as a terrorist attack but it is a bombing. If there was reports of stabbings, shootings etc. then I think the page should be renamed to "2017 Parsons Green attack" but it has only been a bombing.

The article is not going to be renamed to suit what you want Jim. It has been debated that the article should be kept where it is and I don't think there needs to be a debate about the title of the page as it has been decided in some way already and due to this, it has been moved protected. I think it is in the best interest to close this discussion as it has been decided to some extent however the debate of the title of the page can still be open.HectorBrockerbank (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Technically it hasn't been decided that this is going to be the name of the article in perpetuity. It's merely been decided that discussion should precede further moves. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am finished with this discussion. I personally believe that the title should remain as "2017 Parsons Green bombing" - others may want to keep the discussion open but I am finished debating. I appreciate everyone's suggestions though :) HectorBrockerbank (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that bombing should be changed to attack - I was merely comparing the presence of years, months and days in titles of other articles which happened to have attack in the name.

The final name of the article hasn't been decided. There was very little discussion before the article was move-protected.

Jim Michael (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, when I move protected the article, it was not an attempt to force it to stay at its current title, but merely to prevent it being continually moved. I have no strong feelings for this or any previous title. However, if the article is to be moved again, consensus needs to be established. This should be done via WP:RM as further moves could be contentious. Mjroots (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Where the bombing took place

I think something else should be in the title. "Parsons Green bombing" makes it sound that the train itself was not the target of the bombing, but only the general area. To put it more specific I think it should be something like "2017 Parsons Green train bombing"GinnyFan (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Pincrete (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (WP:SNOW applies). No such user (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

---

– No need to disambiguate by year. Jim Michael (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - current title including the year is more descriptive and seems to fall in line with other articles. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Snow close Pound to a penny says Parsons Green was bombed in WWII. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Very true Andy [5]. WWGB (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - There is no problem with the title. It is just the same as any other terrorist attack article. I don't see why we need to change the title to be honest, it's fine as it is because it is more descriptive and helps people identify when the attack happened and helps give consistency to any other terror attack page. I oppose Jim's request. HectorBrockerbank (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Don't see why we need to rename the page title, it's OK what it is now. 82.41.158.132 (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know the MoS or policies very well. Why, for modern attacks and incidents like this is the year needed, for even the most obscure of places? There's not an article named "1941 Pear Harbor bombing" for example. Buffaboy ^talk 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Don't know why the page needs to change its title. Doesnt most terrorist attack pages include the year? Just saying that I don't think it needs changed. CarrotTop17 (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The page seems fine the way it is. Don't see the need to change the name.... CarolineM 1 (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no rule or guideline that says that the year should be included in the title when there is no need to disambiguate. Whether or not Parsons Green was bombed during the war, there wasn't a specific targeting of it, so we won't have an article about that. We don't have titles at 1940 Battle of Britain, 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy, 1981 New Cross house fire, 1984 Bhopal disaster, 1986 Chernobyl disaster, 1987 Hungerford massacre, 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill or 2013 Peterborough ditch murders. There's no point in adding the year to the beginning of titles of terrorist attacks - they're no help for any type of event that doesn't need disambiguating. Jim Michael (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is important to place this event in the context of so many other terrorist incidents in London in the same year, 2017. However, I do think the title would benefit from an acknowledgement that the incident occurred on a train/underground/tube/station. WWGB (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISION: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". There is no other article about a Parsons Green bombing, so we don't need the year to disambiguate it. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • But there was no bombing at Manchester Arena prior to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing yet the year is added to that. There was no terrorist attack previously on London Bridge prior to the June 2017 London Bridge attack yet the month and the year are added to it. So I don't understand why the year needs to be removed from the title - you are right in saying there has been no previous bombing at Parsons Green however because there have been multiple terrorist attacks in London this year, I feel like the year should be kept. But that's just what I think! :) ZendrickBuchan (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @ZendrickBuchan: two wrongs don't make a right - that one is wrong per WP:PRECISION too. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
      • This is not wrong; by your own argument, we need to disambiguate between this incident an the WWII bombing of Parsons Green, which I noted above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I couldn't find a WP article about the WWII bombing of Parsons Green. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
          • The wording - which is, helpfully, quoted by you just above - is "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". It says nothing about "in relation to other articles". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I feel like moving the article is unnecessary actually because the title falls in line with all articles that are for terrorist attacks. Also, there have been a few attacks in London so it might be easier for people to identify what attack this is. ZendrickBuchan (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The title is already disambiguated enough by specifying the area. There will never be an article about Parsons Green being bombed in WW2, as that was merely part of a larger battle, not a separate event.

I disputed the title of this year's Manchester bombing. That should be 2017 Manchester bombing, continuing the format of that city's 1992 and 1996 bombings.

The argument for specifying the month in the London Bridge attack was to avoid confusion with the Westminster attack in March, which also happened on a bridge in London in 2017. People unfamiliar with London might not know the names of the bridges and could be confused.

No-one has said why they think that terrorist attacks - but not any other type of incident - should always have the year in the title.

Jim Michael (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Westminster is the name of a bridge, a borough, a metonym for UK Parliament and the immediately adjacent tube station (which is frequently used to refer to 'general areas' in London), London Bridge is the name of a bridge, and the area immediately adjacent to the tube station there. These are the reasons that the names were thought accurate, and relatively memorable, little to do with both attacks starting on bridges. Manchester arena is distinct from Manchester and what people are likely to remember is that the bombing took part at the end of a concert. Having taken part in a few of these discussions, I think there is a general tendency for European articles to include the year, personally I believe it helps to identify the event, which is as much an objective as disambiguating from other events. Pincrete (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Purpose of article title is not simply to distinguish from other events at same location, but also to identify. Since Parsons Green is barely known outside London, and unlikely to be remembered, I would say that present title is insufficiently clear and probably 'tube' bombing would be clearer. Keeping year follows similar pattern to other recent UK events. Pincrete (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Adding tube to the title wouldn't help people who are unfamiliar with London - because they wouldn't know that it's a colloquial term for the London Underground.
    Many events need the year in the title to disambiguate it from similar events that happened in the same location - an issue that isn't present here. Jim Michael (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose current title is normal Wikipedia house style. This is a waste of time. Also, see WP:BLUDGEON. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not true. The year is only needed when disambiguating between other events of the same type in the same location. If it were house style, Bhopal disaster would be 1984 Bhopal disaster, Chernobyl disaster would be 1986 Chernobyl disaster, Hungerford massacre would be 1987 Hungerford massacre etc. Jim Michael (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I think you've already been told a number of times about why your argument is pointless. Please don't repeat it, there's no need. See BLUDGEON. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
      • That's not the case - and two other people in this discussion agree with me and my reasoning on this matter. The only arguments for having the year in the title are that PG was bombed in WW2 (along with hundreds of other locations) and that 'we always have the year in the titles of terror attacks'. No-one has said why terror attacks should always have the year in the title, but no other type of event should. Jim Michael (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I know you won't listen to me, just listen to the dozens of other people here, at RY, at 2017, who disagree with your approach. Re-assess. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Is either of these even the right name for the attack? Most of the sources I'm reading seem to be using "Subway Attack", "Underground Attack", or "Tube Attack". WP:COMMONNAME suggests we should use the, well, common name for the attack. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andy. Also since naming convention here seems to be in line with similar attacks. This is Paul (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and agree with this edit summary suggestion by The Rambling Man, that Jim Michael should be blocked for misconduct in this discussion. 1.129.96.224 (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't be absurd. I've not committed any misconduct. I've remained civil and relevant throughout - and two people here have said that they agree with me and my reasoning on this matter. TRM has had a grudge against been actively participating in the same discussions as me since June when I was one of several people who disagreed with him regarding putting the Finsbury Park attack on the main page. We had never previously encountered each other during the preceding years in which we had both been active editors.
    Using subway in the title wouldn't make sense, because Brits don't call the LU the subway.
    If the issue is that PG is not a well-known location to people other than Londoners, then 2017 London bombing could be the title. Jim Michael (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    • TRM has had a grudge against me since June because I was one of several people who disagreed with him regarding putting the Finsbury Park attack on the main page. another lie which I've already refuted and for which you have absolutely zero evidence. I have no grudge, I just completely disagree with your approach in pretty much all of Wikipedia because you simply don't get it. Redact the claim, or provide evidence in diffs to substantiate it, or we'll be at ANI to discuss it. Then Arbcom. You choose. And as to your suggestions, that's clearly completely inappropriate. It's not ever going to be the "2017 London bombing", that's far too broad and obscure. It's fine as it stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • So Jim, that's personal attacks on top of WP:BLUDGEON and refusing to support consensus here and Recent Years. That block warning seems pretty accurate to most of us. 1.129.96.224 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Oh and Jim, your buddy Arthur Rubin got community banned for not backing up accusations with diffs. Are you going the same way? 1.129.96.224 (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: No problem with having "2017" in the name, but currently the name implies the bombing occurred on Parsons Green. Why not "2017 Parsons Green tube bombing"? --TBM10 (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: The notice of this trivial discussion at the top of the article is far too intrusive, and is unnecessary. I have removed it, twice, and both times have been reverted by Jim Michael. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not trivial, intrusive or unnecessary - and you know that a notice of a move request should be at the top of an article for the duration of the discussion. I didn't revert your removal twice - the first revert was done by a bot which has nothing to do with me; I only did the second revert. Jim Michael (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing - Jim Michael is correct. The notice stays up as long as the discussion is open. Mjroots (talk) 14:52, 18 September 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.

Original Research

There has been persistent WP:OR and deletion of sourced material, most recently here.

The WP:RS reads, and I quote: "a stream of terror attacks striking Westminster, Manchester, London Bridge, Finsbury Park, Buckingham Palace and now Parsons Green" [Emphasis added]. The user doing original research selectively deleted "Buckingham Palace" under the argument that "that is suspected but not confirmed - only the pending court case can confirm it".

So, we have a case where an editor thinks she knows more than what the WP:RS explicitly says. I have reverted the WP:OR. XavierItzm (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• XavierItzm if you are going to talk about an editor, ping them: DeFacto. It isn't difficult.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The WP:OR continues, under the following guise: «The media can report what it wants but the fact of the matter is an investigation is ongoing and it isn't confirmed». You'll notice the editor believes the WP:RS to be incorrect, without providing evidence for it. An interesting coda is that by the standard this editor is using, then even Green Parsons "is not terrorism", since no court has deemed Green Parsons to be terrorism. XavierItzm (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick is correct too, it is still suspected terrorism, not confirmed terrorism. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: your conclusion is correct too, Parsons Green is only suspected terrorism until confirmed otherwise. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR is the addition of original research, not the removal of disputed content. The suspect in the Buckingham Palace incident is facing trial for a terrorism related offence yes, but has not been tried, as confirmed in another piece by the same journalist and published in the same work as your source. So we cannot assert that the Buckingham Palace incident was terrorism as there has been so such verdict - per WP:CRIME . -- DeFacto (talk). 19:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

By this absurd standard, the June 2017 London Bridge attack is not terrorism either, as no court has deemed that attack to be terrorism. But again, you are engaging in WP:OR by questioning the WP:RS. The source is either a reliable source, or it is not, but picking and choosing what you like from it is original research. XavierItzm (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

None of the attacks listed have been followed by anyone being convicted of any crime. Jim Michael (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

But there was an investigation. How could they charge three corpses in the London bridge incident? We never said a trial confirms it every single time but the Buckingham incident has a live suspect who, like everyone else, has his day in court.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the suspects are all dead there will be no trial, so WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply. The reliable sources will draw their own conclusions, based on what the police reports say, or whatever, and our articles can be based on what they say. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No-one has been convicted of the Finsbury Park attack - and that has a suspect who has been remanded in custody and is awaiting trial. Jim Michael (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Right you are, User:Jim Michael. Looks like the people engaging in WP:OR are quite selective in their OR! XavierItzm (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Will you please stop asserting OR where there is none. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

That one shouldn't be asserted as terrorism either then. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Should we say that many mainstream media sources have described the Manchester attack and all the London attacks listed as terrorist attacks, rather than stating that they actually were terrorism? Jim Michael (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Would probably be OK if you could find a source that said that specifically, otherwise I think it would be WP:SYNTH, and if could find such such a source, would probably need to balance that with the fact that nothing is confirmed (per WP:NPOV). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. The edit has been amended to reflect exactly what both Jim Michael and DeFacto have agreed to.XavierItzm (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the BLP considerations, whether the Buck Palace incident is, in any serious sense, being treated as a terrorist 'attack' by either police or media is very debatable. Police have provisionally charged the perp with 'planning a terrorist act', they are also investigating the accused's mental health history and are on record as saying they have an open mind. Equally 1 media source lists Buck Pal as a terrorist incident, but do the balance of RS treat it so or treat it as background to Parsons Green? Such limited coverage would certainly not be the case with Manchester, London Bridge or Westminster, where we have the head of the Met, T May and A Rudd all explicitly characterising these incidents as 'terrorist'. I don't have an opinion about Finsbury Park, I believe both authorities and media are currently describing that as terrorist, but whether those charges or 'straight murder' will eventually be used is not clear yet.

From the WEIGHT PoV I think it trivialises to put Buck Pal as 'background' here. Whilst other recent incidents are part of the background for the public, police and media, the Buck Pal incident is so trivial and comical, I am surprised it made it onto the list of even one UK newspaper. Pincrete (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The WP:RS cites Buckingham Palace. Please do no further OR by selectively picking and choosing which ones you like from the citation. To the previous post asking if Buckingham "being treated as a terrorist 'attack' by either police or media is very debatable," see the sources.. Unless you don't think the WSJ and USA Today are WP:RS, of course. XavierItzm (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I stand by what I wrote, the accused on Buck Pal has been provisionally charged with the most minor offence possible under terrorism laws, but it is highly debatable how seriously politicians, police or the UK media are treating that incident as 'terrorist' in nature. However the relevance to this article is how many sources treat 'Buck Pal' as significantly part of the background to Par Gn ? Not the WSJ nor USA Today for a start. This is the boring old trick of I'll use the only source that supports the PoV I want to include and pretend that one source was somehow sacred. A source is a necessary, not a sufficient reason for inclusion and most sources simply don't give Buck Pal a second thought in relation to this event. Pincrete (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

References

This 'compromise' text "The news media reported that several incidents had occurred in Britain in the months preceding the bombing" is so vague at to be almost meaningless, do the incidents include the Chelsea Flower Show, Notting Hill carnival, Grenfell Point fire and my niece's wedding? I restored the word 'attacks' instead of 'incidents' and removed Buck Pal. If we have to make text that vague, is the inclusion of Buck Pal worth it? Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The citation lists the following:
Westminster,
Manchester,
London Bridge,
Finsbury Park,
Buckingham Palace and now
Parsons Green.
I do not see the niece nor the mother of Pincrete included, but if there is a WP:RS for Pincrete's family, it should be included ASAP. XavierItzm (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You are missing the point, firstly the text is so vague (an incident had occurred in Britain), that it could mean anything (including Chelsea flower show and millions of other things), secondly, most sources would list the 3 (or 4 if one includes Fin Park) clear, explicit, deadly attacks as part of the 'background' in which Par Gn bombing occurred, very few official or media sources would give Buck Pal a second thought. ONE source tends to confirm how minor that event was. Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, «"The news media reported that several violent incidents had occurred in Britain in the months preceding the bombing"». This seems to meet Pincrete's requirements as well as the other fellas'.XavierItzm (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete.XavierItzm (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This is using 'news media' to mean one paper. Is it worth it? I personally would not be opposed to mentioning the 4 (3) events + Barcelona without any refs, so long as conclusions were not drawn or implied. It is fairly obvious that the London public/police and politicians are fairly jittery at present because of the 3 (4). Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, one paper does not qualify as "news media." I see your point. But it is interesting that for the use of the phrase "news media" it is required to have at least two papers, yet you think "mentioning the 4 (3) events + Barcelona without any refs" is plausible. Do you think it is consistent that for the first phrase two refs are necessary and yet for the second phrase no refs are necessary at all? Thanks in advance. XavierItzm (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I was expressing a personal opinion about the 3/4 fatal London events being legitimate background with or without refs since it is pretty indisputably true that police/public media are 'jittery' at present because of these. I would always oppose implying something 'amplified', 'news media' implies widespread coverage. Pincrete (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your point and I thank you for it. I agree with you that Barcelona could have been added with no refs. Others, however, share no such general understanding of broadly known issues. In fact, the factual Barcelona mention:
«In August, the 2017 Barcelona attack occurred in Spain,»
which had a source(!), got deleted on this edit. So this plain statement of mere facts got nixed having a source. Imagine if we had done as you and I propose on this here thread, and added it without a source? People may be warning us that others have gotten blocked for less! XavierItzm (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it'd be better to just attribute the list to the publisher itself. I think this would address the concerns. 20:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC) XavierItzm (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

What about the WP:SYNTH claim?

@XavierItzm: in this edit you didn't explain the "BBC source requires WP:SYNTH" claim. That is what the edit of mine that you reverted was concerned with. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

My claim was in error and I apologize. You have now done the correct thing and challenged my initial erroneous claim it here on the TP, and I thank you for raising the issue. On the other hand, your initial response of merely deleting an innocuous corroborating source, unfortunately, was in violation of WP:PRESERVE. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

No probs, we all make errors. :-) But my edit was a legitimate revert of an edit I disagreed with - nothing was violated. As a matter of interest, what do you think that the second reference adds in the way of verification (which is the only reason we add references) that the first reference was lacking? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no policy forbidding two sources for verification of one Wikipedia statement or sentence. Certainly there are policies which advise against too many sources. But in order to prevent WP:LR, Wikipedia actually recommends two refs: «Two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact». Source: WP:CITEKILL. With regard to behavior not meeting WP:PRESERVE, I recommend reading the Editing Policy: «As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia» & «Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia.» As the addition of a mere WP:RS is not destructive to the project, in future please refrain from reverting such valuable contributions unless they conflict with one policy or another. Thank you. XavierItzm (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

If you get your edit summary wrong it is unreasonable to expect others to know what you had intended and very unreasonable to suggest they contravened guidelines as a result. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So you don't look at the content of edits? Only the summaries? XavierItzm (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

---

2017 Parsons Green bombing → Parsons Green bombing – Per Manchester Arena bombing. Unreal7 (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. There's no need to disambiguate by year. PG was bombed in the WW2, but that wasn't a specific event and it doesn't have its own article. Jim Michael (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, no requirement to state the year in title. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 25 March 2018 (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.