Talk:2017 London Bridge attack

Incompetent editing

I've just restored two items that were deleted by editors who claimed that the facts were not in the cited sources. In fact, they were. Evidently the editors deleting them didn't read the cited sources carefully enough. Folks, please take more care with your editing - it's sheer incompetence to delete cited content just because you haven't read the sources properly. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Some of that material was in fact not in the cited source. I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Folks, can we not delete material but just put in a failed verification tag and then take it here and ask. I have missed material in an article as well. It is a good idea thus to ask for the quote, not just delete.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Some people, rather unhelpfully, dedicate themselves to blanking out text, as opposed to improving it. Oh well. Always "assume" good faith! XavierItzm (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I've seen helpful editors use Template:Failed verification instead of simply deleting, which makes for a less abrasive experience for everyone involved. Spem Reduxit (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Not clear

It is not clear to me if the last man stabbed survived or not. He walked away as the three were shot by the Police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.96 (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

He seemed to be staggering at one point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.96 (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You could always look at what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have looked at a video, which shows the man's staggering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.130 (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

He might have been the man hit by the stray Police bullet. If so, he seems to have survived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.130 (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What do RS say, that is what we use to include material, not what we think.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

See [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.130 (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Youtube is not RS, and videos of the event say nothing about it's aftermath.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Page Move

Hi everyone, while nothing is confirmed as of yet, a new attack has potentially just taken place in London. I think the page should be renamed "3 June 2017 London Attack". If there is no opposition within the hour, I will go ahead with the move. Thanks. RES2773 (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe better rename to 2017 Southwark attack (similar to 2017 Westminster attack)? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yes the Southwark attack name sounds good. The new incident that occurred today is named 2017 Finsbury Park incident (since there is no confirmation of it being an attack or incident). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Should be uncontroversial; however, I would suggest moving it to "2017 London Bridge attack"; the area around the Bridge has been known as London Bridge since the 16th century… Sceptre (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  Opposed to London Bridge - as the 2017 Westminster attack also started on a bridge in London (just not "London Bridge") - this would be highly misleading for a non-UK reader. In addition the attack just started on the bridge, they then ran off into Southwark to stab - most of the dead were not on the bridge (3) but in the market and the area around it (5 + 3 attackers).Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  There's only one London Bridge, the other was Westminster Bridge, and London Bridge is used to describe the area into Southwark (London Bridge station, etc.) where the attack ended too. -- de Facto (talk). 09:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  This would be confusing for anyone who is not well versed with London. Southwark, on the other hand, would not be as confusing. In any event - most of the attack wasn't on the London Bridge itself, so this would have to be "London Bridge area attack" which is cumbersome - beyond the non-UK confusion.Icewhiz (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• "2017 London Bridge attack" seems the most obvious to me. This is the name of the bridge and of the area it occurred in. "London attack" is too general, even with an exact date. -- de Facto (talk). 08:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Icewhiz over this. Ohh and as far as I known at least one of the attacks occurred in Southwark.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

They were all in the London Bridge area; which extends into Southwark, beyond the bridge itself. That's why I think "2017 London Bridge attack" is the most appropriate title - it covers exactly the area involved. -- de Facto (talk). 09:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Odd then that many of the address are given as Southwark and not "London bridge".Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Southwark is the London Borough in which the attacks took place; London Bridge is an historical area of Southwark between Tower Bridge and Southwark Bridge. It's like how Covent Garden is an area of the City of Westminster. Sceptre (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yet this page [2] does not list at least one of the pubs as being in the "London Bridge area". Covent garden is a specific postal area (by the way), shops give it as a place in their address.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Covent Garden would only exist as an address if one were in the market itself. Anyone living or working close by would refer to themselves as 'working in Covent Garden'. They would probably mean the area around, not the market. Most London place names work like that, they exist as specific landmarks, as the tube station nearby and as the (loosely defined) broader area. In that sense all of this event happened in London Bridge, but not on or at London Bridge. Names can also be used as borough or other admin names, but boroughs are very broad as units and not generally known outside London, unless (like Westminster), they have fame in other contexts. Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW I too support 2017 Southwark attack - We could be potentially confusing alot of people by using "2017 London Bridge attack" as 2 attacks happened on a bridge (Yes they were different bridges however it could still be confusing), Also an RFC/RM may be a better way of dealing with this seeing as no one here can come to a straight agreement. –Davey2010^Talk 10:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• @RHaworth: - your move is against the consensus here - which seems to favor Southwark.Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Apologies, I did leap in prematurely with a move, etc. Given the tragick increase in incidents such as this, possibly 2017 June Southwark attack would be a better title. However, I do strongly recommend that June 2017 London attack should remain as a redirect until the large number of incoming links have been fixed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• @RHaworth: per WP:Common Name, I think it should probably stay as "xxx London Bridge attack", but the "xxx" should be just "2017" (month not necessary) giving: "2017 London Bridge attack". Or do you have an obverriding reason to include the month too? -- de Facto (talk). 13:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Even though there could be confusion over "London Bridge attack", if we were to use anything else we would be making it up. "Southwark attack" produces only "London Bridge attack" related hits on google. "London Bridge attack" is the WP:Common Name of this incident: that what it is referred to throughout the coverage. Hopefully the bolding of the B in Bridge would somewhat help with any confusion. A hat note stating something along the lines of "For the 2017 attack in London starting on Westminster Bridge, see 2017 Westminster attack" would clear that confusion up. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 12:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. -- de Facto (talk). 13:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Dictum factum per Gaia Octavia Agrippa, in articulum.Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• "London Bridge" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME even if it is not 100% geographically accurate. Support the move.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - convinced per WP:COMMONNAME after a google-check.Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry everyone, had to step away for awhile. Thanks to whoever moved the page! It works. RES2773 (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of the noun "attack" to describe the event

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

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

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

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

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

The innuendo and spectres that one might expect to litter Pentagon briefings should not provide the basis for an encyclopedia article that aims to be disinterested. Alfred Nemours (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

[3], no attack implies it was...an attack. It is fairly common to describe a criminal assault as an attack.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the term "attack" is very usual in such circumstances. Joobo (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for saying something in reply to my bulletpoint. Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I really disagree. First, although "attack" has as Joobo notes become a typical characterization of individual violence in cases deemed to political, this tells us nothing about the accuracy of such a characterization. The widespread portrayal of individual events in a politicized lens is in fact the motivation for my bulletpoint. So I entirely agree with Joobo that the such a portrayal is "very usual." Slatersteven gets to the heart of at least one point of contention when he insists that a criminal assault is often described as an attack. It is certainly true that the verb attack is used informally to describe the details of a robbery or rape (in a crime log, for example), I can't think of a single example where an "attack" is described in connection with a particular place or city where this connection was not used to invoke the register of war or the spectre of collective violence. "Attack" has a specific meaning in international law. It not only invokes the register of war but also confers responsibility on the initiation of that war. So I disagree. Thanks for replying all the same. Alfred Nemours (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Not like this you mean [4] or this [5], sorry again this is not unusual. But let us look to see if it used in non terror related crimes [6].Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The concern is about the accuracy of the characterization. If the characterization is inaccurate and usual, this seems more worthy of scrutiny than if the characterization is innaccurate and unusual. As already stressed, it is the ubiquity of the characterization that has given rise to the concern. Alfred Nemours (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, well you find an RS or in fact anyone but you who says that the word "attack" is only applicable in war.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC).