Talk:Manchester Arena bombing

Two possible things

We cant say anything until reliable sources weigh in about the cause but either this is terrorism, or an accident. Even if terrorist organizations claim responsibility we cant go by it until things are confirmed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

its 1am UK time. Police unlikely to be saying much until 6am or so.©Geni (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There should be a press conference right now (was scheduled for 2:40 AM) but I have no information on what's the status or what was presented there. StenSoft (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources

To be perfectly clear, Wikipedia will only accept reliably sourced, neutral information. If you don't have a source, don't add it to the article. We really don't care if your grandmother is live-Tweeting the event. Rklawton (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You solicit reliably sourced, neutral information, yet you mostly use sources from the other side of the Atlantic, many of which don't carry much credibility any longer. Could you not use more British and European sources? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.249.3.36 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, where is this Sky News source? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Ariana Grande navigation template?

Should Template:Ariana Grande be added to the bottom of this article? (This is assuming "2017 Manchester Arena incident" is added to the navigation template's "Related topics" section.) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at this stage.©Geni (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"In the news"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

Is this "In the news" worthy? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Far too soon for that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: This is a matter to be discussed on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. In any case, they will likely refrain from posting it until concrete information is known.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The incident already appears on the Main page (that was quick!), so I am marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Terrorist attack"

@DHeyward: Where are you seeing it confirmed as a terror attack? It really should stay titled an "incident" until officially labeled as such; even if police have said they're "treating the incident as terror-related". GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• It's too early to call it a "terrorist attack". We shouldn't speculate or sensationalize until we have sources that have facts. Even if it is a likely conclusion--v/r - TP 00:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed, (to editors) unless you are prepared to add a source, please don't label this as terrorism as it is misleading. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• According to Sky people are being treated for "shrapnel-type injuries", this could mean a lot of things but my first thought was the Boston Marathon bombing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is one [1]. Every news outlet (BBC, Telegraph, etc) and police statement is treating it as a terrorist attack. If they are treating it as a terrorist attack, why would we not treating it as a terrorist attack? --DHeyward (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Because their default procedure is to treat explosions like a terrorist attack until they know otherwise. We need to avoid latching on to every bit of information as if it's concrete and accurate. We have higher standards than...sorry to say it...the media these days.--v/r - TP 00:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The Greater Manchester Police twitter has now stated that they are treating it as a terrorist incident until there is sufficient evidence overwise. Kingsif (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

They're following their procedures for these types of matters which begins with assuming the worst. We aren't in any rush, here. We're not a news site, we're not for speculating or sensationalism. We can take our time to get it right.--v/r - TP 00:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's their procedure for terrorist attacks. As opposed to their response to hooligans, fires or riots. The press and police and our sources are treating this as a terrorist attack. It' not controversial. Editors appear to hear attribution when they hear "terrorist" and that's a problem with editors own bias, not the treatment that this is terrorism. It's not speculation or sensationalizing an explosion that killed 20+ people. --00:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's their procedure for any explosion outside of a chemical plant. Are you seriously accusing me of being having too liberal of a bias to call something terrorism?--v/r - TP 00:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's only a liberal/conservative argument when there is attribution. You're jumping a step ahead if you think conservatives jump to 'terrorism' and liberals wait. If this were an explosion in a crowded black church in the southern U.S., it would still be terrorism. --DHeyward (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Right or wrong this is going off topic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

AGF please? I think those of us opposing labeling this a terrorist attack until it is confirmed as such are just trying to err on the side of caution. As I said below, "incident" is an absolutely accurate description. "Terrorist attack" is not until it is confirmed as such by authorities. I don't see what harm we're doing by being cautious here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Yes, please AGF. What exactly are you being cautious about? How is it more cautious? What harm is being reduced through this caution? Right now, "Manchester Arena" is less accurate than "terrorist attack." That's real harm to the arena if the bomb was detonated in a public space outside the arena by a suicide bomber. Should we remove "Arena" out of caution? --DHeyward (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If I had known you would take my words quite so literally I might have phrased it more carefully. I don't think labeling it a terrorist attack is doing anyone any harm, even if it is inaccurate. I am simply making the argument that I would rather use the more general wording until the incident is officially specified as terrorism. I apologize if anything I've said has come off as not assuming good faith. I have no issue with labeling this a terrorist attack if that is how the authorities, etc. decide to classify it. I just would rather we do so after they do, not before. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

(I'm on phone so it's hard to write references) News outlets also say that dozens of children who got separated in the incident are being sheltered at a nearby hotel; police attested one man from inside a vehicle but without resistance; there is no "mark yourself safe" on Facebook yet; at around midnight local time, a man began shooting at Oldham Hospital (within greater Manchester - notably related, not going to get it's own page) Kingsif (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

We aren't a news site. The news will cover this. We're a encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 00:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

And we follow sources. Sources are treating this as a terrorist attack. They have said so. There is no "assume the worst" police procedure to treat everything as a terrorist attack until proven otherwise. Quite the opposite. You can test this theory out by lighting your house on fire and see if they the fire department responds or if the police arrive, "assume the worst" and treat like a terrorist attack. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward, these sources are not using confident wording. What if we jump to conclusions and get it wrong? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Treating" as a terrorist attack is a comment on their procedures not on what they suspect. First responders are not investigators. Wait for the investigators. We're not a blog, news, or the Daily Mail. We don't speculate. We're an encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 00:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What's the harm in getting it wrong? So far, 20+ dead and 50+ injured should be comforted that it was an incident? We aren't attributing terrorism to any group or person but our sources are reporting it as terrorism. It's pretty callous to the victims to call it an "incident." --DHeyward (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that facts are a matter of comforting people? There is no rush. Calm down. It's 90% likely that this article will be moved to "terrorist attack" by tomorrow. All I'm saying is, let's not be reactionary to first responders trying to get a situation under control.--v/r - TP 00:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I am quite calm. The argument that "what if we jump to conclusions getting it wrong" is a concern cuts both ways. This is fairly and objectively a terrorist attacks. The concern about getting it wrong is really only valid when we attribute the terrorism to a person or group. We haven't done that that. "Terrorist attack" is accurate. Whether it's the Unabomber or a suicide bomber or ISIS or the IRA or anybody else is the concern for getting it wrong. not the observation that 19 are dead and it was terrorism. --DHeyward (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want to try a move request, be my guest. But you'll likely be more successful in 2 or 3 hours.--v/r - TP 01:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The oldham thing doesn't appear to have happened and there is no evidence that the arrest was related to the incident.©Geni (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

^ that's in the wrong place.

Here: what is your resistance to using the language that, now, literally every news source and the actual police on the ground dealing with it is!? They would not confirm if as terrorism unless they believed it to be, and if you still think it's somehow sensationalist then just phrase it as someone reaction with quotation marks. Kingsif (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

They are treating it as a terrorist incident, which is the same as saying it's potentially a terrorist attack; they are not saying or confirming that it's a terrorist attack. "Terrorist attack" is an unusual title for Wikipedia, so let's hope no one tries to use it when the protection's lifted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TParis: Facebook Safety Check has been activated. — Gestrid (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

So? It is WP:UNDUE. When this article is finished, it's most likely not going to mention facebook's safety check. We're an encyclopedia, not the news.--v/r - TP 00:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@TParis: Sorry, pinged the wrong editor. Meant to ping Kingsif since they mentioned Safety Check. I wasn't commenting on whether or not it should be included in the article. — Gestrid (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are the words being used in sources... "possible" "unconfirmed", "may have", and "not yet". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Because they haven't confirmed it as terrorism. They said they are treating it like terrorism because those procedures offer the most protection for their cops and the bystandards. This is about their procedure, not what they think. By tomorrow, we'll start hearing from investigators about what they think. But we don't start reporting first responders procedures as facts.--v/r - TP 00:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether this is or not, convention is to title by basic description. 9/11 isn't the September 11 terror attacks, it is the September 11 attacks. Ditto the 2017 Stockholm attack, 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing and 2017 shooting of Paris police officers. I'm not seeing a reason to deviate from this stance. Fuebaey (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I also noticed that the lead of Ariana Grande's article calls it a terrorist bombing and if there is a agreement that it should not be called that here it the terminology should not be used there. The article is currently protected so could someone please make the change until we have stronger sourcing.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Already done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The Telegraph. Manchester Arena: 19 dead in 'terror attack' explosion at Ariana Grande concert. --DHeyward (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Possible" and "suspected". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Give it a rest for now, there is going to be a police briefing soon anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

90% chance that by the end of the night it'll be moved. Just give it a few hours for the dust to settle.--v/r - TP 01:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is meant to report on what other reliable sources say; I don't understand the general urge to be so hasty in labeling an attack a terrorist incident when reliable sources have not confirmed. I'd absolutely prefer we be a bit slow and careful to change from "incident" to "terrorist attack"; the former will always be an accurate description of what happened. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

CBS News calls it an "attack" as according to UK police forces: [2] The explosive devices are said to have been filled with nails. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no connection to the UK here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Your source doesn't mention nails. And it only says police are investigating the possibility of this being a terrorist attack (0:54).--v/r - TP 01:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

All information so far has been most likely gathered by UK forces, including those given to US law enforcment. And quote my source: "UPDATE: There were two explosions at Manchester Arena which contained nails". It's what CBS News writes under the video on Facebook. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• We seem to be the only publication doubting that this was a terrorist attack. The police have informally confirmed that it was a suicide bomber and, if I've understood CNN correctly, they have identified the bomber. The prime minister has used the term "terrorist attack", attributing it to the police. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide links for these? I haven't seen these in the refs used, though the editing is going quickly and I may well have missed something. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Again there is going to be a police news conference at 9:40PM (Eastern). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, good, thanks for that info. That should hopefully clear things up a bit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, here's a link re: prime minister. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Typo means I have to re-notify: GorillaWarfare SarahSV ^(talk) 01:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

We are certainly not the only publication doubting this; many are still calling it "suspected" or using language like "could be"... [3], [4], [5]. People are far too quick to jump the gun when it comes to attacks in Western countries (WP:HOLDYOURHORSES). Just wait for more confirmation. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Terrorist attack" is now a more solid description than "Manchester Arena." --DHeyward (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Just open a move request after the police conference. We'll all feel better about making a decision then.--v/r - TP 01:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I already moved it once. When those that reverted it and locked it decide I was correct, they can move it. I tried bring the water to the horse. I tried to bring the horse to the water. Drinking is now up to the horse. Currently, I think "Manchester Arena" is rather vague for a target and "bombing" or "suicide bombing" is as valid as "terrorist attack." --DHeyward (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion on the matter is clear, and well noted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No one said you were wrong or right. This isn't about being right. It's about being cautious and being careful about the types of speculation we allow into the article. All we asked is that it be given time. No one said you couldn't propose a move at any time.--v/r - TP 02:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to be cautious about. What is the caution? The police, our sources and politicians are treating it as a terrorist attack. We are treating it as an incident. Why? The concern about labeling is when we identify the terrorist and the group but not the term "terrorism" or "bombing." We should be treating this as a terrorist attack until authorities say otherwise which is exactly what every source is doing. --DHeyward (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like not much to add on the issue of "terrorist attack" vs. "incident" after the police press conference: "We are currently treating this as a terrorist incident until we have further information." ([6]) GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The police, our sources and politicians are treating it as a terrorist attack. That's what the police report triggered. Why wouldn't we treat it like a terrorist attack just like the police, the press and politicians? --DHeyward (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This should have been titled 2017 Manchester Arena explosion instead of 2017 Manchester Arena incident as we can confirm an explosion occurred, even though we're not sure it's terrorism Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 02:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"At least 19 people dead following ‘terrorist incident’ at Ariana Grande concert in Manchester" Bus stop (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

We can confirm now (and have been for a while). Saying 'should have been' is confusing since it's not clear when you mean. I don't think it should have been called that when it was created (about an hour after the explosion I believe) since I'm not sure it had been confirmed there was an explosion [7]. There were many reports of it being an explosion, but history has shown with many incidents that such early reports can often be wrong. I mean as it stands, there are still a number of sources saying there were two explosions (and I don't think this was the controlled once since they were from before it happened) yet others are just saying there are one. Nil Einne (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

As a point of fact, you're correct that there were several reports of two explosions before the controlled detonation occurred. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Most sources I've seen report that there was one explosion in the main concert hall, along with a second one outside the main hall. Can't confirm until GM Police do. Danielennistv (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: What I meant was, [8] move should not have happened, because even when this was first reported on, we still could confirm at least one explosion occurred. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 04:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Reddit live event

Reddit has started a live event for the Manchester explosion. While it is not a reliable source, the links it sends out (official tweets, statements, etc.) may be reliable. — Gestrid (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The live event has ended, but may still be useful for retrieving official statements at a later date. Danielennistv (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Question on Explosions section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

Why does it mention US officials? Is it a typo meant to say UK? Kingsif (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This has been removed, so marking section as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

at least some US officials have been talking to the US media. How much of it is anything more than speculation is hard to say.©Geni (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC News have been reporting this, but I agree, how much of it is speculation is difficult to know at present. This is Paul (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a press conference due I suspect thats the point where we will get a fairly solid outline.©Geni (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

News conference

There will be a news conference within the next half hour (about 2:40am Manchester time, 9:40pm EST) by the head of the police, according to Sky News. — Gestrid (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this will hopefully clear some things up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

So the press conference just repeated what we already know. Explosion at 10:33pm, 19 confirmed dead, around 50 injured, incident treated as terrorist attack until known otherwise, avoid the area, more details when the police has clearer picture. StenSoft (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

British PM calls it a "suicide attack":

[9] Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Really? Because this was her quote according to another source: "We are working to establish the full details of what is being treated by the police as an appalling terrorist attack". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Is the full text of her statement anywhere? Not seeing the mention of a suicide attack in any other sources reporting on her statement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

How come only a source in a far-off land has this? Where are the local sources? WWGB (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Well it is 3:43AM over there now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record the source in question that was used is Billboard [10] where it says: British prime minister Theresa May has issued a statement after an explosion at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester on Monday (May 22) night killed at least 19 and injured 50.

"We are working to establish the full details of what is being treated by the police as an appalling terrorist attack. All our thoughts are with the victims and the families of those who have been affected," said May in a statement, as the Guardian reports. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

CNBC is reporting May said "Appalling attack", not suicide attack. Might be some confusion over exact wording. In any case, a bunch of sources are calling it a bombing and an attack. Though we should be cautious, I don't think this will turn out to be a gas leak, or someone accidentally dropped a live grenade. It seems purposeful, and both authorities are treating it as such, as well as the media.

At the very least, we have enough to call this article "2017 Manchester Arena bombing". It's no longer an "incident". Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2017

2017 Manchester Arena incident → 2017 Manchester Arena terrorist attack – All reliable sources are calling this a terrorist attack. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: There's an alternative suggestion below to move it to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Please say which you prefer or suggest something else. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

An incident is when I spill tea on my rug. This was a bombing.

• Move the article to 2017 Manchester Arena attack or 2017 Manchester Arena bombing.--Rævhuld (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Due to the ambiguity of the "incident", the title fits, especially as "bombing" and "suicide attack" is purely speculative, and Wikipedia does not speculate. livelikemusic talk! 03:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't claimed it was suicidal. We know that it is an attack. We just don't know if it was suicidal or a terrorist attack, even though that it is likely. But we know for sure, that it is an attack. At least according to The Washington Post. The word bombing is used by police and mass media as well. So I don't see how that should be speculation?--Rævhuld (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

References

I never said you did; I'm merely going based on the overall talk page and online speculation. Per CNN, updated ten minutes ago, that it is "a suicide bombing is the likely reason for the blast. A male at the scene has been identified as the probable attacker". This is not solid confirmation, therefore, it falls under the category of speculation. I say we wait until the morning (US or UK time) for official word from officials in Manchester, etc. Until then, we are reacting with gut, instead of core facts. livelikemusic talk! 03:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Move The people killed by nails propelled by an explosive disagree with "incident". Those are facts covered in many sources. Wikipedia should be reluctant to name groups behind such attacks, but not reluctant about calling them "attacks." When the police come out nearly immediately as treating such attacks as terrorism, it's pretty clear that it's terrorism. Police don't even mention terrorism until they have evidence. Our sources, eyewitnesses and political leaders have labeled it terrorism. The term "Islamic terrorism" is the term that requires extreme caution, but terrorism that is obvious to everyone should be called terrorism. We are not attributing this act to an individual, group or cause. That doesn't mean it's not terrorism. Nor should we shy from that description. --DHeyward (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • When the authorities move from treating the attacks "as terrorism" to describing them as definitive terrorist attacks, I will support the move; once they are confident enough to label it terrorism, I will be as well. I don't think you're correct that "our sources, eyewitnesses and political leaders have labeled it terrorism"; in fact, all the reliable sources I've seen have been quite careful to say it's "being treated as terrorism", "suspected terrorism", etc. It certainly makes no sense to move the article to "2017 Manchester Arena suspected terrorist attack", so until it's clearly defined as terrorism, it should stay here (or be moved to "bombing", "explosion", etc.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    • If police are confidant enough to say they are treating it as terrorism until proven otherwise, they are calling it terrorism. They don't throw out terrorism lightly. When they find a murder victim, they treat them as a murder victim until proven otherwise. A robbery is a robbery until proven otherwise. If they were being cautious, they would have described the explosion as "suspicious." But they didn't say "suspicious," they said "terrorism." They don't don't ever need to say anything further as they have said it is terrorism and with no evidence refuting it, their statement remains true indefinitely because the "until" conditional is never executed. The "until" clause is a logical expression not an expression of doubt. --DHeyward (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move every news outlet, left, right, and center, is calling this a terrorist attack, because, it uh obviously was. "Incident" is a joke...especially at this point. This was a deliberate bombing. It was terrorism. (And it's not "speculation", livelikemusic.) Move now. Thanks. 71.246.96.210 (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  So far I've yet to find a reliable source saying that it was a terrorist attack; only that the police are treating it like one until further notice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  The New York Times has it written as terrorism on the FRONT PAGE: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/world/europe/ariana-grande-manchester-police.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Nowhere does it state the front page of The Times will say it is terrorism, and again, it's speculated to be a terrorist attack, but not confirmed at this time. And please, sign your posts when you post on a talk page. livelikemusic talk! 03:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  The link above uses the word "explosion", not terrorism, in the headline.VR _talk 03:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  The mentions to terrorism in the article are as follows: "The police suspect terrorism", "police were treating as a terrorist attack", "what appeared to be the deadliest episode of terrorism", "being treated by the police as an appalling terrorist attack", "it appeared to be a terrorist attack", "The scene immediately evoked the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015", "being treated as a terrorist incident". You'll note they're being very careful to say only that it's being treated as terrorism, that it's suspected terrorism, etc. We need more than that before we can jump in and label this terrorism. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  No, we don't need more. It's descriptive, not accusatory. As a descriptor, it is accurate and well-sourced. It would be problematic if it were accusatory. --DHeyward (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  You don't see "it is being treated as a terrorist attack" and "it is a terrorist attack" as two different things? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Move. Every single news source is calling this a bombing and police are treating it as terrorism. I don't think it was a gas leak or something benign. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

We still don't know if it is terrorism. It is treated as one, but we still don't know it. But calling it an attack (as mass media does) or just make "incident" to "explosion" is not fantasy, but a better description of what has happened. Incident is just not really neutral. It sounds like something that just happens at breakfast when you are in a rush.--Rævhuld (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Move to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing or 2017 Manchester Arena explosion. I don't think anyone is calling it an "incident".VR _talk 03:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In these early hours "incident" is the appropriate reference, as opposed to "attack" or "bombing" as information supporting those more specific terms has not come out from official sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Bomb goes boom-boom..... what more specific info do you need to know it was a bomb??????? ANewStarWillRise (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, ANewStarWillRise. Here, we generally rely on reliable sources (in Wikipedia's sense of the phrase) to write and name our articles. Many things make a "boom-boom" sound. Guns or cannons, for example, can make that sound, though they obviously didn't in this case. — Gestrid (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No, calling it an explosion would be more appropriate, we know an explosion occurred. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 04:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• You do not seem to understand that we need official confirmation from a reliable party, a.k.a. an official statement, confirming that it was, in fact, a bomb. Everything right now is gut reaction, and not being taken at a rational thought. livelikemusic talk! 03:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Every single reliable source is calling this a bombing. Do you really think this is going to turn out to be some accident? This is making Wikipedia look absurd and taking Wikipedia policies to absurd lengths. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree, "incident" no longer seems appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move to 2017 Manchester Arena terrorist attack. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would also support WClarke's suggestion of 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Move Rather self-explanatory considering the circumstances surrounding the explosion. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Move to 2017 Manchester Arena explosion, then to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing when bombing is confirmed. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 04:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Move to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing Manchester Arena bombing Use of "terrorist attack" in the title is inconsistent with other articles on similar subjects, such as the 7 July 2005 London bombings, 2016 Brussels bombings, and 2004 Madrid train bombings. Beyond just bombings, terrorists incidents without bombs, or with a mix of various attack methods, like the November 2015 Paris attacks (which is quite similar to this incident in that it took place at a music venue), still do not include "terrorist" in the title. As there appears to be no evidence that this was anything more than a single bombing, without other reported attack methods used, in this case it seems most appropriate to use the term "bombing" in singular form, not "bombings" or "attack". Thanks. WClarke (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I now recommend changing the title simply to Manchester Arena bombing, per Neutrality's suggestion. If you look at this template with names of many attacks in Europe in recent years, they use dates only when the attacks took place in a general location, like a city as whole (e.g. "Paris" or "Milan"), but with an attack at a specific venue or place, like the Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting or with the Charlie Hebdo shooting, the date is not mentioned, as there is no need to distinguish between other incidents in the same place or venue, as there never was previously, and there probably won't be again, an attack at Charlie Hebdo or the Jewish Museum of Belgium, as they took place at a very specfic location, and the same applies in this situation with the Manchester Arena. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Don't move, or move to 2017 Manchester Arena explosion. "Terrorist attack" is premature Move to "2017 Manchester Arena explosion" or "2017 Manchester Arena bombing" (see threaded discussion below). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding: I initially would have supported a move to "2017 Manchester Arena terrorist attacks" if authorities directly labeled it as such, but WClarke has a good point that there are many other articles on terrorist bombings that are not titled this way. Is there a guideline somewhere? Regardless, I went to look up a terrorist attack quite a bit nearer to my home turf, and found that the attack on the Boston Marathon in 2013 is titled Boston Marathon bombing. As such, I support a move to "2017 Manchester Arena explosion", or if verified by authorities as a bombing, to "2017 Manchester Arena bombing". GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward and SlimVirgin: Would be curious to hear your opinions on WClarke's point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Bombing or attack is fine with me. It needs to be more active voice than "incident." There's an intentional act underlying it. I'm more concerned that the target is unknown more than the act itself. I think the terrorist bombing is well sourced but whether the target was the singer, the venue, concert goers, the train station, etc, etc. That won't be clear until they identify the person/persons responsible. --DHeyward (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I like the year–location–bombing format that WClarke pointed out, so I'd be fine with 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Cool! Glad we've found a bit of common ground. I think it's clear enough from sourcing that it's an attack or a bombing. I initially was balking at the idea of labeling it a "bombing", but it's quite clearly been labeled an "attack", so if I can accept "explosive attack" I think I can certainly accept "bombing". Striking my top-level comment above and clarify my support. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, thanks! SarahSV ^(talk) 05:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Move to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing or 2017 Manchester Arena explosion if we cannot confirm if that it is a deliberate bombing. There definitely was an explosion so the title should reflect that. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Too Soon. It has not been confirmed officially that this was a terrorism. WWGB (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Manchester Arena bombing. Simple, clear. No need for date. Neutrality^talk 04:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Don't move Labeling something prematurely can kill Wikipedia, being late has no consequence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8780:5d0:bd4a:4fa0:348e:d4f4 (talk)
• Too Soon. We need further confirmation, however, I also agree with WClarke in regards to naming consistency. I would possibly support a move to a previous title of "2017 Manchester Arena Explosion" as it doesn't cause any speculation. Also, date has been present in most, if not all, similar events (ie. 2017 Westminster attack) Danielennistv (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

But in that case the date was necessary because there were multiple Westminster attacks - that's why Westminster attack is a disambig page. Here, by contrast, the name/location are unique. Neutrality^talk 04:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The few people here who keep saying "this has not yet been confirmed to be terrorism" will have to admit that this has definitely been confirmed to be a bombing. And also a deliberate bombing. So if the name of article should not be "terrorist attack", then definitely "attack" or "bombing". But "incident" is laughable and stupid at this point, frankly speaking. Not to mention a bit far-lefty dishonest and suppressive. More frankly speaking. What is the deal here, now, with this? It's definitely (without even a smidgen of a doubt) an intentional bombing, a deliberate bomb attack. So why is there even any more debate that the article name should at least be changed to "2017 Manchester attack"? Or "2017 Manchester bombing"? Regards. 71.246.96.210 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Move to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing due to the reasons stated by User talk:71:246:96:210. Danielennistv (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Move to explosion or bombing per examples by WClarke and pretty RS descriptions. Terrorist attack is premature, but really shouldn't be in the title anyway (WP:DJTG). We describe the event, not the notice, in the title. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Manchester Arena incident per User:Neutrality below. It is simply too soon to call this incident an attack - while we assume it is (and it's exceedingly likely), it has not been confirmed to be a terrorist attack. We need to report the facts, not speculation. Keira1996 05:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2017 Manchester Arena bombing(s), oppose 2017 Manchester Arena terrorist attacks. While it was probably a terrorist attack, there have been no confirmations of such. We should be neutral until an official confirms it was a terrorist attack. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing in line with Boston Marathon bombing, we rarely use terrorist attack in the title, see generally List of Islamist terrorist attacks. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Manchester Arena Bombing. The "incident" title is fatuous, there is as yet no attribution of the bombing to terrorists, and "2017" is superfluous. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• It's an incident since it is "just but a fleshwound". 188.24.133.20 (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Any reason to have "2017" in the title?

Is there any real reason to have "2017" in the article? As far as I know it is unnecessary. There have not been, as far as I can tell, any bombings before this year. So why 2017 Manchester Arena bombing rather than simply Manchester Arena bombing? We have WP:CONCISE titles. Neutrality^talk 04:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Support taking out "2017" (also see my comment above) I now recommend changing the title simply to Manchester Arena bombing, per Neutrality's suggestion. If you look at this template with names of many attacks in Europe in recent years, they use dates only when the attacks took place in a general location, like a city as whole (e.g. "Paris" or "Milan"), but with an attack at a specific venue or place, like the Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting or with the Charlie Hebdo shooting, the date is not mentioned, as there is no need to distinguish between other incidents in the same place or venue, as there never was previously, and there probably won't be again, an attack at Charlie Hebdo or the Jewish Museum of Belgium, as they took place at a very specfic location, and the same applies in this situation with the Manchester Arena. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Support. Removing year from the title and using "bombing" instead of incident. Per reasons above. Plus using "Incident" is not really neutral in that it uses a bland generality to describe a specific type of attack. Shearonink (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't care in my opinion, it doesn't really matter if the year is in it or not in this case. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 05:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep 2017. As there is discussion above about possibly removing "Arena" and/or changing the word incident to bombing, 2017 distinguishes this week's event from 1996 Manchester bombing and 1992 Manchester bombing. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Manchester Arena bombing is perfect, descriptively and syllabically. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, May 23, 2017 (UTC)
• Support Manchester Arena bombing per convention. Aiken D 05:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Reactions

Given that there is currently an election underway in the UK would impartiality not dictate that the reactions from the leaders of other major political parties be included in addition to those of the Prime Minister?

Additionally would it also be worth mentioning that campaigning has been suspended because of this incident? 51.9.21.195 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

That would ruin the narrative. "Incidents" don't stop campaigns but terrorist attacks do. --DHeyward (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer the "reactions" section be removed until there's more reporting indicating which reactions are worth mentioning... Loads of people, including those with checkmarks by their names, have tweeted about this -- I'd rather we not make the decision about who's included based on our own opinions of their political clout, electoral campaigns, etc. I've removed the section once already, though, so I'll defer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The UK has three main Political parties - the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberals, additionally there are two big regional parties in the form of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and to be totally inclusive there is also the Greens and UKIP - all I'm suggesting is including the comments of the party leaders. 51.9.21.195 (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

ISIS involvement on the attack

Just have edited the article, I added possible involvement on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to the attack, but it has been removed minutes after. While the explosion is still not known as a terrorist attack, possible involvement of ISIS can be mentioned, but how it can be handled there? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Official sources have to tell us of ISIS involvement. We can't speculate. Bus stop (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@TagaSanPedroAko: (edit conflict) I was the one who removed your edit. The source you cited has a section titled "Attack Came After ISIS Plea", which reads in full: Last week, the Islamic State released a 44-minute video featuring fighters of different nationalities, enjoining their supporters back home to carry out acts of violence. Among them was a man identified as a British national, according to a translation of the video provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute, which tracks jihadi propaganda. Besides the threat last week, ISIS has repeatedly targeted the U.K. in its propaganda, though with little effect until earlier this year. — Rukmini Callimachi. We'll need quite a lot more than that to claim that ISI(L|S) is being "implicated" in this attack; it is one quote by one person in one source saying that ISIS published a video last week, and one of the people was British. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

And Callimachi has stated that there has been no claim from ISIS yet: [11] Matt's talk 03:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that means, we need to wait for reports that ISIS claimed responsibility to appear. Is mentioning ISIS here very presumptive, though the NY Times article I cited posted mentions an ISIS video? -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily; if a few reliable sources are discussing possible ISIS involvement it might be worth mentioning. The issue here is that it's a quote from someone (so not necessarily the editorial stance of the paper), the quote does not implicate ISIS in this event, and it's only one source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Just remember, no matter what the headlines say, Amaq News Agency is not ISIS, does not claim to be ISIS, does not claim ISIS as a source for information and doesn't even write in the first-person. Therefore, nothing it claims about ISIS should be paraphrased as something ISIS claims. Even if the news claims ISIS claims it, they'll also elaborate on Amaq claiming it. Cite the part about Amaq claiming it, if you feel the need to cite the stories at all.

If ISIS wants to claim something, it has plenty of official media. Best to hear it from the horse's mouths. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, May 23, 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2017

Cite note 22 is an invalid reference for this situation. It refers to an article from March, whereas this incident occurred this month. Jaydenkieran (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This citation keeps changing, so for clarity, it's the one linking to this article. Jaydenkieran (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The cite to the article about the Facebook safety activation was also dated to March, which seems to have been an error with the citation -- the source is from 22 May. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm reopening this because the incorrect citation is for some reason back. Jaydenkieran (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Removed again. Thanks for your attention to this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Treating" as terrorism

Just means police can use counterterrorism powers to investigate. Doesn't indicate in any way that police believe it's terrorism. Just makes it easier to collect evidence, then start believing in something or another. That's all I think I'll say for this article. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, May 23, 2017 (UTC)

On this Wiki's own article, terrorism is described as "the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim." One could argue that simply throwing a pen at a colleague or pinching and punching a family member on the first day of the month could be classed as terrorism uner this definition. I understand your point completely. Cameron previously tried repealing the Human Rights Act following the Charlie Hedbo attacks, with May (when she was home secretary) trying to introduce a dodgy af snoopers charter, which IIRC went through last year, yet no one seemed to care. But to say such an attack is not terrorism is dumb as it meets the definition perfectly!UaMaol (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the way lawmakers change (or try to change) the law in the weeks after, I mean the way police use the existing laws immediately after. And I'm not trying to say it wasn't terrorism. Just that "treating as" doesn't mean "is". Absolutely no problem with calling terrorists terrorists, just with calling anything anything based on the misreading of a hint from a vaguely-worded hunch.

In any case, I'm not here to argue. Just literally two cents. I've skimmed through Ariana Grande's talk page, and this is going to be the nuttiest one of these "terror attack" articles yet. Good luck to everyone! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, May 23, 2017 (UTC)

@Uamaol: first, that's original research. Second, wet have no indication of motive yet. Third, hold your horses. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With respect, your opinions on whether this is terrorism are irrelevant here. The incident is being treated by authorities as terrorism, but as yet has not been conclusively labeled as terrorism. That's what is important to the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Inedible Hulk, you're being ludicrous. The police *knows* it's terrorism – everyone could see what happened, that's not what happens when a bottle with soda accidentally explodes from the CO2 bubbles during a concert – and thankfully, they have enough decency to also say that they *assume* it's terrorism unless proven otherwise. The verbs "assume" and "believe" are basically synonymous here. In reality, they almost certainly know many more details than those that have been released to the public and the doubts about the terrorist character of this incident are non-existent within the police investigator teams. Lumidek (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lumidek: I'm quite sure the police have many more details than those that have been released to the public, but Wikipedia articles reflect the details that are available in reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The U.K. police *has* officially called the event a "terrorist incident", see e.g. [12] and many other sources. I am just criticizing Inedible Hulk - and probably you - that you're working hard to obfuscate or even censor well-known and important facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumidek (talk • contribs)

In my case, hardly working. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, May 23, 2017 (UTC)

Again, that article text says "treated by police as a 'terrorist incident", "police calling it a 'terrorist incident'", etc. Still not officially designated a terrorist attack. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Nicola Sturgeon

Nicola Sturgeon is the First Minister of Scotland and the leader of the third largest party by number of MP's in the last election. Surely enough both of these facts make her response to the incident notable, no?UaMaol (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sturgeon's comments are still there, but they have been moved below those by officials in Manchester, who are clearly more relevant to this article. I put UK party leaders in alphabetical order, partly as a nod to maintaining NPOV during the electoral period. Matt's talk 05:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikilink to Rigby murder article?

I would like to add a link to the Murder of Lee Rigby article, because the Manchester attack occurred on the fourth anniversary of the soldier's death. This is not my original research: it has been discussed on broadcast media (a Heritage Foundation analyst speaking on CBSN and a reporter on BBC Radio London), but I can't find a linkable RS. Callimachi, who is an expert on the online aspect of Islamic radicalism, has noted in the past that "ISIS, like al-Qaeda, loves anniversaries. We do not yet have confirmation that this is an attack, never mind linking it towards particular groups, but the date is circumstantial evidence towards two of several possibilities. User:WWGB deleted the link and asked for consensus before reinsertion - what do others think? If there was an explosion in Boston on September 11 with a suspected terrorist link, wouldn't we expect to link to the 2001 attacks in New York? Matt's talk 04:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

For now, there is nothing to connect Manchester with Rigby. The coincidence of dates is just that, a coincidence. Should it emerge that the bomber chose the date for its significance, then I will drop my objection. WWGB (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Find a reliable source we can cite that firmly connects the two; otherwise it's just speculation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit: it's too speculative and playing join the dots at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Good call. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we add this?

Is it possible to add this notice in the future? This mess could be linked to the UK's involvement in Syria. Supreme Dragon (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not possible, no relevance or significance established. "Could" is not reason to consider anything. WWGB (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't know enough about who did this at the moment. Even if it is the work of an Islamist looney tune, the link with the Syrian civil war is tenuous. This is also true of the Murder of Lee Rigby.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)