Talk:Manchester Arena bombing

Ariana Grande navigation template?

Unresolved

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)

Possibly. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2017

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: Fuzheado moved it to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

---

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)

You mean this isn't an accident? An incident is not worthy of an article on Wikipedia, even if the membership have reached a consensus to redefine the word incident. I mostly just read WP these days but use of incident here has got to be the best and most disgusting joke i have seen this month. In other words, if this is only an incident then delete this article is my recommendation. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:31, 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)
• Far too soon to call it a "terrorist attack", that's just speculation at the moment. However, I dislike euphemisms like "incident", so I favour an immediate move to Manchester Arena explosion pending further information. --NSH001 (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. All sources state bombing. Keep date. When people search for such events, dates are helpful.--Tallard (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• We can create a redirect with the date, so that shouldn't be an issue. Neutrality^talk 06:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Manchester Arena bombing. The year doesn't need to be said, as per WP:CONCISE because this is the only attack there. It is far more than just an incident. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 06:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing per User:Callmemirela. Booyahhayoob (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Any reason to have "2017" in the title?

Oppose removing 2017 from the title since the attack occurred in 2017. Saved by God's grace (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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)
• Support 2017 Manchester Arena bombing if this turns out to be a suicide bomb attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Manchester Arena bombing per WP:CONCISE. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move to any one of the above suggestions, just anything but calling it an "incident", it's a bombing or terrorist attack. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Manchester Arena bombing —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep 2017. WP:CONCISE does not state any year conventions for names. The year helps with clarity, as there were prior incidents in Manchester. (albeit not in the arena) While it might seem ominous to be talking about future-proofing, that is logical another benefit. -- sarysa (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion now moot

• This discussion is now moot as the police have confirmed that it was a bombing carried out by a male attacker who died in the blast (most likely a suicide bomber, though that isn't yet confirmed). [1] Could someone please now carry out the move? Prioryman (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Take out "2017". There has been no other attack on the Manchester Arena, so the year isn't necessary. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 06:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2017 Manchester bombing. The bombing didn't happen in the Arena, and didn't affect the structural integrity of the Arena. 2017 would be required to differentiate it from the 1996 Manchester bombing and 1992 Manchester bombing. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 07:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Moved to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• (ec) Support 2017 in title. The police in Manchester and the BBC are currently referring to this as a "suicide attack" and that might possibly appear in the title. Agree that new title with "bombing" in place of "incident" is appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Manchester Arena bombing?

I see that most have agreed to Manchester Arena bombing, leaving out the mention of "terrorist attack" or the year (2017). Can we get a consensus on this? Created this section since it seems ideas have been narrowed down to this.--ZiaLater (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

The reactions section was reduced by User:Ohconfucius in this edit. I thought I would note this as it was a large edits and reaction sections are usually controversial. See the essay I started, WP:REACTIONS, for more on these sections/articles. Fences&Windows 07:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I trimmed the artists listed - Reactions_to_the_2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing can be started by anyone who is ready. Reactions_to_the_2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting may be a useful model. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done The page exists. I have formatted it almost exactly to match this article: Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting -- sarysa (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Could we please change the reference to the 'Queen of England' (no such thing, AFAIK - the title is the Queen of the United Kingdom [of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]) to just 'Queen'. 93.89.131.57 (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 12:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence about Katie Hopkins because of the OR and BLP issues involved in the way the sentence was written. In addition, her views would be given disproportionate weight by including them. Bencherlite^Talk 12:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

All of the so-called "reactions" on the article are the predictable mush from politicians and heads of organisations "condemning" and expressing "condolences". What a bunch of PR bureaucrat pap. The sole actual reaction (if it can be called that) is that the government raised the alert to "Cobra", whatever that means. That is an actual "reaction" (an ACTION). Eliminate everything else, with a link to the "reactions" pablum page that has been created elsewhere. XavierItzm (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most of your sentiment, as the older one gets, the more life's repetition and predictability wears on oneself. That said, to omit the predictable in a summary would create an uncomfortable information gap for the average reader. Perhaps we should compress the predictable condemnations and condolences down to 1-2 sentences to make room for more interesting and/or more varied reactions. (for example, the many buildings that lit up a Union Jack on their facade) -- sarysa (talk) 12:50, 24 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)

The UK Prime Minister (along with the Defence and Home minister) is responsible for the defence and security of the United Kingdom, regardless of his or her political party, and so should be given priority over any leader of a devolved administration of the United Kingdom. Especially since defence and security is power reserved to the UK Parliament. Otherwise, the leader of Bavaria should have priority over the German Chancellor. Or the Californian Governor over the US President. Funkinwolf (talk) 08:33, 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)

Tabloids are all over this and Sebastian Gorka tweeted the link, but two more reliable sources that note the anniversary without going into more detail are:[2][3]. Fences&Windows 07:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Of all the things that happened on May 22, why would this be in any way connected to the Rigby murder? Seeing patterns and connections where they don't exist is precisely how conspiracy theories and superstitions start. I suggest we wait for something more substantive than tabloid and social media speculation before including this 'connection'. 93.89.131.57 (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Can't be anything other than a coincidence. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox - 'target' section

I realise this is small beer, in the overall scheme of things, but: in the infobox the 'target' is shown as 'Ariana Grande concert' - I think that's a bit misleading. It sounds like the actual concert performance, maybe even Ms Grande herself, was targeted. Whereas the incident happened a) after the end of the concert, and b) just outside the venue. I think a more appropriate description of the target would be 'concert-goers' or words to that effect. 93.89.131.57 (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The attacker seems to have detonated the bomb outside the Arena after the concert, as attempting to get into the building might have led to a body search. This was why the bombers in the November 2015 Paris attacks detonated their weapons outside the stadium. We may never know the exact sequence of events, but the bomber may have been content to kill people as they left the building.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed the "target" parameter from "Ariana Grande concertgoers" to just "Concertgoers". We don't know that the perpetrator was specifically targeting Ariana Grande fans (could have been any other pop star, probably). Let's keep less specific? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Death toll issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'See also' section

Why is there a link to the attempted 2007 car bombs in London? Different city, different method, and most importantly that one was prevented. I see very little if any connection between the two incidents - unless someone knows something I don't, in which case enlighten us please? 82.132.217.214 (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This one is a bit tenuous, so I removed it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is there a link to a completely unconnected 2001 attack in Israel? If no sources connect the two, we can't either. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There is now a link in the 'See also' section to the Lee Rigby murder. Nothing in the news today (that I've seen at least) to suggest a connection, other than the date. May 22nd is also Sri Lanka's Republic Day - are we saying this incident is somehow connected to that, too!? If the tabloid press and various click bait websites have nothing better to do than to speculate with such matters, do we have to follow suit? 93.89.131.57 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Some people are jumping the gun here. Even if this incident turns out to be the work of an Islamist, the murder of Lee Rigby is not directly related per WP:SEEALSO unless more clear cut evidence emerges.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This section now has a link to the 'Dolphinarium' attack in Israel in 2001 - again, completely unrelated and unconnected, and as such should be removed. 93.89.131.57 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, now the link to the Israel attack has been removed... and instead we have a link to the 2004 Spanish train incident - again, the connection seems to me tenuous at best, so why include it here? 93.89.131.57 (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The Spanish Bombing took place 3 days before the 2004 Spanish general election. That could be a reason to consider it. A political motivation.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's speculation. It may also be because the attacker knew that the concert would be a prime target with a huge crowd, making the choice of date irrelevant.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#.22See_also.22_section "one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." and in my opinion anything that is directly relevant to the article should actually be in the article not added as an after thought to the see also section.--KTo288 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

ISIS praising the attack

Just found this The Daily Telegraph article ([4]) reporting ISIS supporters praising the Manchester Arena incident as an attack against the West. But is this usable, or we leave this out as presumptive? Looks like ISIS is already implied as the suspect on the attack, but we need to wait for a report that the ISIS claimed responsibility. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's as predictable as the town hall clock that ISIL would praise this attack or claim responsibility for it. It's too early to say whether any of this is notable enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

While the perpetrator has been determined, but undisclosed, we should avoid presumptions of ISIS involvement, until sources we can use back it. ISIS has been presumed to lead this localized bombing in Manila by local media, that is soon discovered as a result of a local gang war instead of a terrorist attack. Media will be sensationalistic in this incident, but our viewpoint on the Manchester Arena incident will change from "incident" to "bombing" as the sources will prove that the attack is a terrorist-led bombing, or a bombing due to another motive. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

We can only be sure of ISIS' support for these things. I do not want to inflate ISIS' stature by giving them credit (or blame) for what may be a lone rabid wolf attack loosely inspired by ISIS. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC articles/resources

• What we know so far

For future use. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator in fatality count

Do we have a source for the perpetrator not being included in the fatality count? I note that the BBC and other news agencies say 22 dead, do we know if that includes the bomber? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gxrneyme (talk • contribs) 09:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the number is 22. There is no mention of 23 deaths. If number should be 23, than sources should be provided. Kind regards,  Rodejong  💬 ✉️  09:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Ian Hopkins, GMP has confirmed that perpetrator is included in the count here in the video found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-40008389 GingerGeek (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Ian Hopkins does not appear in the video currently at that url. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

PM says (at 12:04 CET) "In addition to the terrorist there are 22 victims." So 23 should be the right number? Kind regards,  Rodejong  💬 ✉️  10:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I was watching and I thought she said 22 fatalities, including the attacker. Grez868 (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

These two sources state that the perpetrator "killed 22"; this would make the fatality count 23. ~ KN2731 {talk} 10:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No, killed 22: 21 homicides and one suicide. WWGB (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

WWGB: Source? PM says: In addition to the terrorist there are 22 victims. Kind regards,  Rodejong  💬 ✉️  11:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I added 23 fatalities including the perpetrator this morning with a clear source to a statement from Manchester police confirming 22 victims died, but WWGB removed the link and then the death toll was eventually reverted by someone who said no source was provided. Citations, even if in an infobox, should not be removed, especially in the early hours to avoid confusion. News organizations don't always include the perpetrator in the death toll which can cause confusion. Police statement at http://www.gmp.police.uk/Live/Nhoodv3.nsf/TriageWebsitePages/5C071E8A3B6E6761802581290023AD7E?OpenDocument Michael5046 (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Why can't I publish my edits...

...when some one has published their edit while I was editing? MaxPlays (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict, you need to be patient. WWGB (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

UEFA reaction relevancy

Is a reaction from the UEFA in regards upcoming 2017 UEFA Europa League Final relevant for the "Other" paragraph? Manchester United F.C. will be playing that final against AFC Ajax on 24 May 2017. JoeriB92 (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Arndale Centre evacuation

Just a heads-up for now, Arndale Centre is being evacuated as at 11:35 or so UK time. No reason given as yet, but seems to have been triggered by the widening of the police cordon around the Arena. May in time prove to be connected or not, significant or not. 93.89.131.57 (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Greater Manchester Police have now said a man has been arrested and it is believed to be unconnected, but we will keep an eye on it. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct. And apparently the evacuation is over and the Centre is open to public again. 93.89.131.57 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Now that it's over and confirmed unconnected, I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning this in the "Aftermath" section. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Change article name?

The Manchester Police is comfirming that this is a terrorist attack http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-40010486/manchester-police-this-was-a-terrorist-attack. Should the article not be change to the Terrorattack in Manchester Arena? --Gurra.79 (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Terror attack" is not a common Wikipedia phrase, eg the 9/11 article is September 11 attacks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It has already been renamed to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing per the discussion above. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It should either be 2017 Manchester bombing or Manchester Arena bombing. The current title would only be justified if there had been another bombing at the same arena or another bombing in the same city this year. Jim Michael (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts and prayers

This article now has a section for international reactions that is actually a list of countries who expressed condolences. As we have with many other disaster articles, I propose leaving it out as trivial and non-encyclopedic.- MrX 12:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It has been trimmed significantly, and should be spun out to a separate page (see Talk:2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing#Reactions above). — xaosflux ^Talk 12:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggest aggressive trimming. No need for a separate page though. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Too late: Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing.- MrX 18:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Sigh. I've given up trying to fight these pages and acknowledge that I'm outside the consensus on them. ::shrug:: EvergreenFir (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom DS

@Greyshark09: I removed the {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}} banner - even broadly construed I don't see this page being "about" these topics right now and as a current event many edits are likely to be occurring to this article that are "revert like" that are in no way related to that topic. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Since ISIL is mentioned, this page is automatically under WP:GS/ISIL sanctions boradly construed. The notification is merely to warn users. Anyone, breaching the sanctions will be brought to ArbCom, regardless whether the notice is present or not.GreyShark (dibra) 12:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Placing this article under such a Draconian sanction based on an unsubstantiated connection to ISIL would be ill-advised. If the article is subject to 1RR, there must be an edit notice so that editors are properly alerted.- MrX 12:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Victims' names and bios

As the names of the killed and wounded are released, we need to decide whether the article will include their names and biographies. These will doubtless be included in news coverage, since thy have human interest, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTAMEMORIAL and it would amount to a memorial to the victims. Unless someone who otherwise satisfied WP:BIO was in the crowd, the victims are in the news for only one thing, and that is being in a place at the wrong time. I would encourage summary statistics of age, gender, and nationality only, unless the investigation discloses that some individuals took some action which affected the events such as or fighting with them to try and prevent the bombing, or aiding them in getting into position, or heroically aiding victims. Edison (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I have already removed one and I'm generally opposed to including that level of detail for privacy reasons and per WP:BLPNAME. I agree with your proposal.- MrX 12:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• See #RfC: Should the victims be named?- MrX 13:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I know there are always well-meaning editors who see the bio details and want to include them in the related article. But see 2016 Brussels bombings#Victims for an example of how it should be done. That said, the editors of some articles have decided to include a victim lst, such as 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, but in such cases it was judged best to wait for a complete official list from the authorities, rather than a hodgepodge of individual names with fragmentary details being added and revised. See Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting/Archive 1#List of victims. Edison (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Two of the victims' names have now already been widely disseminated, quite apart from Wikipedia, and are now public knowledge throughout the UK, for example as a result of their inclusion in the main national lunchtime BBC News. WP:BLPNAME therefore does not apply (at least not according to my reading of it). However, it is probably best not to include the names in the article at the moment. The identities of the deceased are currently incomplete, the information will emerge in the fullness of time and it may then be appropriate to refer to them as a matter of record, like Wikipedia does for instance with the identity of the 2005 7/7 attack victims. I note there, however, Wikipedia has a link to the Independent online, to a page where the victims' names are found so it is one click away.user: aspaa[[user talk:aspaa] 13:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Katie Hopkins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romania expresses sympathy

Romanian president, Klaus Iohannis, expressed on Twitter: "Outraged and saddended by the terrible news from Manchester. Our thoughts go to the victims and their loved ones. Solidarity with UK" Romanian prime-minister, Sorin Grindeanu said on Facebook: "All our thoughts go to the families of those who have lost their lives and to those injured in the Manchester explosion."

Every civilized country will express their thoughts and prayers. It's just not noteworthy.- MrX 12:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Including the American reaction? NorthernThunder (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

References

David Leavitt

Boston, Massachusetts journalist posted a tweet in the aftermath of the bombing, which has rightly drawn lots of criticism for its bad taste. This is being reported on ((Metro). Will leave it to those actively editing the article to decide upon it inclusion or not. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

That was added and removed earlier, and shouldn't come back. As with the Katie Hopkins example, such comments are simply irrelevant to this article. Bencherlite^Talk 13:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the victims be named?

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

Threaded discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Carcharoth (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

ISIS claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Reactions

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

---

The Pope and the Government of Argentina also show solidarity to the victims and the city of Manchester. [5] [6] Should be added to the reactions sections. 200.16.99.56 (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have added both of them. The Spanish reference for Argentina. I have used a English reference for the Pope's statement seperately. JoeriB92 (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Requested move 23 May 2017 (2)

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

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

---

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threaded discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

International Reactions (2)

Do we really need to write a long list of countries who do condemn the attacks? We didn't do that at the other attacks. It think it is just a waste of resources. Normally we just generally write that leaders around the world spoke their condolences and only adding reactions that are important. I mean, the list of countries doesn't even state what has been said. Not to mention that the citation still is awful. Can't we, you know, just delete the whole section and write something like "Many world leaders offered condolences to [insert country] and the victims of the attack." If some leaders choose to ban all Muslims, start bombing ISIS or don't allow British to enter their country, that would be mention worthy reactions. But saying "I don't like terrorism" is neither informative nor relevant.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel it might be worth including if other countries adopt security measures as a result of this attack. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Which measures? We can write a general statement about it and if there is something special about some countries, we can add it too :-) --Rævhuld (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, and I am talking about new things put into place or new policy adoptions things of the like. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. I see someone has adopted what we said into the article. So I am happy now.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the list is wholly unnecessary. I would've removed it wholesale if I didn't think such a change would be quickly reverted. TompaDompa (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think its excessive to list the countries in prose form. A list I would disagree with. But devoting one long sentence to all the countries is not excessive. Besides, some people will most definitely try to add something "special" about a country or too in the near future, so I do think all countries should be mentioned.VR _talk 14:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Are reactions coming from mayors or governments bodies of sister cities of Manchester relevant to mention? Like this one from Mayor Garcetti of Los Angeles: [7]. JoeriB92 (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What would it take to persuade well-meaning people not to add every vacuous platitude issued by every politician or celebrity in the world, in full, in quotation marks, to this article? --John (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Amen.- MrX 17:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Just asking for opinions, no reason to bash. Other thing, why are Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin more important 'world reactions'? Then you can name France or Germany as well, which should not be the case. My opinion is to mention reactions that relate to the city of Manchester. Why are Trump and Putin more relevant than others? JoeriB92 (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Who bashed? I also don't think we should include reactions from Trump or Putin. - MrX 18:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing sourced material

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

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

Reaction from Muslim Council of Britain

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

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

Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Are they notable enough? It's a form of stereotyping to assume we need to include this groups view as if they are somehow responsible. The bomber seems unconnected to this group. Would this group's opinion have been included if it were the IRA? Religious leaders of note, like the Pope, would have a notable opinion regardless of the perpetrator and their religion. It seems to be a form of soft racism of lowered expectations to need to include statements like this. There are a billion muslims in the world and hundreds of thousands of mosques and their view is not particularly notable and seems like including the condemnation statement is out of the belief they share responsibility. They don't share responsibility and linking them is not needed. I'm sure the Church of England also condemned it but it's not notable. --DHeyward (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Name

Hello, new editor here, I don't know your rules properly, but the police in the UK have not confirmed that name and are asking that people do not share/publish names.

SkagwayEntropy (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Quite right. There were issues with the Westminster attack when the wrong name was leaked early on. Let's have a little patience. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There seems to have been some confusion (in US media at least) of the attacker vs. the man arrested today. Different sections of this article has then been edited by different people at various times today to either show the name or remove it, in one or more contexts. For what it's worth, I think we should keep the name out of the article until a) it has been officially confirmed by UK authorities (not US media or some blogging sites, etc.), and b) we can reliably distinguish between the attacker vs. the arrestee. (Incidentally, IMO the same should apply to the claims by ISIS that they are behind this, which seems to be another hot editorial subject here today!) 93.89.131.57 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of RS explicitly stating that the bomber was Salman Abedi, but there is no rush, and we may as well wait for an official statement from UK Police. Quasar G ^{t - c} 15:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The police and security services believe they know the identity of the perpetrator but at this stage of the investigations we cannot confirm his name.

— Theresa May on Manchester Arena explosion.

As the quote shows us: they believe they have him for sure, but they cannot confirm it yet. So we shouldn't include it before it is confirmed. And when it is confirmed, we should only call him a suspect because of the presumption of innocence.--Rævhuld (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The BBC is now reporting that the name has been released by police. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

References

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

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

---

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

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

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

Yes it is visually awkward and functionally bad. Sagecandor (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:COATRACK issue

Do we really need to place in the lead how this attack was worse than x, y, and z? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Only if RS generally do it EvergreenFir (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comparison to other attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split Ariana Grande reaction from International reactions

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can get on board with this. I feel like this is definitely the correct order and should be implemented. Jayden (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Broken cites

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

---

Still problems with broken cites and the awful cite format breaking up the references section, after the sentence, Condolences were expressed by the leaders and governments of over two dozen countries.. Sagecandor (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Motive

The motive is not "terrorism". That word refers to the action, not to the ideology. The terrorist did not believe in "terrorism", he likely believed in "radical Islam" or "Islamism" or "Islamic fundamentalism".--Walsak (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's too early to talk about about a motive. He may well have been an Islamist wack job, but the sourcing doesn't say this right now.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but still, referring to it as "terrorism" is imprecise. At the very least put as "unknown" or something to that effect.Walsak (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Type of attack

There are statements like "Investigators are trying to determine if it was a lone wolf terror attack, although the police and MI5 assume that the attacker could not have been acting alone, making it likely that the bomber was part of a terror cell." on the page. Is this really necessary? That isn't factual information. In every investigation, every avenue of inquiry is pursued. It doesn't make it any different, nor more important, to include that the police are 'investigating' just because it was a suicide bombing. Jayden (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit too wordy and speculative for the WP:LEAD at the moment. It's obvious that the investigation is ongoing, and things need time to settle down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Islamic Human Rights Commission Calling on Met to Prosecute Hopkins

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

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

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

For reasons given above Amisom (talk)

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

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

References

"Islamic terror"

In this edit, a user asserts that "the motive is almost certainly Islamic terror". Is that true? Because all I see from RS is that ISIS claimed responsibility but authorities are still investigating. If so, then it seems we can't call it "Islamic terror" just yet.VR _talk 18:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed and reverted per WP:V. It's jumping the gun as usual.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

And,"as usual", for good reason, one might add. --Felixkrull (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's now clear that the British police knew within hours that Salman Abedi was the attacker, but they were annoyed when an off-the-record briefing to US government officials was leaked to the US news media.[8] Some US diplomats in London may have very sore ears after a telling off over this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal background updates

"Reports described the family as being devout and well-known to be against Isis and Islamism. Abedi's father, knwon as Abu Ismael, was described in glowing terms at the Didsbury Mosque where he and the family worshipped." Also, "[Abedi and his brothers] learned the Qur’an by heart."[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.234.86 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Dispute of source of ISIL claim

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to clarify, my WP:NOTCENSORED concerns stem from this edit, where Winsocker stated, "Last thing we need is to list whatever propaganda they say." I'm no fan of giving them a voice either, but we didn't censor their response to the Orlando shooting either. -- sarysa (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Deletion of the REACTION ARTICLE

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

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

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

Images in the article

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

Fake missing people images

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

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

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

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

Attacker's full name

Re this edit: It is Salman Ramadan Abedi.[10] His UK birth record is here and it says that he is still alive, which he now isn't. I hope some people don't remove the Ramadan part unnecessarily.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 00:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undoing page move

@David Levy: - Please don't make unilateral page views without discussing it here first. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Fuzheado: The matter was discussed in a subsection of the move proposal, wherein most editors commenting on the year's inclusion opined that it was superfluous and inconsistent with our naming conventions. Those expressing disagreement cited the following rationales (which I would have addressed, had the discussion remained open):

• "Oppose removing 2017 from the title since the attack occurred in 2017"

  (with no elaboration on why that particular detail – accurate as it may be – belongs in the title)

• "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."

  (This was a valid concern, but "Arena" has not been removed from the title, rendering it moot.)

• "WP:CONCISE does not state any year conventions for names. The year helps with clarity, as there were prior incidents in Manchester. (albeit not in the arena) While it might seem ominous to be talking about future-proofing, that is logical another benefit."

  (Of greater relevance is MOS:PRECISION, which is part of the same longstanding policy. As explained therein, "usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." In this instance, "Manchester Arena bombing" fits these criteria. The other Manchester bombings were unrelated to Manchester Arena. Additionally, appending disambiguation to "future-proof" article titles has been suggested and rejected by the Wikipedia community on countless occasions. Preemptively titling the article "2017 Manchester Arena bombing" in case another occurs in a subsequent year, "May 2017 Manchester Arena bombing" in case another occurs this year or "22 May 2007 Manchester Arena bombing" in case one occurs later this month is inconsistent with our established practices.)

Exceptions arise, of course, but we adhere to guidelines and policies (especially the latter) by default, with deviations requiring consensus. As noted above, not only is there not consensus for an exception, I see a rough consensus against making one. —David Levy 03:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just repaired the remaining double redirects created when you reverted the move. —David Levy 03:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Navigation templates?

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

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

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

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

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

Was this attack linked to Libyan mess in 2011?

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

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

Referring to Islamic terrorism/radical Islam

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

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

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

22 or 23 deaths?

The sources say there were 22 victims killed. Wouldn't this mean there are 23 deaths if the attacker is included (the attacker is not a victim)? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed. I'm reasonably sure from the sourcing that the figure of 23 includes the bomber, so he killed 22 people plus himself. Does anyone disagree?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

ISIS might. The Nashir version of the "claim" didn't mention a martyr, so maybe they think he got away. Maybe Nashir and Amaq are equally sketchy, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, May 24, 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism? Ready to lock

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

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

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

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

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

Photo of attacker

Re this edit: As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's far more of a problem that the image requires WP:NFCC than whether someone considers him to be a "piece of sh*t". There are probably going to be numerous photos of Abedi, but if past articles about attacks are anything to go by, someone will nominate the image for deletion if it fails NFCC in any way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The picture of this disgusting a**hole should of course not be included. Thx.--The Pollster (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's an irrelevant WP:NOTCENSORED position. Personally, I don't think that the image that was added has a great deal of contextual significance at the moment, so it's a fair bet that it would be nominated for deletion at some point. Some users are very fussy about this and many articles have ended up with a photo of the attacker deleted because it failed WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Arrests related to the case

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

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

Should the suicide bomber get an infobox?

Someone added an infobox for the murderer, which I removed, and then someone added it again. By convention we don't usually add infoboxes for perpetrators in these types of articles as it tends to memorialize them (see 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting for example). What does everyone else think?- MrX 11:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced at the moment. The main problem is that isn't saying anything that the text of the article doesn't already say, leading to redundancy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It especially leans towards editors wanting to populate the "motive" field, for which we have no confirmation from police. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It is also essentially redundant to the infobox immediately above it. Two boxes are not needed here. Bencherlite^Talk 12:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think a infobox is not necessary. We can cover his "biography" in the perpetrator section.--Skim

Their should be a picture of the inside of the Manchester Arena

Hello, just here to say that I think it would be a good for the reader and people in general to see a picture of the inside of the arena where the attack took place at. --Skim

Not quite so sure here. The bombing did not occur inside the arena or during the concert, so there is a risk of confusing people and giving the impression that this was a repeat of the Bataclan (theatre) attack, which it wasn't. Some of the TV coverage also gives this impression. What we do need is an up to date picture of the exterior of the arena, which shouldn't be too difficult, and of emergency vehicles at the scene. No luck on Flickr so far. This is what the inside of the Arena looks like on Commons, but it's not where the bombing took place.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe the part of the site you need an image of is the box office where it connects to Victoria station. It's at the end of the elevated walkway you can see in some pictures of the station.[11] Geograph has no such image. The interior of the Arena is not so relevant. This image is very close, show the arena in the background, and a sign for the Macdonalds which is in the direct vicinity of the blast (AIUI). The area is public access, so an image might be available when the station re-opens. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Creation of Wikipedia page for Salman Ramadan Abedi

Is it necessary as of now for a page to be created on perpetrator? I have already started making template and building the page. Any thoughts on if it is okay to do so? DeAllenWeten (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely no for the time being per WP:BLP1E. It would only end up rehashing the rather limited amount of what we know about him that is already in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, not needed - definitely BPL1E, and latest reports suggest he was only a "mule" - with a mastermind(s?) behind this. Of course what is missing in the current page is any mention that he was Muslim (has a Muslim name, Libyan descent, prayed at a mosque, relevant Islamic terror cats.... But no mention that he was Muslim) - which is relevant given Islamic Terror in general and that allegiance to ISIS or Al-Qaeda is faith based.Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Casualty Figures

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

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