Talk:2017 Finsbury Park van attack

"The Finsbury Park Mosque has attracted both positive and negative media attention"

I'm not happy with this line because it suggests that somehow it's the media's fault. Are "positive" and "negative" objective? Surely what's more important is the facts of Finsbury Park's history, not "media attention" its received. The two cited articles don't say anything about "media attention", unless they are media attention in and of themselves. I propose it be scrapped and we just go straight to the facts. RustlingLeaves (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@RustlingLeaves and Vice regent: - See the section above titled "compromise version". It was a messy compromise. I think it could be re-written. NickCT (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No - we shouldn't cut it out. This place has received quite a bit of attention (I would argue that the negative past out swamps the positive recent coverage - but that's another issue). The negative and positive coverage was, at least in part, objective - the mosque has a significant negative past with major terrorism activity (including a 9/11 celebration conference on the 1 year anniversary!) - this ended circa 2004-5. Since then - the mosque has been more mainstream (all be it with Muslim Brotherhood management including some figures (e.g. Azzam Tamimi, Muhammad Sawalha) with questionable history and statements) - and has positive media coverage. The point behind all this - is that this is a highly notable location with a very charged past. It's not a random mosque. Whether the past objectively reflects on the present is not as important as the public perception (including the perpetrator's perception) of the place.Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: - I think RustlingLeaves is commenting solely on that opening sentence. Not the whole paragraph. NickCT (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The whole thing could/should be reworked (I would like to see the notoriety, in terms of public/media coverage, more clearly asserted) - but the media (& public) attention on the mosque - is the whole point of the subsequent paragraph. If an Islamist preaches in the middle of the desert and no one sees.... Would that motivate anyone to do anything? But if the mosque's name is mentioned time and time again in a terror context - in very wide international coverage - that's relevant background. It doesn't really matter, if the media/public attention was correct or accurate, just that it was there in a very large fashion.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: @NickCT: To clarify, I am all for talking about the mosque's history. I'm just complaining about the first sentence where we talk about "positive and negative media coverage". Media coverage isn't the point. It makes it sounds like it wasn't doing anything wrong, it was just the media giving it negative coverage. We wouldn't talk about this Osbourne bloke "receiving negative media coverage", would we? He's receiving negative media coverage because he ran people over on purpose. Similarly, Finsbury Park Mosque "received negative media coverage" because it had a Jihadi Imam for seven years. That wasn't the media's fault. RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see the notoriety more clearly established - however there was concern regarding victim blaming. In my view - this is probably in the "top 5 notorious Western mosques" - even 14 years after Abu Hamza and his disciples were kicked out (and despite the notoriety arising from them - the mosque still gets current coverage on major events dating back to then (e.g. Charlie Hebdo in 2015 - [1] [2]) - as "Abu Hamza Finsbury graduates" (and graduates of graduates) - keep on popping up. One should note that the mosque's current administration has received positive press and coverage. In the balance between this not being in - or being in with "both positive and negative" - I prefer the formerlatter. Perhaps you should try suggesting a reformulation here - it might fly. Another option, is to wait until whatever comes out of the investigation (e.g. if the suspect states he did so and so because of X) - which might cast light on the relevance of this. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC) fix:Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@RustlingLeaves: I wrote that sentence out of concern for neutrality and balance. I tried my best to be fair in this regard, giving equal coverage to both narratives and mentioning both narratives in the first sentence of the paragraph. If you can respect balance, then I'm totally open to re-wording. I oppose any sorted of lopsidedness that emphasizes one narrative and downplays the other.VR _talk 07:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Yep, whether they did good, bad or both, I just think that should be the point. Rather than citing good or bad "media coverage" which implies, at least to me, that the media coverage was unfair or inaccurate, when the positive and negative media coverage was presumably due to the mosque's positive and negative activities. RustlingLeaves (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Including ISIS' response

Previously there was a short paragraph under "Organisations" where ISIS gave their response. This has since been deleted because it's ISIS and they're bad guys / biased. Can someone with more experience clarify if there's a rule that we don't quote ISIS? I personally didn't have a problem with it. RustlingLeaves (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It is one thing to quote terrorist supporters or even activists provided there is a link to a valid media source and it clarifies something or explains something. To quote such ilk willy-nilly to justify or threaten is something else. And um, by the way, I don't recall anyone quoting the Ku Klux Klan after Dylann Roof perpetrated the massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, just to cite one example. Quis separabit? 01:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Ku Klux Klan, to my understanding, is not really an active organization that is carrying out actual attacks - but is rather at present (the 3rd klan) - a set of diverse (and very small) groups that use the Klan's name (so it is really dozens of different "Klans" - all still bigoted). The Klan actually is not the correct analogy - the analogy here would be Black supremacists (e.g. Black Guerrilla Family or New Black Panther Party) - had they used Roof's act as a call for Black action. I do not recall such a thing being covered by WP:RS at the time. In ISIS's case in relation to this attack - we have an active belligerent (responsible for multiple attacks in Britain) which is covered in WP:RS making calls for violence because of the Finsbury attack.Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

An ISIS supporter isn't ISIS. One is a major organization, the other is a person with Internet access and an opinion. ISIS' response is worth a paragraph, when it exists. When it doesn't, we often go with Amaq's opinion. But when that's also absent, we don't resort to scraping the bottom of the barrel. I get that it's weird to hear of Muslims, terror, Britain and not ISIS in one of these things, but reaching just for the sake of consistency is weirder. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, June 21, 2017 (UTC)

Multiple WP:RS are covering ISIS's response and use of this incident as incitement/recruitment for attacks. This is a conflict - to which ISIS is a major belligerent side (carrying out 3 major attacks in the UK this year, so far). We should cover, on Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, responses from all sides - Radical Islamists, anti-Islamists, and the peaceful majority in-between. Just as we would include IRA and Ulster Unionists responses during the Troubles (as well as the UK government). If all we do here - is parrot the boiler-plate condemnations (which are 99% of responses) - that's not what an encyclopedia does. The perpetrator in this incident acted in a particular environment. Others support his actions (so while 99% may oppose, he is not alone), the radical Islamists who are another side to this conflict are also with support. If we cut this out - we make this look like - "man out of the blue decided all by himself, without a soul in the world influencing him (and the opposing side), to attack" - which is not the situation here. The anti-Islamists and Islamists - are feeding off each other, and when this is noted by WP:RS - we should note this as well.Icewhiz (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Then use a source attributing these incitements/recruitments to ISIS instead of ISIS supporters. Everything has fans online, these fans can't represent the things. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, June 21, 2017 (UTC)

ISIS recruits and incites people via on-line activity. Not everything is "official" statements - most aren't. In this case we have multiple WP:RS covering the use of this incident to incite further violence - this is notable. This isn't "one random guy" - but a mass of activity, that has attracted the attention both of counter-terrorism experts and the media. How we phrase this - is a different matter.Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Anybody can be anybody online, and often are. But when reliable sources explicitly say a message "verified" by an analyst is from a supporter, it's not Wikipedia's place to assume he's a secret member or unofficial spokesman, just because it's possible. Could be an undercover cop, too. I don't know where you saw anything resembling a mass of activity or a second expert. It was just Michael Smith (a likely name) reading a few things he found, in both stories we'd used. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, June 21, 2017 (UTC)

I think this is relevant because several ISIS supporters have used this to incite violence. ISIS is an informal network - at least outside of zones they control in Syria/Iraq (and elsewhere via affiliates) - many of the attackers in the West who have claimed ISIS allegiance weren't "members" in any sense of the word - they "self radicalized" and chose to carry out attacks in the name of ISIS (to the point, Obama when refering to Omar Mateen said “investigators do not have any information to indicate that a foreign terrorist group directed the attack in Orlando.”[3]. It doesn't seem to me, from my knowledge of the sources, that "self radicalization" relies on "official" ISIS people - for instance Ahmad Musa Jibril (an article I worked on recently - as a result of the London Bridge attack) isn't known to be affiliated with ISIS. He doesn't even explicitly extol violence. He mainly (in the on-line videos) covers, in English, Salafist doctrinal teachings on day to day life in the West (Islamic behavior, fasting, western medicine, etc.) while speaking sympathetically regarding the plight of Syrians - and despite that - he's cited (widely!) as being a major influence on many Jihadists who carry out attacks (both in the West, and on Western Jihadis who travel to Syria (at one point - IIRC 60%+ of such Western English-speaking Jihadies studied were following Jibril's twitter)).Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

ISIS uses every Muslim killed by any coalition member, civilian or military, to rally for killing all coalition members, civilian or military. There's nothing stopping independent terrorists from reaching the same simple idea, as Mateen did, and naturally leaning toward the most famous enemy of their enemy, especially when it'll give their demands publicity. Pledging allegiance to a group only means considering oneself an ally. Says nothing about membership, or appropriateness to speak on the group's behalf. I don't know how we'd even begin deciding who speaks for the self-radicalized as a whole, since there inherently is no whole and never has been. Whoever it is, it should have a name, unlike the nobody (or nobodies) we heard from here. They weren't even speaking to the press, just discovered. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:24, June 21, 2017 (UTC)

They use every Muslim death, sure, but some are used more than others - and this is one of them (Muslim worshipers struck after Ramadan prayers). Before the 1990s (and more so 2000s) all the self-radicalization thing was non-existent. You had groups. Chains of command. Leaders. Orders. etc. With the rise of Twitter, Facebook, and the self-radicalized - you have sounding chambers where cliques of relatively anonymous (and shifting) people have a much wider influence than before. Alas - this is the nature of the 2010s terror - the message is spread by diffuse means, and individuals choose to act on their own accord following online instruction on motivation and methods. 20-30 years ago the message of "Jihadi Joe" was of no consequence - today the mass of such Joes is. (This is an area which is a hot research topic).Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence of the paragraph had also turned the complaint about crusaders killing Muslims seeking revenge for killed Muslims to one about police "dealing with ISIS terrorists". Even if the source of an instant message is anonymous (or a bad guy), that's less a paraphrase and more plain twisted. If you don't want to relay what someone actually says, don't relay it at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, June 21, 2017 (UTC)

It was a summary of at least three different statements - perhaps a (self admittedly) badly done summary.Icewhiz (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It was all in one statement from one account. The Independent called it "messages" and referred to the same post from the other two paragraphs as "one such post", so I can see how you might have imagined three. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:43, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree that I am not sure this is really all that relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

As of yet ISIS has nothing to do with this terrorist attack. Funkinwolf (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wanstead Attack

Sourced reference to the 7 June Wanstead attack has been deleted, on the grounds that it was "an underreported local incident". It was a Jihadi attack in London in June. They're all "local" in that they happened in localities. I don't see why Wanstead is local but Southwark isn't. A group of women wearing black stabbed a bystander while shouting about Allah and quoting the Qu'ran. That's virtually identical to the other London attacks except no vehicular attack first. RustlingLeaves (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This incident seems to have received very little press coverage. Indeed, I hadn't heard about it until just now. But, according to this, it was being treated as a hate crime rather than a terror attack. This is Paul (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The distinction between a "hate crime" by someone shouting "this is for Allah" (which was actually reported beyond the local London area - some international mentions) and "terrorism" is rather minor and liable to change. I think this is marginally relevant to the article, as it occurred in London in relative proximity to the attack. BBC reported this - [4]. As did Brietbart in the US - [5]. DailyCaller (US) - picked up on reporting on the allegedly dubious hate crime classification - [6]. I've seen multiple other references to this - also non-English. It might not have gotten this coverage if it wasn't after London Bridge - but it was - and in between London Bridge and Finsbury.Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

General response to Icewhiz's comment and clearly not applicable to this incident, but the technical distinction between "terrorism" and "hate crime" is not only significant and likely to remain so, but is self-evident in the terms themselves. "Terrorism" describes an act with a particular intended effect, while "hate crime" describes an act motivated by a particular psychological state. There is, of course, a degree of overlap in a lot of cases (lynchings committed against the African-American community throughout the first half of the twentieth century could generally be described by either term or both), but it's easy to think of hate crimes that are not meant specifically to inflict terror on those left alive (racially-motivated murders where the bodies are hidden in the hope of evading detection but with clear disregard for whether the actions will inflict terror, for example). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Brietbart and DailyCaller are nor reliable sources or barometers of what does or does not constitute a minor local crime in London. We wouldn't look to the London Evening Standard for a viable comment on some minor crime in New York City. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This was on BBC's main page that day. I wasn't suggesting we use Brietbart nor DailyCaller - just stating that this incident has received attention outside of the UK. Coverage didn't end in London or the UK.Icewhiz (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And the RS are saying "Counter-terrorism police have been informed but are not treating it as a terrorist incident.", so including it here is trying to make a link the authorities are not making.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Some people are of the opinion that because Wanstead was designated a mere "hate crime" and didn't get the promotion to "terrorist attack", that means it doesn't count. Police may not have designated it a "terrorist attack", but it was an "Islamist attack", right? So therefore part of the pattern of Islamist attacks in London in recent months. If the definition of a "hate crime" is an attack motivated by hatred, then why was the Finsbury Park attack called a terrorist attack and not a hate crime. There's no evidence he intended to make Muslims afraid per se, only that he hated them. RustlingLeaves (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Was it, what do RS say, Islamist or "carried out by a Muslim?Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Comes down to your definition of "Islamist". I think if a Muslim commits a violent attack motivated by Islam, then they have become an Islamist. The Wanstead attack wasn't just any attack by a Muslim, we're not talking about a Pakistani who stole a handbag. The attackers explicitly invoked Islam during the attack, eg "Allah will get you!" and Qu'ran quotes, leading one to reasonably conclude it was motivated by extreme prejudice against non-Muslims, ie Islamism/Jihadism. RustlingLeaves (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No it comes down to what RS call it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

They don't call it anything. We just get told police are treating it as a hate crime, and obviously the perpetrators are Muslims, although I don't think the media explicitly says that. My point is that it's a recent-stabbing-in-London-motivated-by-Islamic-extremism, and therefore similar to the others and therefore part of that pattern. I don't understand the pre-occupation with the nomenclature "terrorist attack" which seems to be largely about who's upset. If we're listing the recent-stabbings-in-London-motivated-by-Islamic-extremism, then why not this one. RustlingLeaves (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No they are Asian, not "obviously Muslim", even if they are that means nothing. We need proof that what is claimed they said is true (and "Allah will get you" is not in the Koran). As yo why we are hung up about nomenclature, [Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons].Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Asian women dressed all in black shouting "Allah will get you" and quoting the Qu'ran. I don't know how much clearer they can be about their religious affiliation. Unless you're suggesting it's a false flag. What would "prove" the statements occurred? If the witnesses said they heard that, then it's the same as the London attackers saying "this is for Allah", I don't think we have any proof of that besides witness statements. Yes, I know "Allah will get you" isn't in the Qu'ran, I didn't say it was. They said "Allah will get you" and "chanted the Qu'ran". RustlingLeaves (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

One witness (the victim) claiming something is not enough, she could be lying. Since then no corroboration. I mean it's not as if people have pretend to me something they are not or lied about being the victim of a crime in the past is it? By the way, what did they say that is a quote form the Koran?Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Wanstead witnesses could be lying. The Finsbury witnesses could be lying. All witnesses could be lying. You seem to be suggesting that wikipedia only discuss events that were caught on camera. I don't know what they said that was a quote from the Qu'ran. I only know that multiple reliable sources reported that witnesses said they were quoting the Qu'ran. I am not in personal contact with the witnesses RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a moot point. It doesn't matter if she was lying (which we do not know or have reason to believe) in regards to the state of mind of the public in general, and the suspect here in particular. Should we delve into historical precedents of ethnic attacks due to blatantly false libel? What matters, in terms of motivation, is what was said to have happen not what happened objectively.Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we can only include material from RS, There is nothing about this case that makes it clear it is part of some islamist campaign, nor have any RS made that claim. If RS do not make the link we cannot.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It probably comes down to if the attacker heard about this, and how he interpreted it (and not how RS reported it). There have been (elsewhere) inter-ethnic revenge attacks over inter-ethnic inadvertent traffic accidents and even romantic relations. But this ventures into WP:CRYSTALBALL. Seeing that the suspect is alive, one would expect we'll have a charge sheet not too far off from now, making this discussion perhaps moot.Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually no, because unless RS report it we cannot say what he says. It does not matter what he says, what matters is what RS say about it. As to the charge, he has to be arrested frost, I think you mean arrest warrant (and this is being treated as a hater crime, which is a cover all that may mean racism, sexism, Islamism, anti-child care or whatever (As well as possible mental health issues).Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I am of-course referring to WP:RS coverage of his motivation - whether as a result of coverage of the police investigation, the prosecution, or otherwise.Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well lets hope they get the sex and number of attackers right first shall we?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

RustlingLeaves, on the contrary, we do not know that the Wanstead attack was a "recent-stabbing-in-London-motivated-by-Islamic-extremism" at all. If it had been, we would have expected to see some sort of follow-up or repetition, but there has been nothing. That suggests a very different motive, but just what that was we don't yet know. I would note, however, that non-Muslims have used Muslim attire as disguises before, so whatever the Wanstead assailants were seen wearing proves little. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Coverage of Mr. Robinson's statements and other far-right leaders

@Hijiri88: I think this should be in. Maybe with some other tone and/or tweaks. Mr. Robinson's comments (and subsequent interviews) received SIGCOV. We should give coverage to all sides of the conflict. Just as we quote ISIS outlets justifying ISIS attacks - we should quote UK political elements of note (such as Mr. Robinson - even if far-right minority) who appear to be possibly justifying the attack. You could re-work how this is covered - there was significant subsequent criticism of Robinson and he's made some more statements. This was Front-Page news the few days after the attack. There are obviously (as can be seen for instance in Wikipedia's trolls vandalizing the page! And of course more established ways of seeing support) - some people (maybe a very small minority) who are justifying the attack - and this is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree, we repeat ISIL claims because usually it is ISIL claiming they carried out the attack. Also ISIL are a major regional power we are at war with. Mr. Robinson is a glorified football hooligan who gets coverage in order to fill papers (and was it front page news?). He is not a "UK political element of note", this is the first time he has been noticed for months.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

On the web (easily accessible) - yes. See for instance Telegraph here: [7]. And amount of coverage here - [8] (Robinson on past week). This was a statement that was repeated (the next day on a TV on Good Morning Britain - [9] - criticized - [10] [11] - he made additional statements) - and was lambasted widely.Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

So then, yes, he is getting the coverage only over this one incident. Prior to this he had been largely ignored over issues like Brexit of thew election. This belongs on his page, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but we are talking about someone who led a "street protest movement" which focused on marching through Muslim areas and other such activities, engaging in confrontation (and had (has?) some wider support). In which political camp would you place the attacker, who allegedly said "Kill all Muslims" (and other such statements) right after the attack? Was his action the action of an isolated individual with absolutely no support? Or does he have the support of some, even if a fringe? This may be a fringe viewpoint - but such that is in the "same area code" of the attacker.Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well I know he does not have enough support to have been a factor in Brexit (a far more important event then this attack), So as I said, he is now (in effect) notable for only this one statement (and it's follow up). A political nobody who is only listened to when the media want to portray a shouty nutter. In fact (even here) he is off less note then the reaction to him. But I will let others join in now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I'm essentially in agreement with Slatersteven, though perhaps for different reasons. I don't really know or care whether he is a glorified football connoisseur, as I have never heard of him; I'm more concerned that the comment we attribute to him seems to be nothing more than hateful trolling, and no doubt an extreme minority view. I'm also (a little) concerned that the cited sources are clearly more interested in the backlash he got for those comments than in granting him a forum, but whoever quoted them on English Wikipedia neglected to mention that or provide any context at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

See Pegida UK (the less notable UK offshoot of Pegida) & English Defence League for context. The initial edit (which was when this was breaking - he received much more lambasting later - and in the midst of adding quite a bit of material to the article) did mention the criticism of his statement a bit more (was later edited out). My opinion is this should be in - but updated to reflect both his later (televised and not just twitter) stmts and the harsh criticism of these comments - and maybe not as a verbatim quote. But we'll see the opinions of others.Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That sounds more reasonable, but it's still a weight issue. Wikipedia should cover controversial statements that have more to do with their staters than the real-world events that inspired them in the articles on the individuals that made them, not the articles on the real-world events, which should not have room for them after noting, for instance, the reaction of the President of Ireland. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that Tommy Robinson's reaction should absolutely be re-instated. I don't know who decides who is or isn't "notable", and removing his statement sounds like it is motivated more by a distaste for him than a genuine concern for lack of notability. The guy appeared on Good Morning Britain and got brow-beated in a car-crash interview over that tweet, what more do you want? Tommy Robinson is the UK's most prominent anti-Islam commentator. The "organisation" section is now lop-sided - every organisation is a Muslim organisation. Also, I want to make the point that "several local politicians" - whoever they are - are not an organisation. RustlingLeaves (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The UK and London governments are not "Muslim organisations". If you can find any mainstream views of non-Muslims that differ significantly from those cited, fire ahead. Citing one anti-Muslim activist's ... "questionable" response to the attack is not good. If you want to smear all non-Muslims (including me -- I grew up in Ireland in the 1990s and now live in Japan, so I don't even have all that many Muslim friends) by associating them with this vitriol and saying that the mere non-factual fact of his being "the only non-Muslim" we cited makes his view notable as the view of non-Muslim, kindly do it elsewhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Since when would quoting Tommy Robinson mean "smearing non-Muslims"? Stop straw-manning me. I'm not sure we're even in the same argument. I never said the UK and London Government were Muslim organisations (the mayor is a Muslim, of course). The UK and London governments aren't listed under "organisations". I was explicitly talking about the "organisations" section. Every organisation in the "organisation" section is now a Muslim organisation, with the possible exception of, and I quote "several local politicians", who shouldn't be there because whoever they are, they're not an organisation. RustlingLeaves (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Since when would quoting Tommy Robinson mean "smearing non-Muslims"? Stop straw-manning me. I'm not straw-manning you. You explicitly defended citing him as a representative of the non-Muslim community The "organisation" section is now lop-sided - every organisation is a Muslim organisation. implies there is some WEIGHT or NPOV problem with "only citing the views of Muslim organizations", when in fact said organizations better represent the views of the majority of non-Muslims better than "Pegida UK") I never said the UK and London Government were Muslim organisations (the mayor is a Muslim, of course). The UK and London governments aren't listed under "organisations". Well, I interpreted the reference to "several local politicians" as implying they were representing their administrative bodies. (BTW, if you really want to know "whoever they are" you can read the sources. You don't appear to have done so.) Anyway, what would you say to simply removing the "organisations" heading? Strictly speaking, neither Pegida UK, no RF, nor MCB made those statements anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I defended citing him as a representative of the anti-Muslim community, not the non-Muslim community. You accused me of including him with intent to "smear non-Muslims", and I did not do that. The initial statement - which I did not add - clearly said he was the leader of Pegida UK (it initially said "former EDL", I only tweaked it to Pegida UK). Whether it's a "smear" would depend on one's opinion of Tommy Robinson, wouldn't it. "Smear" is not objective. Nowhere did I suggest we state or imply that he "represented the non-Muslim community". So the Muslim Council of Britain represent non-Muslims nowadays, I'll bear that in mind. Of course there's a WEIGHT and NPOV issue with only citing Muslims. No, I didn't check the sources to see who the "several local politicians" were, because the point is I shouldn't need to. "Several local politicians" are not an "organisation". Yes, I think we should maybe just scrap the entire section, since there's obviously a bias. People are saying Tommy Robinson isn't notable enough, and yet it's okay to quote the Ramadhan Foundation. I think Tommy Robinson has a much higher profile than the Ramadhan Foundation. RustlingLeaves (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"Muslim" vs. "anti-Muslim" is a false dichotomy. You complained that the current version cited only Muslim groups. But the alternative to "Muslim" is "non-Muslim", not "anti-Muslim". The "anti-Muslim community" is already well-represented in the article, because it is about an anti-Muslim attack. Pointing out that anti-Muslim bigots celebrated the incident is ... well, it is actually perhaps worth noting, as is the fact that it was compared to the "anti-Muslim community",'s response to another incident in the US at roughly the same time ([12]), but not in the way you seem to be suggesting. And if you don't like mentioning the Ramadhan Foundation by name, then revert my edit and go back to saying "some organisations", but you might have to get the consent of Continentaleurope (talk · contribs), who had tagged the previous wording and no doubt would dispute your reverting back to it. Either way, the Telegraph saw fit in their article on the incident to cite RF and not Robinson. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I think it's remarkable that you're obviously interested in the subject enough to be editing a wikipedia page on a mosque attack, but you've never heard of Tommy Robinson, who founded the EDL and lead it up and down England from 2009 - 2013, constantly in the papers. I don't know how to quantify his notability, but he is the first name British people think of when they think of far-right / anti-Islam sentiment. I also don't know how to quantify whether his is a "minority" view. Possibly there are more ISIS-supporters in the UK than Robinson supporters, but I imagine ISIS-supporters are a minority too, and we have them. His comments weren't "hateful trolling" - he meant it as real commentary, and appeared on several mainstream tv channels to defend his comments. RustlingLeaves (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If you read a few sections up, you'll see how I came across this article. I spent a total of two days in England (London) during the time period you specify, and that was five years ago -- it's entirely possible I have heard of Robinson but have forgotten. I'm sure the same is true for a lot of people who saw his name in the papers in 2009(!). And please do not compare people who don't think it's a good thing that innocent civilians were viciously attacked to "ISIS-supporters". That's pretty damned offensive. ISIS's reaction to the incident is inherently notable, and we are not functioning as a megaphone for ISIS as we were for Robinson. Now could you stop comparing apples and oranges? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Since wikipedia is against censorship, we should always name and specify which organizations and politicians. I do not see this particular incident as escalating islamophobia but people who have direct interests such as muslim organizations and local politicians do. I would say islamophobia when a group is involved. I do not however exclude that it was a consequence of previous incident which is discussed in article..London Bridge. We either mention according to whom or we do not mention it at all. Since reliable sources mention it we should include what and who said it. I see that a number of editors are connected to the subject or for a reason want to promote islamic victimization and as well make it misleading. We still condemn the attack, and meanwhile should not present bias and exaggerations or ambiguity.Continentaleurope (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are a couple of problems with the above post (not least that you conflate WP:WEASEL with WP:NOTCENSORED) and most of your comment seems to have little to do with the topic of this discussion. I assume by a number of editors (ironic that you don't name said editors) you are referring to me and Slatersteven (talk · contribs), but I am neither "connected to the subject" (?) nor do I "want to promote islamic victimization and as well make it misleading" (!?). I just want the article to reflect what is in reliable sources, not misrepresent what is in them (as the Robinson passage did) or give undue weight to extreme fringe views (again as the Robinson passage did). You have to ask yourself -- when the majority of experienced Wikipedians without a specific "dog" in the "fight" and who rarely edit in this topic area are one side of a content dispute, and the majority of editors on the other side are new accounts, SPAs, and people who misquote Wikipedia policy, which side is likely to be right on the policy on English Wikipedia? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson wasn't just in the news in 2009. He's been in the news since 2009. And I don't understand who you thought I compared to ISIS supporters, my point was that ISIS is presumably a minority view but is included, so it would be a double standard to exclude Tommy Robinson for being a minority view. Also, the article quoted a single tweet that was reported in the media and got him on Good Morning Britain with Piers Morgan. If you object to a direct quote, we could paraphrase like we did for ISIS and the other Muslim groups. I don't know in what sense you think I'm comparing apples and oranges. I understand it's apples and oranges in the sense that Tommy Robinson hasn't killed lots of people like ISIS has. I only drew the comparison to illustrate that both are presumably minority views. RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well as someone from England I can tell you that I still have to look up the mans name to find out who is is (a case of I know that name, what for?), far right politics in Britain means either (in the old says) Nick Griffin and now Farrage (not that I agree with that but there you are). In fact it is still (and we can now add the DUP) the BNP who are seen as Britains main far right political movement, not the EDL or an even more fringe group Robinson heads now.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, we can probably exchange our personal awarenesses, but it's all subjective. I would say Nick Griffin has totally disappeared from public consciousness since he was ousted from the BNP. The UK's main identitarian issue is now Islam. It's only the fringe of the fringe that still worries about blacks or non-Muslim Asians. It's Tommy Robinson who people are quoting and getting upset about, because he singularly concerns himself with Islam. His videos get tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands of hits on Youtube, I think Facebook is in the millions. He puts up new videos on a daily basis, after his comments on the Finsbury attack he was interviewed by Good Morning Britain, Sky News, Talk Radio, he headlined the Times, and probably lots more. RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Odd then that until this he has not not had that much coverage (except for criminal cases), hell was he the go to for quotes about the London Bridge attack or the one in Westminster (how about Manchester?), is is opinions sought out as the voice of "islamaphobia" in the UK? What he is is a trouble maker who gets noticed for standing in the street and shouting abuse, he is not a major commentator or political figure.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think him being a "troublemaker" is valid grounds for excluding his high-profile reaction to the subject of this article. That his views cause trouble makes him more notable, not less. I bet more people have heard of Tommy Robinson than the Ramadan Foundation, whose reaction is included. RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I will note he was obliquely referenced to by May in her statements that the govt would crack down on all forms of extremism - including Islamophobia. I don't think his reaction to Westminster or London Bridge (unless linked to a subsequent anti-Muslim attack) is particularly notable. However speaking in a manner that could be construed as possibly justifying an anti-Muslim attack after it occurred - is significant. We (and the public at large) generally give weight to those who are tied to violent action. e.g. during the Troubles - you would see fringe group quotations if they were linked to inciting (or beyond inciting) violence.Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I will note that May does not say his name, and thus it is not a reference to him, unless he is (source please) Islamophobia in the Uk). What he is not is the go to for opinion about Islam or terrorism, what he is is someone who gets publicity when he says something vile. That is the limit of his notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of Tommy Robinson is, or should be, irrelevant. We're not here to shield people from opinions they might not like. He's certainly a troublemaker in that his views cause trouble, but whether he's vile is beside the point. His reaction has been far more notable than the Ramadhan Foundation's reaction. Who are they. RustlingLeaves (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I said obliquely. Regarding whether he is "Islamophobia in the Uk", see - [13] - 118 google-scholar hits (e.g. journal papers, conference papars, etc.) which name him and Islamophobia in one context - so this has been attributed by many. He does a little bit more than just talk - there were demonstrations and an organization - though much of this is talk.Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This does not demonstrate he is the leading light of British Islamophobia. Nick Griffin gets 362 he he has not been active for years (farrage gets 282, by the way).Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What happens if you restrict the google scholar search to the last few years? RustlingLeaves (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As you did not do that it is irrelevant, that is a strawman argument. I have responded by doing a search using the same pentameters you used.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not making a straw-man argument, I'm just saying what happens if you restrict it to the last few years, since it might be digging up items from years back when Nick Griffin was more prominent. Anyway, at the end of the day, academia is not society. It is my perception that Tommy Robinson is the most high-profile anti-Islam activist in the UK, but I don't know how we prove or quantify that. RustlingLeaves (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That was RustlingLeaves, not me. Since 2013 the score is Farage 178, Griffin 131, and Robinson 71. He's definitely hanging in there with the "top scorers" - and the others haven't made a notable stmt this time as far as I've seen (or if they have - it wasn't as widely covered in RS).Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Katie Hopkins is at 14, by the same metric, for reference. Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Almost half of Griffins hits (and he is no longer politically active), sop not this does not prove he is the leading light (Robinson) of British Islamophobia, if anything Farrage is (who of course did not say anything really dumb, thus is less newsworthy over this one incident).Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem with these sorts of metrics is that "old chaps" who were cited as relevant in past journal papers - keep on being mentioned in new ones (e.g. in the introduction - Smith et al noted that Y's Islamophobic activities in the 2000s were.... - for a paper written in 2020). Even if you disappear somewhere - once your name starts bouncing around in the journals (and in the news) - it will keep on bouncing a decade afterwards. In any event - he isn't an obscure figure in the regard of Islamophobia attribution.15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And the same can be said of Mr Robbinson, his influence was historical when he was head of the EDL. The point I was making, this google search proves nothing about importance today.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Just for kicks, this is google-trends of the 3 - google trends 5 years google trends YTD. Griffin is dead in the water for the past 5 years. Farage has quite a few hits - but they are mostly Brexit and Trump related - not Islamic or anti-Islamic terror.Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Mr Robbinson is not an organisation, he is a private citizen.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Pegida UK is an organisation, of which Tommy Robinson is the leader. But we could have an "activists" section. I'm not sure what the definition of a politician is, I suppose if you wear a suit and ask people to vote for you. Maybe we should just scrap the whole section. Do we really need a list of Muslim organisations saying it represents rising Islamophobia? RustlingLeaves (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not? They represent the Muslim community. Their view is far more relevant then a random rant by Robbinson, that is only notable because people took him to task over it. I note that I (and no one else) added this vital material to Mr Robbinsons own article, that alone should be an indicator of it's significance.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson's high-profile statement doesn't need to be significant to his article to be be significant to the Finsbury Park Attack article. And your statement is biased. We could just as easily describe all this stuff about Islamophobia as "random rants by the Muslim Council". Tommy Robinson's statement was far from "random", and "rant" means nothing. RustlingLeaves (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

When Muslims commit terrorist attacks, the articles include reactions by non-violent Muslims. So when right-wingers commit terrorist attacks, why don't we do the same thing. RustlingLeaves (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@RustlingLeaves: It would be really nice if you'd stop lumping all "Muslims" together like that. The context in which you are posting implies that by "non-violent Muslims" you mean the tiny minority of Muslims who applaud violence against innocent civilians, as that is what Robinson's remarks have been widely interpreted as. If by "non-violent Muslims" you mean "Muslims who condemn the violent actions in question" (i.e., the majority of Muslims), the closest equivalent to them would not be Robinson: it would be the non-Muslims like May whose reactions are already discussed in this and the accompanying article that will soon be merged into this article. Anyway, did you mean that tiny minority of "non-violent Muslims" who applaud terrorism? Can you name an article where we cite their opinions? Don't say "Well, in such-and-such article we cite ISIS's reaction" -- ISIS is a major military player in a large part of the Middle East at the moment and a large number of states have actively declared war on them; this makes their opinions inherently noteworthy and not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And please refrain from comparing, even implicitly, "non-violent Muslims" to extremist haters who condone violence. This is grossly inappropriate. And I'm not saying that because I'm Muslim. I'm not Muslim, nor do I even have (to my knowledge) any Muslim close friends (I recall hanging out with some Turks back when I was a student in a Japanese language school, whom I assume were Muslim, but it never came up). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We have quotes from noted members of the Muslim community and community leaders, not fringe players who are rent a mouths. BY the way, Mr Robbinson has a number of convictions for violence, so no he is not non violent (in fact he continues to be a football hooligan).Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The death is still not confirmed

Someone has removed the "possibly" to give the impression that a cause of death has been confirmed. It has not. The cited article says "a coroner’s inquest would formally establish the cause of death" and "an investigation was underway to establish whether Mr Ali’s death was linked to the atrocity". RustlingLeaves (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I was that someone. My understanding was that the post-mortem report (which was covered in multiple RS - I quoted just one) determined that he collapsed initially due a leg problem, and that he subsequently died of "multiple injuries" - from being run over. There will still be a coroner's inquest - but my understanding is that this is a formality (that would be carried out in any case). Initially there were doubts as to whether he had a heart attack - these seem to have been allayed - and the status is now similar to any terror (or crime) incident in which people have died and a coroner's inquest was not concluded (a few days/weeks after) - which would typically be written up here a "dead" and not "possibly". My understanding is that this is now not a "possibly".Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is CNN - [14] - A 51-year-old man who suffered "multiple injuries" during the Finsbury Park terror attack in London earlier this week has died, British police said on Thursday. A post-mortem carried out at London's Whittington Hospital confirmed Makram Ali died of the injuries sustained when a man plowed his van into a crowd of worshipers leaving Ramadan prayers in the early hours of Monday morning. - whose interpretation of "multiple injuries" is "died of the injuries sustained when a man plowed his van".Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be saying he definitely died from the injuries then, whereas the Independent article says police are still investigating that. I'm a bit suspicious, the relatives are saying he collapsed from a weak leg. Why would he need CPR for a weak leg. Witnesses and earlier reports all said heart attack and CPR. Was he receiving CPR or not. RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The previous CPR bit wasn't 100% confirmed - it was in some sources, yes. But others just said first aid. He was on the floor and tended to at the time of the attack (that much was certain). the CPR bit could've come from witnesses who didn't quite know what was going on - you get that in these kinds of scenarios. The police are still investigating until the suspect is prosecuted - but that is true in any attack. I think the initial uncertainty regarding the cause of death has been allayed quite a bit - at least per my understanding RS today.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I undid the changes based on the cited source, before I saw this discussion. Sorry about that. I'll look into this some more and maybe self-revert (and replace the source) afterwards. TompaDompa (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so I found this from the Metropolitan Police, which states: Preliminary findings are that Mr Ali died of multiple injuries. Based on the word preliminary, I'm not going to self-revert. I am, however, going to add this source to the infobox. TompaDompa (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of "preliminary" in this context - is that the certainty here has risen to a "usual" victim of a "usual" attack - prior to full coroner inquest (which takes time) - e.g. - this would be same status as the London Bridge casualties for a few days after the attack - who were usually listed (in RS and on-wiki) as dead due to the attack and not possibly dead due to the attack. I'll note that I added the possibly qualification to begin with (when the article was written up).Icewhiz (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand the point you're making, but I don't entirely agree. For one thing, I don't think your interpretation of "preliminary" in this context is a self-evident one. For another, I don't think it's a one-to-one comparison; in most cases, there is no other suspected potential cause of death. Fortunately, we don't really need to make a firm decision in this particular case – we can simply stick to the "safe" phrasing (i.e. the one with "possibly") until the official cause of death is established, since we know that the coroner is working on it. TompaDompa (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the 'possibly', but retained the note. There is no doubt that there was one fatality, the only doubt was/is whether that death was (wholly) caused by the incident. Surely? Pincrete (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I would've retained "possibly" (or some other disclaimer). It seems odd to me to include someone who died at the time and place if they died for a different reason (which may or may not be the case here; preliminary findings indicate that it isn't). I wouldn't count FDR or Hitler as WWII deaths, either. TompaDompa (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The existence of the murder charge means police reasonably suspect buddy was killed by the who and what, not just in the where and when. Police have been authoritative enough for all the similar infoboxes I remember. Unless and until that charge is dropped, it seems straightforward to me. Even if the man was already dying of something natural or accidental, any intervening cause of death is always the only cause of death. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:54, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

Innocent untill proven guilty.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course. The parameter is simply for deaths, though, not murder victims. We list five dead for the 2017 Stockholm attack and one for the 2017 Times Square car crash, without issue. I only mention the murder charge because it illustrates that police don't believe Ali died coincidentally. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

The difference is (as far as I can tell) that the reason they are listed without issue is that they are listed as having been killed as a result of wounds sustained in the attack, and not (possibly) due to just dying at the same time as they attack.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Same as this guy, unless we discount the murder charge and the multitude of sources covering his multiple fatal injuries. Is there any other plausible explanation in reliable sources as to what caused those? If not, all doubt is original research. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:40, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

The existence of the murder charge means police reasonably suspect buddy was killed by the who and what, not just in the where and when. I think that's a fair point. TompaDompa (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes is nullified by innocent until proven guilty, so all we in fact have is he dies at the scene. In the other cases (as far as I know) no one has suggested they were killed by anything other the the actions of the attacker.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

And who suggests anything else this time? Collapsing sounds deadly, without context, but now the story seems settled that he fell for a bum leg. An annoying medical condition, but very rarely fatal unless you've fallen in the path of something deadlier. Simply killing someone isn't murder, so it's not prejudicial unless we imply he did so with malicious intent or without lawful excuse. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:59, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

'innocent until proven guilty' has no bearing at all on whether this death occurred during the event, which is all the infobox says. We don't wait for coroner's inquiries or murder trials on any other deaths, merely not imply that the accused was the intentional, decided causer of the death. We know he died we don't know exactly why or whose fault it was yet. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

But inclusion of it in the info box of this event implies it was a result of this event.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

As do the sources we're meant to reflect. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

And we are not those sources, we have rules such as BLP. We are not supposed to crate inferences, only report what RS say. Do any RS say he died as a result of this attack? If they do not we cannot infer it. The info box should only state what we know, as we do not know he died as a result of this attack we cannot include it in the info box. In the body we can say that the police have made the charge, and that is all we should say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

"He was killed by the impact". "The van he was driving ploughed into pedestrians near Finsbury Park Mosque in North London early Monday morning, killing one person and injuring 10." "Theresa May has vowed that "hatred and evil" of the kind seen in the terror attack on a north London mosque that left one man dead..."

The van isn't a living person, nor is the impact or the terror attack, but all are parts of this event, which resulted in the man's death. None of those writers will be sued and neither will we. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

Just to point out that the effect of 'possibly', like the title of this section (The death is still not confirmed), is to suggest that we don't know whether someone is dead or not (can't find the body?), rather than the intended 'we are not sure cause, therefore culprit'. Glad to see someone has removed 'possibly' since I think it is unclear.Pincrete (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Organisation

Since every organisation under "organisations" is a Muslim organisation. I propose we change the title of the sub-section to "Muslim Organisations".

I further propose that "several local Labour politicians" be scrapped. Several local Labour politicians should be in "politicians" not "organisations".

When Muslims commit terrorist attacks, we usually include reactions of non-terrorist Muslims. So when far-righters commit terrorist attacks, we should include reactions from non-terrorist far-righters. RustlingLeaves (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Whilst I agree that the politicians should not be listed under organisations I do not agree to the name change. The reason (by the way) that Non-terrorist Muslims (community leaders) reactions are included is to give balance to an article so as to make it clear that they condemn the attack like non-Muslims do, when a leading far-righter comes froward (a leading one, not a fringe one) then I would have no objection to including that. So have any come forward to unequivocally condemn this attack?Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly tendentious proposal. It is malformed in that it mixes the reasonable "politicians are not organizations" with the above-discredited "statements that are sympathetic to the perpetrator of terrorism are equivalent to statements by Muslims that condemn terrorism". RL, you have not contributed anything to this project beyond attempting to "other" the Muslim community and create a false equivalency between ordinary Muslims and anti-Muslim far-right extremists. It's also not clear what you mean by "we usually include reactions of non-terrorist Muslims": you have never edited any other articles than this one, so clearly by "we" you mean "Wikipedians who aren't me"; and could you link me to such an article? Also, could you explain what you mean by comparing "non-terrorist Muslims" to "non-terrorist far-righters"? Wouldn't "non-terrorist Christians" be a closer equivalent? Not all Muslims are hold the same extreme political ideology -- in fact very few hold any extreme political ideology at all. And we already list the views of several notable non-terrorist Christians. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose But suggest re-title or move text. The text is pointing out the rising Islamaphobia, the 'pointers' are Muslims and politicians, others may do so also. Why not just move the sentence either to 'Community' or elsewhere in the article? Pincrete (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Not sure if you've checked the background, but the reason for the current title and content is that when I showed up the article contained a section discussing various "organisations"' reactions, one of which was a far-right ideologue, but none of which were the two Muslim groups currently mentioned. I said it was pretty sick that we were quoting the former in the manner we were, and that not mentioning the latter seemed inappropriate as well. I figured that no one had read my comment, which was quite long, but apparently someone did because the latter recommendation was partly fulfilled by someone -- I suspect Jamal, but I couldn't be bothered checking -- and no one (at least at that time) seemed to be interested in writing the article to reflect the sources, which it seemed they hadn't read, so the odds of someone else spontaneously coming to the same conclusion I had are low. Through various twists and turns the other "organisations" were cut. I actually wouldn't be opposed to simply removing the heading entirely. The section as it is now is short enough that it doesn't really need subsections. Honestly "UK" and "International" reactions seems like a more worthwhile dividing line. I think we can safely ignore the various SPAs who say we should "other" Muslims by splitting the reaction between Muslims and "Muslim-sympathisers" on one side and far-rightists on the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I decided to be WP:BOLD, and removed the subheadings. TompaDompa (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I was partly aware of the background, read some of the discussion. Pincrete (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The van company owner's son's arrest

If we're going to say the van company owner's son was arrested as part of the aftermath, we should explain why. RustlingLeaves (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that this should be in, including what he allegedly said (on facebook), which was widely reported, also prior to his arrest.Icewhiz (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Dubious about this, whilst he was arrested for being a dick I am not sure it is really that worthy of inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Me too. As far as I know, "being a dick" (posting reprehensible pro-terrorist remarks on social media, even from someone with a connection to the terrorist incident in question) is not an arrestable offense, or even a crime at all. Apparently the police know more than we do, since the published sources quote him as saying he wasn't involved in the transaction. We should not be speculating about this stuff on Wikipedia. Better to just leave it out until we have more info. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Being a dick is a crime when it's intended to incite racial hatred. I've noted this is what he's accused of, but don't feel it's particularly important to the event itself. Just better to be clear if we're saying anything at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

He was released without charge and deleted his remarks, so I've deleted ours. There's no encyclopedic value in merely writing what a guy who knows a guy who met a guy who rented a van thinks about flattening people. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath

Is it noteworthy that the Red Cross helped victims? It's the Red Cross. We can assume the victims received medical care. The "Aftermath" section looks too paltry to be justified as a section. RustlingLeaves (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say not, no more then saying the Police or St Johns ambulance responded (if they did). But the section should stay.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I've merged sections and hadn't read prev. comment, I have no opinion as to whether BRC contribution is noteworthy.Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the Red Cross part per WP:BOLD. TompaDompa (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

tarawih prayers, which are performed by Sunni Muslims during the month of Ramadan

There are several references in the text to the type of service/type of Muslims, I was not able to find this confirmed by sources (but some are pay-walled) . That this event took place as people were going home from the mosque during Ramadan is almost universally reported, but not the references to 'tarawih', nor 'Sunni's'. Pincrete (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)