Talk:Grenfell Tower fire
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grenfell Tower fire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 28 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A news item involving Grenfell Tower fire was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 June 2017. | ![]() |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 14, 2018 and June 14, 2020. |
![]() | Grenfell Tower fire was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 22, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with Aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire on 3 January 2020. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Not merged. |
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
David Crayford ☎ 16:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Introductory section should cover responsibility
I think the introductory section of the article should conclude with a sentence indicating who was ultimately held responsible for the fire. Or, if no one has yet been held responsible, it should clearly state that. Right now this omission is quite glaring. Reading the "Investigations" section, I believe nobody has been held responsible yet, but I am actually not certain. 90.240.154.167 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is taking several years and will be a work in progress for some time. David Crayford ☎ 14:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Number of arrests
Hi, There is a number of arrests set at 6 but I cannot find a primary or secondary source.
At news media goes there was one arrest. It needs citation.
Thanks VariableDeclared (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Removed. The arrests refer to fraud using the fire as a pretext rather than about culpability for the fire itself.
- David Crayford ☎ 20:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Something in the inquiry testimony we should add to the article down the road
I noticed that Professor Jose Torero testified in June 2022 before the Grenfell Tower fire inquiry on the difference between American and British construction codes. Unfortunately, unless someone knows of a reliable source that has already reported this point, I can't cite it directly in the article because that would be first publication of original research. I'm identifying this issue now, so that if this point does show up in press coverage or the inquiry's final Phase 2 report, we can add this to the article.
The relevant testimony can be found here on pages 100 to 124 of the transcript.
The exchange on page 128 (page 33 of the PDF) is the best explanation I've seen to date of the key difference between the prescriptive American approach and the functional British approach. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is interesting, but why is the difference relevant in UK jurisdiction?
- David Crayford ☎ 20:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- A lot of press coverage after the fire implied that the UK could have prevented Grenfell Tower by adopting the NFPA 285 test and making it mandatory for high-rise construction. The point of Torero's testimony is that it would have not. It's our rigidly prescriptive building culture which best explains why the United States has not sustained a mass casualty incident from an accidental high-rise structure fire since 1980. (The fires in 1986 and 2006 were deliberately set.)
- A key point that is implicit in the exchange I cited is that the US assumes that most design professionals (both in manufacturing and construction) either do not have a thorough understanding of fire science or are too busy doing their regular jobs to stay on top of the latest science. The US approach is to convene the top experts every few years and bake their consensus expertise into a fresh version of the building codes. Then everyone else is trained to mechanically follow or enforce the codes, to place their trust in the experts, and to blame the codes (when clients want to do certain things and the codes won't allow them).
- In contrast, the UK functional approach grants broad discretion to design professionals, but with great power comes great responsibility. It will be interesting to see if the Phase 2 inquiry report goes into that issue and whether it recommends a conversion to a prescriptive approach, or in lieu of that, improving training and regulation of UK design professionals. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Valencia fire
Another similar fire. Cladding and rapid spread. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68374811
Just a suggestion, but maybe the list of similar fires should be a seperate article, with this page a member of it?
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
- Selected anniversaries (June 2018)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2020)
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class African diaspora articles
- High-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- B-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- B-Class Disaster management articles
- Mid-importance Disaster management articles
- B-Class Firefighting articles
- High-importance Firefighting articles
- WikiProject Firefighting articles
- B-Class London-related articles
- Mid-importance London-related articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists