Jump to content

Talk:Manchester Arena bombing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done — xaosflux Talk 12:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. BencherliteTalk 12:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yes, the only genuine reactions are that the threat level was raised to critical and that the political parties suspended campaigning for 48 hrs. Everything else is predictable virtue-signaling by posturing politicians and bureaucrats. And really, does anyone give a damn about Yousef Al-Othaimeen, whoever he is, and the "condolences" his P.R. department lackeys put out on a press release? XavierItzm (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Agreed and reverted per WP:V. It's jumping the gun as usual.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And,"as usual", for good reason, one might add. --Felixkrull (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe call it "terror by a known muslim who blew himself up in a standard islamic suicide bombing manner". Self censorship from stating the bleedingly obvious is creepy at best, harmful probably in the long run.--Petlif (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The bleeding obvious" is just what we don't state, if the possibility is obvious to you, it is probably obvious to the reader, but could be/probably/is do not mean the same things. Pincrete (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The picture of this disgusting a**hole should of course not be included. Thx.--The Pollster (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Completely agree that user The Pollster is continually removing the photo using utterly bogus arguments; therefore, he is vandalizing the article. XavierItzm (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current image is of very poor image quality. If there are no objections, I'll remove it until we have a better one. TompaDompa (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we are agreed that we should include a picture, I think the picture now should stay. You are able to see what he looks like which I guess is the point.El cid, el campeador (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Why the attacker's photo should be in the article? There is no point for that. It's not adding any relevant information and i's kind to insulting for the families and the people of Manchester and UK. (And also for the Free World). Sokuya (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those arguments are WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Encyclopedias have to be detached from events, particularly the emotional aspects. Not written by the victims, or the victors, but by individuals who can look beyond their personal stake in a subject. The bottom line is that it was a major incident, the perpetrator is known, his photograph is verified, and removing it would be a disservice to future Wikipedians who are interested in this period's history. -- sarysa (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminate the exiting photo because it is of poor quality? That's an opinion. I say it is pretty good quality, considering the subject dead, and therefore no additional pictures of the terrorist will ever be made. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Keep. XavierItzm (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is also essentially redundant to the infobox immediately above it. Two boxes are not needed here. BencherliteTalk 12:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a infobox is not necessary. We can cover his "biography" in the perpetrator section.--Skim
The infobox should be added back. It provides encyclopaedic information in a quick, digestible format for readers. XavierItzm (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the Orlando perp has his own page. The infobox is there. The fact that the template exists and is in use on 2700 pages is a testament to the fact Wikipedia is about the preservation of information above emotional considerations. -- sarysa (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Infoboxes are encyclopaedic whereas lack of infoboxes is unencyclopaedic. This is why infoboxes were created in the first place! To use sentimental reasons to whittle down an encyclopaedic work is quite childish. XavierItzm (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox is redundant duplication given the relative paucity of info. Pincrete (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.[1] 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)[reply]
I found a couple of (non-free) pictures of the relevant area here and here. The scene from the night (may upset some viewers) can be seen here -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth adding to your image of the exterior that it was taken during the period when the arena was called the M.E.N Arena (because of sponsorship by Manchester Evening News)? (Probably not, but I thought it worth asking.) SkagwayEntropy (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the caption at one point, but someone removed it. It can't be that difficult for someone to take an up to date photo. Per WP:NFCC#1, anything with a copyright, such as a press or stock photo for hire, would be deleted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this any good?
Schematic of 2017 Manchester Arena Bomb attack
Drawn by myself from diagrams and schematics in the New York Times, Washington Post and The Times.[1] Fine if not. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kenber, Billy; Phillip, Catherine; Gibbons, Katie (25 May 2017). "Explosive was designed by expert". The Times. No. 72232. p. 3. ISSN 0140-0460.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've reverted various edits which described him as "Muslim British" or similar. We don't describe people as "Christian British" or "Jewish British". Also, not all Irish Catholics went off and joined the IRA, so we do need to be careful about conflating religious beliefs, nationality and political causes.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me)
@Ianmacm: In American parlance Muslim-American would be appropriate (as would any religion or ethnic association). I don't have a strong opinion (as you seem to have) of where Muslim should appear in the text (to comply to British English) - but it is quite obviously relevant and should appear somewhere. It is probably more relevant than his parents coming from Libya. Obviously not all (or most! or even a significant fraction!) of Muslims are ISIS/Al-Qaeda - but all of ISIS/Al-Qaeda members/supporters are Muslim (as are over 90% of contemporary suicide bombers). Might I suggest constructively that you place this factoid where you feel it is appropriate (doesn't have to be next to British)?Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly clear that this is linked to Islamism, which according to some definitions is when Islam and political causes overlap. The problem is making this point without going down the usual "all Muslims are bad" route. The article should mention his religious beliefs, but only in the context of how they affected his actions, particularly if extremism was involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At present we know he was Muslim (and there are various reports, possibly conflicting, of his mosque attendance and behavior). Getting down to the root motivations of a suicide attacker is often quite... unclear... And they often have complex life stories (e.g. the some of the Bataclan perps who were petty criminals that liked drugs, alcohol, and women - and then went off on an Islamist ISIS path)... I can see why "Muslim British" might not conform to UK style. But the fact that he is Muslim is well established - and probably generally relevant to him specifically. We don't have to make inferences beyond that (e.g. "All Muslims are bad") - just stick to the established well known facts. You'll probably get a bunch of other people (aside from myself) inserting this in - so you might as well put this in a manner your feel is stylistically and contextually correct - so that it is mentioned, without giving undue weight.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually of mixed opinion on this one. What you propose has precedent, but it's also too soon. (see Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, Omar Mateen, and Jared Lee Loughner) My recommendation would be to privately keep up an article, maybe in your sandbox, well sourced and in a similar fashion as those pages. If investigations turn up so much information about the man, and in particular nuances that separate him from other ISIL drones, that you can have at least 10 beefy paragraphs on the man, then WP:BOLD and prepare to fight weeks of contesting. -- sarysa (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is no reason for him to have an article separate from this. What would you talk about in it? His favorite football team? Whether he prefers one lump or two? No, you'd talk about the bombing which is what this article is for.El cid, el campeador (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who this reply is for (so many colons) but there are professions partially and completely dedicated to the study of criminal behavior, motives, childhood risk factors, etc. That's who those articles are for, not unlike the many minor species that have stubs on Wikipedia or individuals who participated in one Olympics 80 years ago. -- sarysa (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As the wikipedia is not known to be running out of space, there is no reason to arbitrarily limit the number of articles. If someone wants to write one and there are good WP:RS to support it, they should. XavierItzm (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No reason at present, my experience (inc Mateen), is that often this becomes a low level content-fork, where all the silliest speculation goes to, splitting the effort of editors here. There simply isn't enough info at present IMO. Pincrete (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should 'Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)' be included in this article?

Should the template Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) be included in this article, (and, by extension should the article be listed in the template)? MrX 16:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey
  • No - Until there are some reliable sources that describe the bombing as "Islamic (or Islamist) terrorism. Until then, the presence of the template violates WP:V and WP:NPOV.- MrX 16:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, assuming post brexit UK should be part of Europe. A Muslim suicide bomber committing an act of terror. The perp's muslim faith is clearly established. That this is an acr of terror is also established. Ergo this is Ialamic terror.Icewhiz (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Britain is still part of the European continent. Please don't allow your anger over European politics to influence your editing. There are many European countries that aren't a part of the EU.--v/r - TP 20:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but after satisfying MrX's request for a source. I can't imagine it being particularly difficult, seeing the perp's background and ISIL's boasting. As for UK being in Europe, it's geographically bound to Europe. "Europe" != "European Union". -- sarysa (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there isn't a great deal of ergo other than Post hoc ergo propter hoc. As I've said, the article must not conflate being a Muslim - which is OK - with being a terrorist, which isn't. It's sloppy wording when this sort of thing occurs. Citation needed for the Islamist angle first, as MrX says.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Why is the question even asked? The probability given all we know so far, is that there is going to be a strong Islamist component to this. I can work out that possibility, so can the reader, BUT so long as there is not a very clear statement from authorities, we should not say it. Maybe is a long way from is.Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course it should. SarahSV (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes as clearly relevant, whatever sources show about the exact motive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per my source below which says that police have moved away from the suspicion that he was a lone wolf.--v/r - TP 00:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I still haven't seen any good reliable sources. Just because he was not lone-wolf, doesn't mean it Islamic terror.VR talk 04:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - I think we can all agree it was Isis related however we need reliable sources that actually state this, Maybe or could be isn't good enough. –Davey2010Talk 16:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - unless reliable sources are presented. I came here after being invited by RfC bot.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Yes , so long as supported by proper WP:RS. Though I wouldn't be surprised if some authority or another, say, the President of the United States, attributes the whole thing to "workplace violence," for example. XavierItzm (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, definitely. Clearly relevant and clearly evident from the sources. StuartH (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And the sources for this? Today even Theresa May refused to confirm. Yes this probably is "Islamist" and in good time that will probably be made explicit, not yet. Pincrete (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It might have been "Islamic (or Islamist) terrorism." It probably was. It almost certainly was. I think it was. "I think, almost certainly, probably" are not good enough, though. As yet, there are no reliable sources saying it definitely was and, therefore, it shouldn't be listed as such. Wait until there is RS.Misha An interested observer of this and that 12:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Threaded discussion
Time says that AP says that a Libyan low-ranking policemen says that the bomber's 18 year old brother says that the bomber said he "wanted to "seek victory for the Islamic State."" That is really authorative as a source. Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to bring Abedi back from the dead and ask him personally? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I want WP to be based on RS not the assessment of editors. That is what distinguishes it. Readers have brains too, from the moment I heard about this incident I thought the most probable explanation is an 'Islamist' motive, I still think that. I also know that no RS has said it as yet. Do you generally believe single junior Libyan police unquestioningly, or is this a special case? Pincrete (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Briton or British citizen?

A person born in the UK is a Briton, the word is the standard term in British English to mean a British native. Check these recent news links: BBC, Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph. Apart from the fact that I believe this is the correct term, describing someone as British citizen is 'grudging' IMO, as though the person is not really British.

This edit reason I find 'silly', if we followed its logic, the linked article isn't called 'citizen' either. Pincrete (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC) .... ps The Guardian clocks up 81,900 articles on its site using the term 'Briton'.[reply]

Since no one has come up with any reason why a term habitually used by all the major UK news outlets should not be used on a UK Engvar article, I'm going be bold. 'British-born citizen' is grotesque IMO when a perfectly good term exists.Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't expose names"

It seems like the statement from the British official telling the US to stop leaking names is out of place... it seems to just be editors trying to show that other editors should refrain from leaking information before the whole story is out, and it's found its way into the article. Plus, the part about "the US continued to leak after she asked not to" is absurdist. The U.S. isn't going to stop its presses because of a low ranking British official. Just my thoughts. 97.70.97.126 (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the toothpaste is out of the tube, there's not a lot you can do about it. As the article says, the UK government has criticised the US and French intelligence services for leaking things that they were told in confidence, particularly the scene of crime material like the backpack bomb. It was Amber Rudd who criticised the US government, and it is unusual for a senior British government official to do this in public.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Pardon my French, but that's complete nonsense. This is a major diplomatic incident that will likely lead to the end of intelligence-sharing between the UK and US, and Amber Rudd isn't "a low ranking British official" but holds the second most senior position in the British government after the Prime Minister herself. ‑ Iridescent 21:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you describe the Home Secretary as "a low ranking British official" amply demonstrates your ignorance of the scale of this aspect of the story. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Home Secretary Amber Rudd said that she was irritated" If that is a big story then by all means keep it in. It needs to be rewritten to include everything that you said, not just that one individual was irritated. I'm just saying how it is now is actually laughable. 97.70.97.126 (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was before the backpack bomb photos and details of how the bomb was constructed were in the NYT today. The BBC says "there was "disbelief and astonishment" across Whitehall. A counter terrorism policing spokesperson said it was a breach of trust that undermined relationships with "trusted intelligence, law enforcement and security partners around the world" and undermined the confidence of victims, witnesses and their families. "This damage is even greater when it involves unauthorised disclosure of potential evidence in the middle of a major counter terrorism investigation," the spokesperson added.[2] This has now become a major aspect of the investigation, and may have far reaching impact on relations between the intelligence services in the two countries.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the ongoing leaks by US intelligence sources—described as "a breach of trust" by UK police and government authorities—have resulted in complaints by Home Secretary Amber Rudd to her US counterparts; and, following complaints to the US Embassy in London by Manchester Metropolitan Mayor Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester Police have announced that for the moment no further information will be shared with US intelligence agencies. The BBC is reporting that PM Theresa May is likely to raise concerns directly with Donald Trump at the NATO meeting in Brussels later today. (This kind of information would normally be included in the article.) Mathsci (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the top story on the BBC news website today. It's unclear why US officials thought that sharing crime scene specifics was helpful, and they must have been told that the material was confidential/classified at present for operational reasons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT piece itself says the photos were released by UK (without saying released to whom). I am as flabbergasted as everyone else that this should happen. Pincrete (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good call. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:[3][4]. Fences&Windows 07:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can't be anything other than a coincidence. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a See also section about at 5:02am on the 23rd, which included the Murder of Lee Rigby, and was based upon the Murder of Lee Rigby own See also section. Said section included bombings and the recent Westminster attack. Does that mean that said wikilinks in said section should be removed? UaMaol (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lee Rigby murder is a well-sourced tangential connection made by reliable sources. It is exactly why we have see Also section WP:SEEALSO. Wikipedia is not making the connection, the reliable sources are.

That's the thing. There is no "connection" between Manchester and Rigby. WWGB (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tell it to all the reliable sources that made the connection through dates. It's "tangential" which is what "See Also" is about. There are many more sources linking to Rigby then say "Bataclan" (no direct connection) or previous bombings in Manchester (no direct connection). --DHeyward (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There already existed a section for this subject. I have moved that section here – we don't want multiple sections where the same discussion is held. TompaDompa (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was on the same date has fascinated some journalists, but if you go through a calendar thoroughly enough it would always be possible to find some anniversary or other. If Abedi thought that the Ariana Grande concert would make a great target, he wouldn't have cared about whether it was an anniversary of some other event. It is a coincidence unless evidence emerges to the contrary.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... I don't think he actively decided to bomb an Ariana Grande concert. Why would that be a motivation? I'm not saying it has to do with Rigby, but occurring on the anniversary of a famous incident of terrorism in the UK is noteworthy. And Ariana Grande concert is simply not the IDEAL target of terrorism. There was something else at work. Maybe it was just logistics, but it's not like it was the largest gathering in Manchester in years.El cid, el campeador (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We really don't know since it is all speculative at the moment. However, I'm unconvinced that Abedi and/or his handlers deliberately set out to do something on the anniversary of Lee Rigby's death. Why would they be so worried about this? Perhaps more to the point, we may never know whether the link was supposed to be made, leaving the whole thing as WP:OR.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming he was actually an ISIS fan (or member), it's not a date for worry, but for celebration. Some emulate manger scenes on Christmas, some dance around a pole on May Day, some get absolutely smashed on Independence Day. Same spirit, just nastier. As to why he'd choose Ariana Grande, she's a successful single woman who inspires young girls to follow suit, through music, often publicly performed or packaged with visual depictions of humans. That's at least three strikes, by my understanding of Islamic hardball.
Not suggesting the article say this, just clarifying. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:17, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
Some days such as The Twelfth used to be notorious in Northern Ireland, but this is less clear. Ariana Grande's concert tour schedule was laid out well in advance and given plenty of publicity in the newspapers. It's not too hard to imagine Islamist wack jobs looking at the upcoming concert and thinking "Hey, that would make a great target". They hate pop music, and see it as western decadence. This is an alternative explanation, one which is just as plausible as the theory that it was an anniversary.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming he was strictly avenging Syrian deaths, as his sister says, Lee Rigby's still symbolic of that and a Grande concert full of girls could have just been good for publicity. I think that's why Omar Mateen chose gay Latinos in America. If you're looking to push an issue, it's better to tie your wagon to existing issues and garner bonus coverage from "alternative" sources, rather than just straight white man news (parents just don't understand). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:45, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
The attackers in the 7 July 2005 London bombings left behind rant videos explaining why they had done it, which were very predictable stuff. Investigators haven't yet found (or disclosed) anything similar with the Manchester attack. That's why I'm wary of the anniversary theory, because it comes from journalists going through a calendar, not the attacker himself.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I also didn't hear my theories from the attacker himself, or anyone at all. As far as I know, the only British people I've communicated with about anything online are Wikipedians, and that's all public record. I've never travelled to their ancestral homeland. I was linked to two British immigrants in high school, but we only conspired toward underage drinking, I swear!
Sure, official documents indicate my grandfather answered the call to help the RAF bomb Bremen, but he was only a pilot, it was only twice, he was punished after capture, it was the style at the time, it had nothing to do with their taste in music and he reformed into a (re-elected) mayor, so it doesn't count. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources (lots) have made the tangential connection. What is it about tangential is unclear? If it turns out that the date is significant, it becomes a paragraph in the article. If it remains tangential, it's a "see also" link. That's why we have "See Also" sections so readers can find related topics. --DHeyward (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I disagree, either this goes in the article as attributed text saying "this/these sources made the connection", or it goes . Placing it in 'see also' is effectively WP making the connection, which at the present moment seems incredibly unlikely to be more than coincidence IMO. Pincrete (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources made the connection, not WP. Not a direct connection but related. The sources below plus a number more have mentioned it. --2600:8800:1300:489:51A2:8569:F6FF:E0A4 (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Manchester terror attack: Everything we know".
  2. ^ "Manchester attack comes four years to the day since the murder of Lee Rigby". 23 May 2017.
  3. ^ "Manchester explosion: Attack happened on anniversary of British soldier Lee Rigby's murder".
  4. ^ Armstrong, Jeremy (24 May 2017). "Lee Rigby's dad: Manchester suicide bombing 'makes me feel physically sick'".

He was a practicing Muslim , apparently

If he attended a sermon and looked at the Imam 'with hate' in 2015, how can we say he is not a practicing Muslim? Especially since he subscribed to RADICAL islamist views. To say he is non-practicing is misleading.El cid, el campeador (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As being Muslim is a central motivation for carrying out a jihad suicide attack, this should of course be mentioned - regardless of whether "he looked with hate at an imam" (which is quoted in RS as being said by someone, but we can't know 100% that it happened (as the RS only say someone else said this)). What we do know with 100% certainty is that he was Muslim.Icewhiz (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you misread me or not. I'm saying of course we should include he was Muslim. But "non-practicing" was included before which I think is clearly false. El cid, el campeador (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it's been taken out altogether and I don't want to be accused of edit warring like yesterday, but I surely think it should be added back in.El cid, el campeador (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From the news sourcing, it seems that other Muslims had become worried that Abedi was being drawn into the world of extremism. There could be arguments over what "practising Muslim" means, but it is important not to imply that being a Muslim was in itself the cause of the bombing. As with the Troubles in Northern Ireland, there are extremist groups that claim allegiance to a religion while behaving in a very violent way. For example, I can't recall Jesus ever telling his followers that it would be a great idea to do this, or this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But we include that he was British-born. Why is that relevant? It's just as relevant as his religion. I'm not saying it should read "He was a Muslim and therefore he killed people" but it shouldn't include some demographic facts and not others.El cid, el campeador (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, there were idiots who thought that killing civilians was a great way of carrying out the wishes of Jesus. The same problem is now occurring with Islamist extremists. I'm not sure what "he was a practising Muslim" actually means in this context, and of course the article should make clear that he had fallen into the world of Islamic extremism, like so many others.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus's (or Gautama Buddha, or any other religion - each religion is different from one another) message was different from Mohammed, who was engaged in Early Muslim conquests concurrent to the composition of the Quran (Jihad, Sword Verse). Obviously people holding other religious views have also performed atrocities. And obviously not all Muslims believe in violent jihad. However, there are Muslims who do ascribe to violent jihad at the moment - and this is an important underlying motivation. The IRA's motivation (Omagh bombing, Greysteel massacre) , while driven by sectarian Catholic/Protestant (or Irish/British) divide, were not framed (usually at least) as a god-driven message. Conversely, both ISIS and Al-Qaeda do cite God (and general Islamic jurisprudence) as the motivation for their actions. Finally, if we look at the Troubles - the religious affiliation of the attacker and victims were relevant in understanding the motivation of the attack (or more precisely - which camp attempted to attack a different camp). We shouldn't whitewash Wikipedia from reliable, established facts on the basis of the fear that reading those facts might encourage an Islamophobic view by some readers.Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison to the Troubles is badly misplaced. First off, the terrorists had a national identity. They weren't so much Catholic as they were nationalists from Northern Island. Islamist have no such state ties. The UK didn't worry that Italian or French Catholics were going to blow themselves up. The religious component was a side show just as it was in the American revolution in 1776. Formed by religious dissidents, they revolted but the underlying cohesion was a national identity. Thi case though is stateless sponsors of terror tied together by a bond of religious extremism that know no national allegiance. The bond is Islamism. -DHeyward (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sectarian violence was a big part of the Troubles. Many people were targeted and killed simply because of their religion. It wasn't just about the IRA wanting a united Ireland. Islamist extremism is in many ways a form of violent sectarianism, as are the Shia–Sunni relations which form the engine room of many of the conflicts in the Middle East.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, yet the underlying motivation wasn't religious in the Troubles. However news reporting (as well as secondary sources) frequently referred to the religious affiliation of the perpetrators and victims in the Troubles. If you wanted to know who was attacked and by whom (without delving into the particularities of shifting and splintering organizational affiliations) - this was pertinent information. This is all the more relevant in today's terror landscape of Islamic Terror. The religious affiliation of the attacker is a strong indication this is not a "random wacko" - but rather islamist related.Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to say he didn't practice, but most anybody can attend most any sermon. During prayers, it's generally more exclusive. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
Britain has come a long way since John Bunyan spent twelve years in prison for expressing his religious beliefs. People in modern Britain can have whatever religious beliefs they like, but it is being abused by a hard core of Islamist extremists for their own agenda, which is not shared by most Muslims in Britain.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. In any following, the general population greatly outnumbers the hardcore. The extremists just stand out, for their extremity. Same reason the most popular victim in the news is a Grande "superfan". If we focused on the grey areas instead, the story would get confusing. Not that there's anything wrong with reading confusing stories. Just not for everyone, because it takes dedication. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

Islamists Extremist Attack References

Inasmuch as several editors have so kindly asked for clarification on how the Manchester Bombing meets the criteria of "Terror attacks by Islamist extremists to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause have occurred globally", I hereby provide the following additional sources and notes which are much too lengthy to include in the article page itself.

  1. Salman Abedi was a known Islamist Extremist (from the main Wiki article) "He was known to British security services but was not regarded as a high risk.[1] A community worker told the BBC he had called a hotline five years before the bombing to warn police about Abedi's views and members of Britain’s Libyan diaspora said they had "warned authorities for years" about Manchester's Islamist radicalisation.[2][3]
  2. Salman Abedi was obsessed with the Quran as described by co-worshippers at the Didsbury Mosque. [4] "He didn't seem to like bad words being said about ISIS. It is clear he was radicalized".
  3. Bomber was part of a larger ISIS network. Abedi's 23-year-old brother Ismael was arrested in Chorlton-cum-Hardy in south Manchester in relation to the attack.[5][6] Police carried out operations[clarification needed] in two other areas of south Manchester and another address in the Whalley Range area.[6] Three other men were arrested, and police talked about a likely "network" supporting the bomber.[2]
  4. Britain raises Terror Threat to maximum level "Critical". They would only do this if they thought that they were dealing with a larger network.
  5. Travel to Libya, Germany and Syrian training camps. [7]
  6. Libyan ISIS Arrests - Hashem Abedi, 18, who lives in Libya, has reportedly been arrested by a Tripoli militia, which suspects him of Isis links[8]. Italian authorities mention the very recent contacts between the brothers as part of their evidence for doing this.
  7. Ariana Grande concert was a prime Islamist Extremist Target (religiously motivated purpose) - Mubin Shaikh, a former extremist, believes ISIS viewed the attack as a kind of perverted "PR opportunity." "To hit a den of immorality, as ISIS acolytes are calling it, it's a great target for them," he said. "Ariana Grande is a big name brand; the media will descend on it. Children being killed will get coverage, and that emotional reaction. So, all these things are hitting at the same time at the same place."[9]
  8. Sophisticated bomb-making skills point to organized terror - Terror experts said the type of bomb used in Monday night's attack - which left 22 dead - points the finger towards a sophisticated explosives-making operation. Former Scotland Yard counter-terror officer David Videcette said: "It sounds likely to have been a device carried in a bag containing a tub with chemicals and then surrounded by nuts, bolts and nails to cause the maximum amount of damage. Such devices are extremely difficult to get right.
  9. Libyan authorities call this an ISIS terror attack - citing the brother's interaction.(See #6 above).
  10. French authorities call it ISIS terror attack - [10]
  11. British investigators call it ISIS terror attack - "Investigators believe Abedi was part of a larger Isis-inspired terror network" [11]
  1. ^ "Manchester Arena attacker named by police as Salman Ramadan Abedi". The Guardian. 23 May 2017. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
  2. ^ a b "Manchester attack: Police hunt 'network' behind bomber". BBC News. 24 May 2017. Retrieved 24 May 2017.
  3. ^ Stephen, Chris (24 May 2017). "Libyans in UK 'warned about Manchester radicalisation for years'". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 May 2017.
  4. ^ RollingStone
  5. ^ Simpson, Fiona (23 May 2017). "Manchester attack: Bombing suspect named as Salman Abedi, police confirm". Evening Standard. London. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
  6. ^ a b Jones, Sam; Haddou, Leila; Bounds, Andrew (23 May 2017). "Manchester suicide bomber named as 22-year-old from city". Financial Times. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
  7. ^ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3648069/manchester-bomber-salman-abedi-terror-attack-plot-latest/ TheSun]
  8. ^ The Guardian
  9. ^ AOL News
  10. ^ The Sun
  11. ^ The Independent
Yes, but it's possible he just happened to be a radical Islamist with a history of extremism. Maybe he was a Taylor Swift fan and that was his real motive? 123.243.199.251 (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - photo caption

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.

Resolved

Not yet knowing the usual format off pat, I am going to take a punt that the photo you have of the suicide bomber shouldn't be captioned in that way, which looks like a way of hiding a bit of editorialising about a controversial part of the article. I can't find any captions elsewhere that say the picture was taken in the mosque, it's generally credited as "handout", which I believe means the police have supplied it. SkagwayEntropy (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand? Currently the caption IDs him as the suicide bomber. Is that what you had an issue with or was there a different earlier caption? (apologize but I don't want to go through all the edit history to find out). El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When the edit request was filed, the article looked like this, with the caption reading Salman Ramadan Abedi in the mosque that later reported him to British Security Services.. A [citation needed] tag was added shortly thereafter, and the caption was changed to Salman Ramadan Abedi, who carried out the suicide bomb attack in Manchester a few minutes after that. TompaDompa (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, not well versed enough in Wikipedia etiquette - or simply smart enough - to be clear and specific with what I say! Thank you for the change. SkagwayEntropy (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should initial reactions and confusion be mentioned?

Up until 2330/midnight on the day, there was still some of the initial news reports that believed perhaps a speaker had malfunctioned or a balloon had burst, which simply caused panic. It did take some time for the true nature and gravity of the situation to become apparent, and a little longer for this to be broken in the news. There were also some false reports of a shooting at a greater Manchester (Oldham) hospital at about the same time, further adding to the confusion. I'm not sure if the latter point need be added, but I think it's important to mention that the true action was not known initially, and that this may have added to the shocking nature of the attack. Kingsif (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bomb went off at around 22:30 and police received the first emergency calls at 22:33. Despite some initial confusion, many people soon realised that a bomb had gone off, as the mobile phone videos of the incident show.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If mentioned - it should be very brief. Attacks of this nature on civilian targets (and non-civilian for that matter), particularly during periods of relative quiet (e.g. not present day Iraq or any place one might assume as action given a recent spate of them), invariably lead to confusion. Initial reports from the field are always confused.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This source says that "Manchester police received more than 240 calls from 10.33pm." It's not something that received a great deal of media coverage before midnight in the UK on the evening of the attack, and it wasn't until the following morning that the full horror became apparent. I'm not sure if this needs to be mentioned, per WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing page move

Reversed archival to invite discussion. —David Levy 15:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Incidentally, I just repaired the remaining double redirects created when you reverted the move. —David Levy 03:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure who is talking to who here, but I never understand the wish to remove year from title if there is the slightest risk of it being a clarifier. 2017 definitely helps clarify IMO, can we not spare the bytes? Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly isn't my intention to reduce clarity. With what other Manchester Arena bombing does "2017" prevent confusion? —David Levy 16:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that asks the wrong question, title clarity is not simply removing the possibility of obvious mix-ups, it is about clearly identifying the subject and distinguishing it from all the other things it could be about. 'Year' is often an efficient way of doing that. Are you so sure that in a year/10 year's time everybody is going to remember this incident sufficiently well to remember the correct name of the location and whether this was a 21st or 19th century event? I frequently waste time when using WP because titles are not specific enough. Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page will almost certainly get moved to the title Manchester Arena bombing at some point. It will require a full requested move discussion, and it is probably best to wait a while before doing that. There is no particular urgency. Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such moves usually are treated as routine housekeeping. The longer the article remains at the current title, the more people (including current and prospective editors) will assume that it reflects our naming conventions (thereby perpetuating the cycle). —David Levy 18:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the inevitable vote on this will include the pro's and con's of the proposed move, particularly in bullet style so they can easily be discussed individually. Aside from the ones I wrote in the third point User:Fuzheado mentioned, it's also helpful in terms of finding a particular incident. When you're looking up a category and trying to remember "the one that happened last year" and only have to sift through a few with 2016, you're more likely to find the one of you're thinking of if the year is there. Also, an anvil needs to be dropped regarding the scope of the proposed removal: Five characters including the space. That is nothing. Phones on portrait might put it on a second line with lengthier incidents, but it's so minuscule when compared to the benefits that it's frankly justifiable to consider this repeated discussion trite. WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISION would be better invoked on less controversial proposals, like for obvious reasons we would not have it be 2017 Manchester Arena section 7 2nd floor bombing. (location made up for example) -- sarysa (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the ones I wrote in the third point User:Fuzheado mentioned,
To be clear, I copied the above bullet points (for the purpose of responding). To my knowledge, Fuzheado hasn't addressed the matter in any capacity (despite acting on the move request), except to revert my move and assert that I performed it unilaterally and in the absence of discussion (which I find confusing, given that he surely read the discussion before gauging the consensus determined therein).
it's also helpful in terms of finding a particular incident. When you're looking up a category and trying to remember "the one that happened last year" and only have to sift through a few with 2016, you're more likely to find the one of you're thinking of if the year is there.
That's why redirects exist. Unless a second bombing in or near the same arena occurs this year, "2017 Manchester Arena bombing" will continue leading to this article in perpetuity, irrespective of what title is used directly.
Also, an anvil needs to be dropped regarding the scope of the proposed removal: Five characters including the space. That is nothing.
That isn't the rationale at all. This is about adherence to our longstanding, consensus-backed naming conventions, which exist for a reason.
It's been suggested that "2017" functions as a "clarifier", but I believe that it accomplishes the opposite. It implies – incorrectly – that one or more other Manchester Arena bombings have occurred. Conversely, the year's omission conveys otherwise.
It's reasonable to disagree, but in the absence of consensus to "future-proof" our articles' titles or append information beyond that which is needed to unambiguously define their topical scope (hypothetical changes best discussed at the policy level, not on an arbitrary article's talk page), such deviations should reflect consensus that this is a special case. —David Levy 18:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why redirects exist.
Except I'm pretty sure it's against policy to have categories inside redirects.
That isn't the rationale at all. This is about adherence to our longstanding, consensus-backed naming conventions, which exist for a reason.
There are no "longstanding, consensus-backed naming conventions" when it comes to the year. It's not even mentioned on WP:CONCISE (at least as of two days ago) or WP:PRECISION and as you can see here and here, the consensus is very split.
It's been suggested that "2017" functions as a "clarifier", but I believe that it accomplishes the opposite. It implies – incorrectly – that one or more other Manchester Arena bombings have occurred. Conversely, the year's omission conveys otherwise.
Semi-valid, but it's both a "first timer's" concern -and- a product of our currently inconsistent naming standards. If all incident articles included the year, it would cease being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It's reasonable to disagree, but in the absence of consensus to "future-proof" our articles' titles
I listed out several benefits coming from a stance of efficiency and ease of use. Cherry picking benefits that have a clear WP: to counter over and over is disingenuous.
append information beyond that which is needed to unambiguously define their topical scope (hypothetical changes best discussed at the policy level, not on an arbitrary article's talk page), such deviations should reflect consensus that this is a special case.
While this article is a special case given its relation to two very similar, not exact, but similar articles, it is clear that a site-wide RFC is needed to discuss the part of WP:PRECISION that you left out -- the numerous special naming conventions applied to topics for various reasons. Precision in this case is at odds with usability and clarity.
In any case, I'm not touching this anymore until an RFC is made. These long block replies over 5 characters are not the best use of either of our time. (though frankly, we should hold our arguments until a site-wide debate is started. this'll just repeat over and over again when some other n'er do well blows themself up) -- sarysa (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except I'm pretty sure it's against policy to have categories inside redirects.
It isn't. (Please see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Alternative names for articles.) And if it were, that would mean choosing between assisting readers seeking "2017" and assisting those looking under "M".
There are no "longstanding, consensus-backed naming conventions" when it comes to the year. It's not even mentioned on WP:CONCISE (at least as of two days ago) or WP:PRECISION
Neither section is intended to address the many relevant contexts individually.
and as you can see here and here, the consensus is very split.
Most of those examples are cases in which disambiguation is required (because events otherwise fitting the descriptions occurred in different years). Others are errors that haven't been corrected yet. The encyclopedia is a work in progress, so it's almost always possible to find a given style in use somewhere (rightly or wrongly).
If all incident articles included the year, it would cease being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That would be a reasonable proposal.
I listed out several benefits coming from a stance of efficiency and ease of use.
You've expressed disagreement with the naming convention itself (and benefits that you believe an alternative approach would provide), not a special justification applicable to this article in particular. Circumstance-driven exceptions to policy can be made, but simply disagreeing with a policy isn't a such a situation. That's a reason to pursue revisions to the policy.
Cherry picking benefits that have a clear WP: to counter over and over is disingenuous.
Sorry; I don't know what you mean here. I will note, however, that I don't aspire to cherry-pick anything or mislead anyone. I've assumed good faith on your part, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy in return.
While this article is a special case given its relation to two very similar, not exact, but similar articles
That isn't extraordinary in the slightest. The inclusion of "Arena" distinguishes this event from others. Further disambiguation is redundant and potentially misleading.
it is clear that a site-wide RFC is needed to discuss the part of WP:PRECISION that you left out -- the numerous special naming conventions applied to topics for various reasons.
Is this the "cherry-picking" to which you referred? That would be relevant if such a guideline existed in this subject area.
Precision in this case is at odds with usability and clarity.
I disagree, for the reasons discussed. But again, it's perfectly reasonable to propose a policy change or the creation of a subject area-specific exception. —David Levy 21:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is really just the two of you debating this. Others are (sensibly) concentrating on improving the article instead of arguing over the title. David has a point that if it is left too long people will think that the article is correct, but I think he should have faith that a sensible discussion at the right point (when those experienced with article naming conventions will weigh in) will have the right result. As a side point, there is an area of article naming where it is common to have the year in the article title, and that does cause understandable confusion. It is a convention to have the year in the name of event articles relating to earthquakes and similar natural disasters (e.g. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami - look through the earthquake pages for more examples). That is because natural disasters tend to occur regularly, and because forming names for some events is not easy, so they tend to take the form of <year><place><event>. Other random examples: Bridgeton flood of 1934 and 1934 flood in Poland. For events that are less common, it is more common to drop the year or not include it in the first place. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Grande navigation template?

Unfortunately, this discussion was unresolved and archived: Talk:2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing/Archive_1#Ariana_Grande_navigation_template.3F. I'll ask again: Should Template:Ariana Grande be added to the bottom of this article? (This is assuming "2017 Manchester Arena bombing" is added to the navigation template's "Related topics" section.) ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems weird, the idea of having an "albums and concert tours" template at the bottom of an article on an atrocity. A bit like "Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" 95.44.50.222 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it at least twice. She is already in the categories and the list of her albums in the template is pretty irrelevant here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
  2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
  3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
  4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
  5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.
As you can see, the Ariana Grande navigation template hardly fulfils any of those guidelines. Wes Wolf Talk 19:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP plastering ISIL all over the article

I object to this edit which seriously skews the WP:NPOV by asserting in Wikipedia's voice something that has not been established as fact in reliable sources. Specifically that the attack was an action by ISIL.- MrX 16:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This editor, MrX, is clearly violating Wikipedia policy against "I don't like" by suppressing copiously sourced and well-known and well-established (and sky-blue) information. With edit-warring, and also harassing my Talk page. Also, I never said "ISIL" anywhere, so that's a lie or sloppy misrepresentation...but simply restored his removal of the "Islamic terrorism in Europe" link in the info box. And then after that, he immediately goes on my Talk page and puts impertinent idiocy there. MrX, please stop putting junk on my talk page...and stop suppressing sourced, in-the-news, and sky-blue information because you "don't like"...and stop the neurotic edit-warring.... This is Islamic terrorism, in Europe, and it's sourced all over the place. Thank you. 71.246.96.210 (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit clearly added that the perpetrators of the attack were Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. If that wasn't your intention then don't make that kind of edit. This information is not sourced. We don't know if the attack was related to the group based in Syria or if it was some other established group (if any). For that matter, your edit added that the motive was "Islamic extremism and revenge for Western military action in Middle East". We don't know much at all about the motive, other than perhaps a guess coming from the attacker's sister. What you think is sky blue is not good enough for making these claims, because what you think is obvious might not be correct. Precise sources and attribution are required. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and a broader problem is the phrase "Islamic terrorism", which can mean different things to different people. I can't count the number of times that people have said things like "it's obvious that this is Islamic terrorism", and then produced no secondary reliable sources to back it up. For the record, I *do* believe that this atrocity is another "sky-blue" example of the world of Islamist extremism in action, but we will have to see what sources such as the official investigators have to say about it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly did my edit "clearly add that the perpetrators" were ISIL? Simply because the other article "Islamic terrorism in Europe" mentions ISIL as ONE of the things? Fail. Stop the exaggerating and inaccurate notions on this already. "Islamic terrorism in Europe" is broad, and includes "ISIL", but not exclusively. Stop suppressing sourced information or links, because you wrongly think it's just "ISIL". Making inaccurate statements, about what's "clear" or not. Not cool, and not kosher, zzuuzz. I hope you understand the point though, ♦IanMacM♦. The other article is broad and talks about various things, regarding Islamic terrorism in Europe, comprehensively, and the bombing in Manchester was definitely Islamic terrorism. Reliable sources say so, nonstop. Because it sure wasn't the Irish Republican Army. Regards. 71.246.96.210 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly? Your edit is clearly visible here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read my whole comment, zzuuzz? It looks like you probably didn't. Sighs... the other article "Islamic terrorism in Europe" is broad and does NOT just mention "ISIL', but talks about Islamic terrorism in Europe generally and comprehensively. There's no "clear" anything, that it's just only about "ISIL". 71.246.96.210 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am making no comment on the wider subject of Islamic terrorism, only the parts of your edit I've mentioned. But the same ideas apply if stating something as fact. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're not grasping the point. The fact being that the other article does not only mention "ISIL". zzuuzz So there's no "clear" anything that I'm making this an "ISIL" thing at all, per se. They've taken credit for it, but the other WP article does not exclusively have ISIL as "Islamic terrorism in Europe". 71.246.96.210 (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the edit referred to, you added specifically the parameter content | perps = Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@71.246.96.210: When facts are asserted in Wikipedia's voice by placing them nakedly in an infobox or category, they must be covered by explanatory text in the article cited to reliable sources that directly support those facts. You are not allowed to make your own interpretations or conclusions. See WP:V and WP:OR. If you would take the time to read and understand these policies rather lashing out, you might actually be able to help us improve this article. When someone objects to your edits, you should not blow past those objection and force your conclusions into an article, especially a controversial one.- MrX 18:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you keep dodging the point that the other article DOES NOT TALK EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT "ISIL". It's _not_ the "ISIL" article. But a broad article about "Islamic terrorism" in Europe, in general. Mr Why do you keep evading that point, with more rants and whines and irrelevant statements about "reliable sources"? What part of "the other article is not just about ISIL" aren't you and the other suppressive editors not getting? The other article is NOT the "ISIL" article. So what is the problem exactly? What happened in Manchester is Islamic terrorism, and all "reliable sources" clearly say so. And the other article, that a few editors want are obsessed with always removing, is about Islamic terrorism in Europe in _general._ NOT necessarily only about "ISIL". So again, instead of constantly dodging that point (the reason is that you have no real answer to that point), why not finally address it?? 00:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.96.210 (talk)

Even taking into account that the other article is not exclusively about ISIL, the point is that this has not been officially attributed to Islamic fundamentalism. A number of media outlets have speculated, and ISIL have claimed it (as they tend to do with anything that has significant impact, regardless of whether they're responsible for it or not), but the investigators are continuing to investigate, so there is no established motive. Sources may suggest that the attacker was radicalised by Islamic extremists, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, this is only circumstantial until investigators say otherwise. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the PIRA

"It was the deadliest attack in the United Kingdom since the 7 July 2005 London bombings[7] and the first in Manchester since the 1996 bombing by the Provisional IRA."

Given that the PIRA targeted a building for economic reasons, rather than attempting to kill anybody in Manchester, it seems slightly odd to mention them in an sentence about "deadly attacks". Yeah, I get it, bourgeois liberals love to hold up the PIRA as a card to smugly reel off the sentence "Christians are terrorists, too" and feel very good about themselves, but there should be some nuance in the sentence. The PIRA's paramilitary attacks did not aim to indiscriminately massacre British civilians, as was the Islamist aim in London 2005 and Manchester 2017. It should just be in the see also section. Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the 1990s attacks by PIRA are entirely relevant for this article, but some people have added them anyway. As for PIRA being good guys who never targeted civilians or carried out sectarian killings, give me a break. The only reason that they never admitted to the Kingsmill massacre was because it caused such bad publicity for them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't to say whether they are good or bad, just that their modus operandi when launching operations abroad in England was to either target the British security services or to bomb economic targets, rather attempting to kill civilians attending pop concerts. Ulster itself internally is more complex since it had aspects of a tit for tit civil war situation. But here we are discussing Manchester and the PIRA shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i dont see how the pira not targeting civilians has any relevance as both attacked manchester.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought it very relevant that Manchester has experienced terrorism before. The parallels with 1996 have certainly been mentioned by many news sources, not least because the anniversary of that attack is due shortly (see e.g. [5]. Prioryman (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Prioryman relevant that Manchester has experienced terrorism before, we aren't passing judgement on the PIRA cause nor on how (relatively) humane they were. Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest we break the sentence up to avoid any drama over this issue, so it reads something like this: "It was the deadliest attack in the United Kingdom since the 7 July 2005 London bombings. It was also the first attack in Manchester since the 1996 bombing by the Provisional IRA." This is Paul (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Regarding the Attacker's Religion

Should we list in the article that the attacker was Muslim? El cid, el campeador (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include or Exclude

Survey

That other Muslims denounce the way he practices his faith does not make him non-Muslim. For example, the Ku Klux Klan is considered Christian, but nearly all other Christians have denounced the vile way they practice their faith. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per WP:NPOV. He was a Muslim. When terrorism occurs and people explodes, that has often something to do with the religion of peace. Islam is clearly the motive behind the bombing. People know that not all Muslims explode and it's not the fault of all Muslims. But excluding reason and motive behind this terror attack is just not great.--Rævhuld (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include because he was an Islamic terrorist. WWGB (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as it is SO pertinent and sourced, and obviously relevant. And surveys like this are extremely annoying, as this should not be even up for debate as it's not debatable at all that this man's being "Muslim" (otherwise Wikipedia will be an even bigger joke than it is to many people, for suppression of facts, per lefty agendas, etc) should be included in the article, as a point of fact, and point of relevance. Sources say so (even lefty "mainstream" ones), and this very attack was done IN THE NAME of the Muslim religion. Regardless of whether some people think that that's "not true Islam". (Another debate) Regards. 71.246.96.210 (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include but it should be clarified that he was a Sunni Muslim, Shias, Sufis and Ahmadis have nothing to do with these Eurpe wide terror attacks. Its not Islamic terrorism but fundamentalist Sunni one.
  • Include but the article needs to make clear than being an Islamist extremist headbanger is not the same thing as being a mainstream Muslim. Various ongoing political conflicts in the Middle East are also a major factor in motivating this type of extremism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as obviously relevant information. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

  • re: "in a way as to not disrupt the flow of the article", the way it is now, was a 22-year-old Libyan-British man from a Muslim household, is probably as good as it can ever be given that something else is tacked to "British", which is the standard Omar Mateen uses. The other possibility could be Muslim-British man of Libyan descent. (this flows better IMO, but I'm picking my battles) -- sarysa (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not to sure on "Muslim-British". Muslim is a religion, British is an nationality. Hyphening them together could make Muslim look like a nationality and/or British as a religion. I believe the common term is British-Muslim. Islam in the United Kingdom uses the term UK Muslim, and then we've got List of British Muslims. So with that in mind I would go for something along the lines of British Muslim man of Libyan descent. Wes Wolf Talk 20:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my ignorance in all things British shines through. I'll take your word for it and support your suggestion. -- sarysa (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Sarysa: It is not a case of "all things British shines through"; the same would apply for any nationality. French Muslim, Italian Muslim, American Muslim. For whatever reason, the nationality comes before the religion when it is being put into context. So if we are going to get picky, then it would be "all things English grammar shines through". Wes Wolf Talk 20:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unaware of this discussion, I removed the 'Muslim-British'/'Libyan-Muslim ancestry', since Muslim is neither a nationality nor an 'ancestry' as others have pointed out.Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Manchester Bombing" redirect?

Seeing as this recent bombing has come to light and is probably pulling more views than the current "Manchester bombing" (the IRA's attack in '96), would it not make sense to change the redirect to be on this page instead of the IRA attack? (If this is already being discussed, can I have a link to it, please?) ↅ𝜞 (Contact me) (See my edits) 21:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are three. It's time for a disambiguation page. -- sarysa (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester bombing was turned into a disambiguation page two days ago. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That'll teach me to pay more attention... thanks ↅ𝜞 (Contact me) (See my edits) 21:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not other motives mentioned

His sister clearly stated that he wanted revenge for American killing of civilians in airstrikes as well as the killing of his friend though his father refutes the latter (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/manchester-bomber-salman-abedi-took-twisted-revenge-love-islam/). But it isn't even mentioned even though it's from someone who closely knew him. Of course the high and might Christ lovers will only see others as "agressors" and "fanatics", and say "Islamic extremism", but not that their own acts are encouraging some to extremism. The acts of "Western" militaries have been used as a successful propaganda for long to recruit people. Biased lying Christians. 117.199.90.159 (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the articles words: "Miss Abedi ... suggested the bombing of Syria ordered by President Trump in early April had been the final straw; the catalyst for Monday night’s carnage." Based on the wording, it seems to me like this is the sister's hypothesis for what prompted his attack, rather than Abedi's claimed motive. So, we probably cannot list this as a motive in the infobox given current info, but we should mention in the article that his sister believes the US missile strikes on Syria prompted his attack. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the killing of his friend which even shocked the whole Libyan expatriate community in Manchester. It is there in the article. Stop hiding it! 117.199.90.159 (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resumed sharing of intelligence

Update for the News Leaks section: The UK resumed sharing of intelligence after reassurance form US: The Hill

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2017

Remove link to "evil losers" in international reactions section. 198.190.171.222 (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@198.190.171.222: I see no such link. Care to be more specific? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done by MrX a few minutes ago. It was literally minutes apart Drewmutt. Wes Wolf Talk 03:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section: Theresa May's immigration

I can't rectify this myself as the article is protected. The Controversies section touches upon Theresa May's period as Home Secretary and Trump's remarks on immigration but not the obvious link between the two. Not only did this woman cut a fifth of the police budget, official statistics show she also oversaw record-breaking increases in mass immigration:

As EU vote looms, immigration rise piles pressure on Cameron - Kylie Maclellan - Reuters.com - 25 February 2016

UK immigration hits record high, causing headache for Cameron - William James - Reuters.com - 27 August 2015

David Cameron immigration pledge 'failed spectacularly' as figures show net migration almost three times as high as Tories promised - Andrew Grice - The Independent - 26 February 2015

Akepeci (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged this for cleanup, because it is already starting to look like a WP:COATRACK for various forms of criticism, such as criticism of the government's immigration policies or cuts to the police. This article should not be written like somebody's personal party political broadcast.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I've removed this section altogether, because it had clear WP:NPOV problems. Also WP:TOPIC and WP:DUE here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added the content. I put what the sources said. So are you saying that the sources are not neutral or reliable? Trump response can be in "Iternational response" section, because that was his response to the event. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also inmigration don't have nothing to do with this. The attacker was British born. Unless that a reliable source say so. Which not. The opinion of Trump is just that. I just put it because it is a notable response to the event. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's rarely if ever a good idea to add a "Criticism/controversy" section to an article, because it can look like an an attempt to editorialise or preach to the choir. The material was harping on about immigration in a way which is very predictable coming from some politicians, but Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. There was no attempt at balance in the section.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want we can discuss about put the content in a place that you think that is less contentious but the content should stay because Wikipedia is not censored and it's says exactly what the sources states. In my opinion the content about May could go in a "Background" section. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, how this is not important and how is a Coatrack? The second part, granted, maybe is not important. But Trump response is pretty important. Rupert Loup (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And how about this, it's a fact that she was warned. The source state it. Rupert Loup (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to post here, Trump MIGHT belong on the 'reactions' article, though I doubt it. Putting it here is effectively saying that his comments are among the most important international reactions, when his remarks were barely comprehensible and only very tangentially referred to 'Manchester'. May was warned about cuts (some say), other police sources say this event has nothing to do with cuts. If an official enquiry (or similar) found that cuts materially affected this event, I would agree, but at the moment this is not mainstream and off-topic IMO.Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)... I'm not going to edit war, but cannot see how 'Trump' remotely deserves to be here, being a 'fact' that he tangentially linked this event with NATO, isn't a good enough reason to credit this with significance IMO. UKIP also made links! Pincrete (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is the president of the United States. His response is pretty important. The analysis of his remarks are left to the users. It's about notability. UKIP is irelevant with this. I don't oppose or support it's addition. About May, if you have reliable sources that say this event has nothing to do with cuts you should add it. But it's a fact that she was warned about it. The content never states that affected or not this event but the sources states that it's related. Rupert Loup (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found this, seems that Amber Rudd has rejected claims that cuts to police forces led to the terror attack. I think that it should be added whith her explanation. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester_Arena_bombing&oldid=782360331"