Jump to content

Talk:Manchester Arena bombing

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

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]
It's not just sentimental. It sends a message to future murderers that they will go down in history. I find it immoral to provide incentive for acts like this. Boardhead (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also be needing to remove articles on Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin and many others too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Man1000 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only once this case is closed, can we evaluate whether he is deserving of a page, it seems that as Ian says, not enough information is present, a biography is all that is required, as what we know about him is little. Factsoverfeelings (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Yes, Terrorism in Europe whether you are left or right in your political leanings, is primarily Islamic in motive, readers already know that it was a Muslim who committed the crime, do you know why? Because it almost always is. The fact of the matter is, only recently did we get an attack in Egypt, you need to make a link between Islamism and this page, because thats clear to anyone who isn't in denial. Political motive and Islamism are strongly connected, I need only point you to the examples of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and other variants in other Islamic republics. The ideal of Sharia links in to this. If I am a robot, with no political leanings, no biases or agendas regarding pointing blame to ordinary Muslims, or trying to not mention the word at all to avoid offence. What would I do? I would state he was indeed a Muslim, as this was his master status, or most important defining characteristic. We know he killed himself for his beliefs, so lets state that, rather than treading on eggshells to avoid offence, don't get me wrong, I don't like that this causes people to justify Islamophobia, but we must tell the truth, this is the truth, I don't want this site to be loose with the truth and omit words for fear of offence. Factsoverfeelings (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"We know he killed himself for his beliefs". No, we don't. We may suspect it, it may be common sense to assume it, it might be "obvious"; but we don't know. We don't know that he acted because of his beliefs or because he was made to do it by someone else or because he was just insane. You are not alone in wanting the article to tell the truth; the fact is that until we have RS we don't know the truth. As I said above, ""I think, almost certainly, probably" are not good enough for an encyclopedic article.Misha An interested observer of this and that 14:17, 27 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:[1][2]. 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]
I agree a link to Lee Rigby's murder should be included, with a note to say the date is currently believed to be a co-incidence. John a s (talk) 19:21, 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 practising 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]
I think you need to read a few key policies, before wasting your energies (and sarcasm) 'proving your case'. Of course it is obvious to any ten year old that this is probably Islamic terrorism, it's just the RS don't say it YET, so neither do we. One either likes WP to be a place of 100% reliably sourced info or one prefers it to be a place of amateur speculation (which in this case is probably right). There are tons of places on the net where people are certain of everything all the time on scant evidence, this isn't one of them. Pincrete (talk) 14:45, 26 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]
Carcharoth: I have no desire to "[argue] over the title". I wanted to simply carry out a mundane task (as I have on countless occasions), but Fuzheado reverted my move and created this section, which Xaosflux (who move-protected the article) advised me to unarchive. Having explained that I'd "invested vastly more time in the matter than is normally expected", I nonetheless complied. Now I'm being criticised for that.
Well, you're preaching to the choir. As I noted on Xaosflux's talk page, "if every instance [of this situation] required its own discussion, I'm not sure that I'd have time for much else at Wikipedia." I didn't intend to put this theory to the test, but here we are. —David Levy 16:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point (I support the move to Manchester Arena bombing) is simply that at this time (for various reasons) it will likely take too much effort and investment of time to effect the move. Time better spent elsewhere. I know from my own experience how frustrating move discussions can be when they go 'wrong'. But the answer is rarely to engage in more discussion, but usually to wait for a better moment to return to the discussion. The 'consensus' box at the top of this talk page (which I've only just noticed) gives links to the two most recent move discussions. It is a definite weakness of the Wikipedia model that a lot of discussion time is spent on article names in the early days when it may not be clear what name an article should be at. But that has always been the case, often frustratingly so. See also Manchester bombing where the earlier article names are pre-conditioning people to expect a year in the article name. Carcharoth (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having been criticised for "[making] a unilateral page [move] without discussing it here first", I feel obligated to respond to relevant comments (lest I be accused of performing a drive-by move and dodging accountability therefor). —David Levy 18:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note The page move protection has expired and I won't be personally enforcing it anymore but any other admin may. — xaosflux Talk 11:29, 27 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. MrX 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" are 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 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?? 71.246.96.210 (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]
This is definitely "Islamic terorism", and NOT Irish Republican Army terrorism, that took place in England, a few days ago. And (again) the point is that the other article is NOT exclusively about "ISIL", but is broadly about Islamic terrorism in Europe, in general. Sasuke Sarutobi. So (again) the point is that this section name here, that the edit-warring troll above put, slandering me, is simply FALSE AND DISHONEST. I was not "plastering" anything in the article, let alone the notion that this suicide bomber was "ISIL". I never wrote "ISIL" anywhere in this article, and the other article is not exclusively "ISIL". I never said that this attacker was an "ISIL soldier" or something. (Though ISIL did claim credit for it, but just ignore or minimize that, of course.)
You admit that sources say that this attacker was radicllized by Islamic extremists, but then go into this nonsense convenient argument (as an excuse to suppress pertinent and sourced information) that "as far as Wikipedia is concerned, this is only circumstantial". Fail. It's NOT circumstantial that this Libyan Brit was A) Muslim, and B) carried this out SPECIFICALLY IN THE NAME AND CAUSE OF ISLAM OR EXTREMIST ISLAM. Hence why the other article link is valid. That other WP article is not only about ISIS, but about Islamic terrorism in Europe in general. Which this attack in Manchester was. Regards... 71.246.96.210 (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

RfC Regarding the Attacker's Religion

Clear Consensus to Include

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]
  • Include - Relevent and the sources state this so obviously we should state this too. –Davey2010Talk 12:51, 27 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]
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.

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]

The thinking behind the deletion seems to be that if we don't mention ISIS' claims, we can't mention hers. That doesn't seem like it makes any sense, and even if it does, the ideal solution would mention both theories, not none. The idea that American actions inspire terror attacks is a touchy one, but it's often claimed. As long as we're attributing it to his sister, Wikipedia pushes no agenda. Restoring till a better reason comes around. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:02, May 26, 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that ISIS claims had gone, that is ridiculous IMO, ISIS claims should be there as such, ie claims not facts. Agree that sister's comment should be briefly covered.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite likely that Abedi had listened to the routine extremist propaganda about how his bombing would help to avenge the deaths caused by Western bombing in Syria. However, it is rather second hand and speculative at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the ISIS claim of reponsibility AS CLAIM. There may well be sources sceptical as to whether they are involved, I leave it to others to find them. Pincrete (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the lead to say they say he was their fighter. They don't claim to be responsible for what they say he did, at least not directly. Just told anyone anywhere to kill anyone in any way at any time, basically. If actively commanding a global network of minions were that easy, everyone would do it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:30, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

ISIS has already claimed responsibility. Terrorism is usually done in honour of islam. Neither the news or I take the sister seriously on it. I mean the family claimed in the Orlando shooting case, that the son might be gay and therefore killed so many people. But later on they found out that an imam called to kill homosexuals because that would be mercy. Sorry, but I am quite sure that this is just another attack done by the religion of peace.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Normally we don't try to rationalize terrorist attacks. And, his sister was literally just speculating and had no evidence and didn't even claim that he had actually said he was doing it for that purpose. After all she "didn't know" about the attacks beforehand. How can she /know/ the motivation behind them? She can't, she is speculating. So that's why. Plus the statement makes her sound like a psychopath "whether he did find revenge is between him and god." Excuse me? And you also sound like a psychopath. El cid, el campeador (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone down your comment. This isn't a place blaming any one for any biased narrative, nor defending anyone's acts. Her sister's statement cannot be considered as the definite truth. We only add what investigators or police find.

And you Rævhuld, this is not a place for pushing your personal POV on any attack or religion or person. Wiki rules clearly state that personal POV aren't allowed here. this isn't a social forum to discuss anything or attack anyone or make guesses based on what your political opinion is. The attack on Orlando occurred 3 years after an Orlando imam made a speech about killing homosexual people for mercy (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/13/farrokh-sekaleshfar-imam-speaking-orlando-said-gay/). This may or may have not had an impact on the shooter, regardless we don't base edits on guess-work of what might be the motive. And regardless, we add what is based on facts, not out of political opinions. This is a place for editing and contributing. You have already been warned and adviced by multiple users for your disruption. This is not a political blog. You can choose to contribute or be disruptive, in which case there are strict rules against it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:52, 27 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]

Pincrete I think that I agree with you about the cuts, there is an ongoing discussion about this. But there is no sufficient material to make it a subject. And although is a fact. Its addition could mislead the reader. Maybe we should wait to see if there is more media coverage about it. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impression that 'handshakes' and 'pushing and shoving' got more attention than 'Manchester' in the 'Trump loves NATO' coverage, but will happily leave it to others to decide whether this needs to be here. Pincrete (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the content to Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, the reaction section needs to be a summary of that article according with WP:SUMMARY. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tarook97, do you wanna join the discussion? Rupert Loup (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abedi

talked with his brother fifteen minutes before - please put this in

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/26/europe/manchester-terror-attack-uk/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.78.173 (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done TompaDompa (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Farron's reaction

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said the bomb attack at Manchester Arena was "utterly heartbreaking".

"This was a terrorist attack deliberately targeting children having the time of their lives," he said, describing the atrocity as "beyond wicked".

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/election-2017-40021992/manchester-attack-tim-farron-says-bombing-is-beyond-wicked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.78.173 (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like something that belongs on Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, rather than here. That article is not semi-protected (as of my writing this), so feel free to add it there. TompaDompa (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feud between Moss Side Bloods and Rusholme Crips blamed for violence linked to two murders

Concerns inside GMP that hard-fought-for peace in south Manchester is at serious risk. I think we should include it into the article![1]--Rævhuld (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that relates to this bombing – that article is a year old. Is there something I'm missing? TompaDompa (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Scheerhout, John (2016-05-24). "Feud between Moss Side Bloods and Rusholme Crips blamed for violence linked to two murders". men. Retrieved 2017-05-26.

How to phrase the number of deaths

So this has been discussed at least three times before (here, here, and here), but back then it was mostly focused on the sourcing. No clear WP:CONSENSUS was established and it keeps getting changed back and forth, so I'm bringing it up here to settle it for good so the WP:Edit warring can stop.

Should the number of deaths be phrased as "22, excluding the attacker" (or some equivalent thereof) or "23, including the attacker" (or some equivalent thereof)? TompaDompa (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, and both can be used, though I'd suggest that the infobox should follow the article text. I suppose we'll have to reach some sort of consensus to prevent continual changing; I don't have a strong opinion. But "22" is not "the number of people killed", that's just incorrect. 22 concert-goers and parents seems reasonable. And 22 is not the number of victims—the injured are victims too. Pol098 (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically speaking, the parents are also concert-goers, since they were at the concert. But that's beside the point, I think.
I would say we should use "23, including the attacker" (or some equivalent), as that's what's most commonly used when speaking about shootings, bombings, etc.. Have you ever heard a news reporter say something like, "Twelve people were killed, not including the shooter." I haven't. — Gestrid (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is "23, including the attacker", also used at articles such as 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources overwhelmingly use the figure of 22, not "23 including the attacker". Just check the 81 refs. Or google. If you google "manchester bombing 22" you get "22 people killed"; if you google "manchester bombing 23" you get "23 people still in critical care" or a date of 23 May. The article should say what is in the sources (per multiple discussions re Islam, ISIS etc. above), not what is in the Orlando article. 95.44.50.222 (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of responsibility

I am not sure why this info was removed. Is it in the body of the page somewhere? My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ianmacm to explain their edit. — Gestrid (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's in the aftermath section but undue weight for the lead because it is unverified. ISIL has claimed responsibility for many attacks where they probably knew nothing about it beforehand, eg the 2017 Westminster attack, where they described Khalid Masood as a “a soldier of the Islamic State” (one of their standard phrases) even though investigators believed that Masood was not a member of the organisation.[3] Just because they say these things, it doesn't mean that they are true. Truth, as we know, is the first casualty of war. I don't object to it being in the "Aftermath" section but it is problematic in the WP:LEAD, because it gives the claim far more credence than it actually deserves at the moment. These people are notorious self publicists.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot keep adding just because ISIS claimed it did. Several attacks have been just inspired but do not have any real involvement of the group. Unless they are involved in actual, the info is of little importance. The lede only sums the notable facts. Though it can be said in the lede if they are inspired by it if it was their motive. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds good. My very best wishes (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester_Arena_bombing&oldid=782530588"