Talk:2017 London Bridge attack

This is pretty recent

is ongoing, and might not warrant an article in the end. It's also not yet confirmed as a terrorist attack, so it'd be worth leaving that out for now -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 21:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. There have been at least two recent incidents which turned out to be nothing to do with terrorism, and so far not even the Murdoch press have speculated about terrorism yet. Uncle Roy (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, could be a mad hatter in a mass spree and not all of those are notable to have a page.Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Besides, it could simply be another incident of workplace violence, you know. XavierItzm (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Second attack at Borough Bistro

We now have a second incident at Borough Bristro in London, looks like we are seeing another situation similar to November 13, 2015 Paris attack where Terrorist hit several soft targets. --Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not yet confirmed as a terrorist attack, but given the two incidents it could well be. It may be worth waiting until a credible news outlet uses the word "Terrorist" -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

With this incident being in more than one location should we rename it? Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note that Borough Bistro and Borough Market are different. Both are being evacuated due to an incident. May have to rename this to focus on London as a whole. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 22:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

As this is still an on-going incident and rapidly unfolding at a rate of knots, I personally feel it is too soon to speculate on links and similarities. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

^ this, and the fact that unless this gets confirmed as a terror attack, it may well not be notable enough to keep around -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Until there is confirmation in reliable sources, I'd oppose a rename as we don't know yet if this is even an attack or related to the Market. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree but it depends Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

If the source of this is this metro.co.uk report, I think this could be over-interpreting a tweet. The tweet and the overall article are consistent with exiting a bar, seeing an injured bleeding person and either correctly or incorrectly believing that someone had a knife in his hand. It doesn't sound like a separate incident. Boud (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a confirmed attack

Has any credible news outlets confirmed this as a terrorist attack? I can't find any. @Walsak: you mentioned one when you restored the attack mention -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

>> I was watching Sky News and they said so about five minutes ago on the live feed on Youtube.--Walsak (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Walsak: Anything in a reliable source? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor There'sNoTime: nothing reliable to confirm terrorism at this early stage. BBC have even reported that the police have not confirmed anything of the sort (terrorism or linked incidents) and urge people not to speculate whilst they are investigating a rapid-evolving series of incidents. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Vauxhall

Forth incident, what now. Should we rename. Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Its the third, not forth. And still too soon for renaming. It is already clear all this is unfolding at an alarming rate. Hold fire and be patient. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. These are not necessarily linked yet so we'll just give it time. Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories

Someone keeps insisting on categorising this article as 'Bridge disasters' and 'Road incidents'. Come on! How stupid is that? 86.185.30.254 (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Very - so can we stop doing that please? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Used to be called "terror attacks", but perhaps editors would prefer entitling these unpleasantnesses as "events"? XavierItzm (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Third incident

BBC are now reporting of a third incident in Vauxhall. I can see this article getting rather messy with severe disruptive editing. When is best for semi-pp? Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Well there isn't any yet, so move on, to put it politely. Check policy. SP is ONLY for vandalism that can't be otherwise dealt with! It's not for preemption. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Wolf Is salting it until the incident(s) have fleshed out more and have RS and not ongoing an option? I know it's not but I had to try...CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: Trying not to, I prefer to err on the side of allowing editing than restricting it, but it's getting a little silly -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

There's been no problem with the editing so far, except for overzealous removal of material. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

No it is not getting silly. I get really pissed off when as soon as something like this comes along a load of control freaks come along to freeze out IPs for no good reason at all. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Chill, it's not being protected just yet -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Control freaks? And "move on"? No personal attacks, please! IPs have been warned from a couple of admins about attacking me lately. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please don't SP this article unless IP vandalism becomes a real problem. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Until it becomes an issue, don't protect it. And it isn't that difficult to create an account if you're being constructive. You sound too experienced to be an ip. Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Correct, but I'm on my works computer, and I never log on from it (and I won't now edit this article at all while logged on). 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

We have a significant number of very experienced IP editors. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

To editor Chrissymad: correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the act of salting something mean the placing of creation protection level on an article? As this is already created, then I'm not suggesting salting whatsoever. All I'm saying is if this gets out of hand should we be looking into protection? This is likely to appear on the main page, so protection level will be required at some stage per WP:SEMI which strongly recommends when an article is subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. This is high media attention. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: I was joking because right now it's bound to be a hot mess of unsourced or unreliably sourced claims as the incident is unfolding and I was suggesting it would be better to have no article and no ability to create the article than to have a dumpster fire. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Chrissymad: ah right, LOL. Shall I get the coffee pot on boil? Looks like this could be a long-haul night keeping watch on this article. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Propose rapid straw poll move

Propose moving to London incidents of 3 June 2017:

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

No, the word order is wrong.Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for now: as even the police have said they do not know if these incidents are linked, and are not treating them as such whilst they ar still investigating. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, I'm with WikiImprovement on this one. I think it needs to flesh out more since we don't yet know if they're related, no matter how likely it is. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose wording above, but I do support an eventual move... perhaps better wording would be 3 June 2017 London attack — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose because of wording as well. June 2017 London attacks would be better.Walsak (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The detail of the wording I am not too fussed about, that can be resolved in due course. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

OK, let me explain my reasoning here. We do not know if the events are related, therefore having them in an article entitled "London Bridge incident" makes little sense. It may transpire that only the LB incident is significant, for example, in which case we can move back, but meanwhile it makes sense to have a title that covers all three incidents. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

Oppose for now: If they're found to be all linked later, then sure. For now, no. DanielEnnisTV ✉ 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now as we don't yet have all the facts. Would support an eventual move to something like June 2017 London attacks. No need to disambiguate with the day date. This is Paul (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Many references now available for the multiple location aspect of this/these incidents. However, re-word slightly - 2017 London attacks or similar 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Why has the article been moved anyway, by Rossbawse when this discussion is still ongoing? Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I've also pinged them on their talk, Wesley Wolf. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Map

can someone add a map of the 3 areas in London?Lihaas (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is Open Streetmap of the area. Couldn't get my head around the attribution requirements. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

Number of deaths

I understand the need to get the wording correctly, but we all need to agree on the correct way to phrase this. Should it be spelled out or using symbols? RES2773 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Symbols? Do you mean numerals (1, 2, 3 etc) or lettering (one, two, three, etc)? Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, or using greater than/less than. RES2773 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest using words until we have some reasonably stable figure - without "at least" or "more than" in it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

US President Donald Trump first two reactions to incidents

In his first reaction to the incident, U.S. President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter in relation to his travel ban executive order: "We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!" He further wrote that the United States would do whatever it can to help out in London and the U.K. CNN documented that his national security team had briefed him on the incidents.

References

---

Placing here for posterity. Sagecandor (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we get rid of this absolute garbage from the article? I keep trying to remove it, but someone has now accused me of vandalism (LOL). 86.185.30.254 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It IS notable whether one like it or not. I have trimmed the quotes to proper english.Lihaas (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This is crackers! There's more in the article about what Trump thinks than there is about the incident itself. Can we please remove the nonsense? 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Does the IP need to be reminded about civility towards others? What might be garbage to one person, may be useful information to another. Everything needs to be written in a neutral point of view, including reactions from Heads of State. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, but I think the editor who accused me of vandalism does. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiple references now applied to single statements - a sure sign that the contested statements should be deleted. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That warning on your talk page is a standardised worded template, issued via Twinkle. I wouldn't worry too much about it, and assume good faith. I get them all the time and shrug them off like water on a duck's back. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

:) No probs - thanks. But what about that stuff from Trump? I think at this stage in the article development it really isn't needed and for the most part is not relevant - all that stuff about a travel ban ... 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Citation overkill needs to be considered in cases like this. Too many inline citations for one piece of context isn't necessary. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Tweet 2 was just quoted on BBC News. I'd say that's the most relevant one to this topic and the one we should use. This is Paul (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Replaced all primary sources with secondary sources. This is notable. Secondary sources are reporting on it. Multiple. Sagecandor (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you to the IP for cooperating and respecting civility. I respect that it can be hard at times like this, as tempers can get frayed and overheated. But an approach of calm should be practised as it helps others to maintain a level of calmness during this distressing incident. The Mt have now confirmed all of this as an act of terror though. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

"2017 London Bridge incident" redirect

2017 London Bridge incident has been redirected here. Should it remain or be changed to a disambiguation? Although this is the only to occur on the London Bridge, it is not the only on a London bridge. The first part of the 2017 Westminster attack was on Westminster Bridge, a London bridge. I realize that this distinction may be obvious to UK citizens, but I suspect that is not the case for most others. RN1970 (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor RN1970: I wouldn't think that is necessary. Everyone knows about the London Bridge, and is hardly going to get confused with a bridge in London. Don't forget the worldwide known nursery rhyme, London Bridge is Falling Down. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This is one of those weird cases where 2017 London bridge incident might be a dab, but 2017 London Bridge incident doesn't need to be. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for both your comments. However, I really would appreciate some comments from people that are not UK natives. As I said in my earlier comment, I realize that the London Bridge/bridge distinction is obvious to UK citizens, but most en.wiki users belong to other nationalities. As a frequent London visitor, I'll also leave the final judgement on this redirect to others. RN1970 (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor RN1970: I would assume that {{distinguish}} might be a good solution, as that would bring up Not to be confused with. But as noted, everyone knows of London Bridge as it is a landmark and notable for being in a nursery rhyme. Also WP:COMMONTERM may apply. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Another good tip might be to add {{R from more specific geographic name}} to the redirect itself. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) American here. Never been outside the country. I understand the difference between "London bridge" (a common noun with an adjective) and "London Bridge" (a proper noun), and I suspect most other Americans that have at least been through elementary school (If I'm not mistaken, it's what you guys would call "primary school".) will understand the distinction as well. — Gestrid (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if it was unclear from my posts, but the question wasn't if people know the difference between a common noun with an adjective and a proper noun. I certainly presume most do, regardless of nationality. However, most people searching on wiki (or google, etc) are lazy with caps. "Donald Trump" becomes "donald trump". Similarly, "2017 London Bridge incident" becomes "2017 london bridge incident". When only the version with caps exists, it'll redirect you. Regardless of your use of caps. The same will happen to anyone putting "2017 London bridge incident" into the search bar. You'll be redirected via "2017 London Bridge incident". RN1970 (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, 2017 London attack/2017 London attacks ought to be a disambiguation page now. The first has been created, so I'll redirect the second. This is Paul (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable in my eyes. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Move to "2017 June London terror attacks"

Article should be moved to "2017 June London terror attacks". That is what police, politicians and reliable sources are calling it. If it turns out that one of the incident isn't a terror attack, then this isn't the article where it is covered. --DHeyward (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Present title at June 2017 London attacks is short and the article is defined in the first few sentences for the reader. Sagecandor (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: None of the other terrorist attacks which have articles, use the word "terror" in their titles. Keep with consistency. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "something else exists" is never a valid argument for editing the Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, the lack of "terror" in the titles of other attacks was a lack of confirmation that they were terrorist attacks. That is not the case here. In fact, some are trying to argue that one of the attacks were not terror related. Even the term "attack" had opposition until RS's called it. --DHeyward (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support No substitutes for plain English on encyclopaedic articles. XavierItzm (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Declared terrorist attack

Per Met twitter https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/871152151787171840 -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 23:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

But not the Vauxhall one. https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/871152386739404800 158.174.11.112 (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2017

Add "A waitress was reportedly stabbed in the neck." Under "Borough Market". 32ciN (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done. Details like this should wait until they are confirmed - "reportedly" means that some unspecified person or organisation has said that but it hasn't been verified as correct. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Mike Pence and other reactions

I've twice removed, and user:MrX has removed at least once, mention of Mike Pence from the reaction section (added I think only by user:Lihaas). MrX described it as "Trivia". My rationale is that Pence is not an international leader, is not relevant to the UK and has not said anything significant at all so it does not add anything to a section that is likely to become extremely bloated with meaningless, formulaic quotes as more people react. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editors Thryduulf and Sagecandor: strangely enough, Lihaas had removed the same content as quoting non-notable indivicduals, only to reinstate it 5 minutes later as being notable. Both summaries got me all confused! Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That user is being very disruptive at this page. Sagecandor (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course I agree. Such platitudes should remain out, or be relegated to the inevitable reactions and flags article.- MrX 00:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just removed it, and the US flag template, again. Added this time by user:PerfectlyIrrational. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with you Sagecandor. And still making disruptive reverts too. The user is showing signs of edit warring, and I'm dubious of them wandering into WP:3RR territory. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

someone ELSE added the latest addition. In fact, I further removed non-notable stuff.Lihaas (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) And now user:DHeyward has just added the Pence quote back. I've not removed it as I don't want to go over the 3RR. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We have a consensus on the talk page for NOT having this on the page. Sagecandor (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to replace it with a note to not re-add without discussing it here? Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 4 (I hate edit conflicts lol). To editor Thryduulf: I think it is exempt per WP:3RRBLP, as it would appear to fall under biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added a note not to add Mike Pence's reaction per talk page consensus. I don't know what good it will do, but we can try. I've also replaced Trudeau's quote with the start of a list of international leaders who have reacted. Unless they say something different to the standard formulatic sympathies, etc. we don't need the quotes here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

[1] [2] - Is this WP:NPA reportable somewhere? Sagecandor (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I only changed a long string of words to "offered" as a copy edit. Same as I did for Trump. I could care less if it goes or stays and there are a number of busybody numbskills worried about whether the VP of the US is notable. Who cares? --DHeyward (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I don't care what your motivations are, your edit summaries on the talk page and above are personal attacks. If you persist you will be blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Thryduulf: Would the use of {{Consensus}} on this talk page and list any consensuses be helpful? Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: Maybe, it's not a template I've encountered before so I don't know how effective it is in practice. If you think it will help then I've got no objections. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

"Islamic terrorism"/Witnesses

Thre is no official corroboration of an invstigation into the backgrounds of the perpetrators and/or their motivation. Further, the views of a witness somewhere about is not notable enough to be here. Else we ought to add all the individual analysis on the web too with people who have more credentials. This s not a newspaper.Lihaas (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Which is why @Lihaas: if you actually took the time to read edit histories, rather than rush-edit, you will have seen why the template has been hidden. Somebody has clearly added this article to the navigation template. And I did state in my edit summary that it is probably best left hidden for now, and subject to becoming visible should details verify otherwise. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on what WP:RS report, not on some "official corroboration of an invstigation". Your position is untenable. XavierItzm (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor XavierItzm: to whom is that comment being directed at? Please specify. Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, heed the Muslim person above: the attacks weren't actually Islam-related. Who's ever heard of such a thing as Islamic terrorism? They were clearly carried out by either Lutheran Finns or Japanese Shintoists. --79.56.15.171 (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Map

Could someone please create a map to show the proximity of the two sites? Thank, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Gaia Octavia Agrippa: already done from what I gather, see above. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To include Ariana Grande's tweet?

Outside of politicians, she is the first to express condolence -- and it comes just after her concert got bombed. Is it significant enough to include? Kingsif (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)