This is an archive of past discussions about Manchester Arena bombing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Just found this The Daily Telegraph article ([1]) reporting ISIS supporters praising the Manchester Arena incident as an attack against the West. But is this usable, or we leave this out as presumptive? Looks like ISIS is already implied as the suspect on the attack, but we need to wait for a report that the ISIS claimed responsibility. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It's as predictable as the town hall clock that ISIL would praise this attack or claim responsibility for it. It's too early to say whether any of this is notable enough.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
While the perpetrator has been determined, but undisclosed, we should avoid presumptions of ISIS involvement, until sources we can use back it. ISIS has been presumed to lead this localized bombing in Manila by local media, that is soon discovered as a result of a local gang war instead of a terrorist attack. Media will be sensationalistic in this incident, but our viewpoint on the Manchester Arena incident will change from "incident" to "bombing" as the sources will prove that the attack is a terrorist-led bombing, or a bombing due to another motive. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
We can only be sure of ISIS' support for these things. I do not want to inflate ISIS' stature by giving them credit (or blame) for what may be a lone rabid wolf attack loosely inspired by ISIS. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind, multiple groups will claim responsibility for this, as what generally happens following most terror attacks. ISIS making a claim doesn't automatically mean they were responsible. UaMaol (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
'See also' section
Why is there a link to the attempted 2007 car bombs in London? Different city, different method, and most importantly that one was prevented. I see very little if any connection between the two incidents - unless someone knows something I don't, in which case enlighten us please? 82.132.217.214 (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is there a link to a completely unconnected 2001 attack in Israel? If no sources connect the two, we can't either. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
There is now a link in the 'See also' section to the Lee Rigby murder. Nothing in the news today (that I've seen at least) to suggest a connection, other than the date. May 22nd is also Sri Lanka's Republic Day - are we saying this incident is somehow connected to that, too!? If the tabloid press and various click bait websites have nothing better to do than to speculate with such matters, do we have to follow suit? 93.89.131.57 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
This section now has a link to the 'Dolphinarium' attack in Israel in 2001 - again, completely unrelated and unconnected, and as such should be removed. 93.89.131.57 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, now the link to the Israel attack has been removed... and instead we have a link to the 2004 Spanish train incident - again, the connection seems to me tenuous at best, so why include it here? 93.89.131.57 (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The Spanish Bombing took place 3 days before the 2004 Spanish general election. That could be a reason to consider it. A political motivation.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It's speculation. It may also be because the attacker knew that the concert would be a prime target with a huge crowd, making the choice of date irrelevant.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)22:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
There are other things for you people to do with your time than strictly police the see also box. There are millions of articles are nearly all of them violate a rule. Happy hunting. Otherwise don't worry about taking out links which are perhaps may be not exactly what wikipedia originally may have intended. 97.70.97.126 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
22 or 23 deaths?
The sources say there were 22 victims killed. Wouldn't this mean there are 23 deaths if the attacker is included (the attacker is not a victim)? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This has been discussed. I'm reasonably sure from the sourcing that the figure of 23 includes the bomber, so he killed 22 people plus himself. Does anyone disagree?--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
ISIS might. The Nashir version of the "claim" didn't mention a martyr, so maybe they think he got away. Maybe Nashir and Amaq are equally sketchy, though. InedibleHulk(talk)07:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I disagree. I have not seen one RS that puts the figure at 23. All say 22. Does anyone have even a single ref for 23? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Number of deaths
I have not seen one RS that puts the figure at 23. Dozens say 22. We cannot speculate that every single source has left out the attacker. Does anyone have a WP:Reliable source for saying 23 deaths? Until we have some very reliable source for that, we should say 22. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
How is it clear? Every single source says 22. Not ONE says "23 including the bomber" or "22 excluding the bomber" -- I did a search and couldn't find any. They just say 22 fatalities or 22 deaths. Why don't you track the sources instead of insisting that your *assumption* must be correct. Will others please comment? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The sourcing says that he killed 22 people. Unfortunately, many of the sources haven't spelled it out in clear language, and have stated separately that he was a suicide bomber. I agree that we need to get to the bottom of this to prevent the debate from going round in circles.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)22:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Please revert your change until we can show that the total is not 22. The number you put in absolutely violates WP:V. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This source says "Salman Abedi murdered 22 innocents... Salman Abedi was also killed when he detonated explosives outside Manchester Arena on Monday night." I think that this what most of the sources are trying to say here, but they have left room for argument. That's why we need the victim list. It is slow in coming, but we will get it eventually.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)22:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Re this edit: as the British government says, it's pretty astonishing and unacceptable that all of this information has fallen into the hands of the US news media. This is scene of crime material and was given in confidence to the US intelligence services. Talk about Julian Assange, some people in the US intelligence services are just as bad here. None of this was intended to be in the public domain. While Wikipedia is not censored, it is a pity that some people across the pond cannot keep quiet.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)20:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Article talk pages are inappropriate places for your rant about US-UK relations & media.--v/r - TP20:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if there is an element of WP:NOTAFORUM here, but it does place the article in a difficult position. The British authorities really did not want any of this to be in the news at this stage, and some people in the US intelligence services have been very unwise here. Loose lips can sink ships.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)20:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
SCOTUS has long held against prior restraint of the media... NYT published the pentagon papers, I don't think they're worried about what Brits think about breaking news stories.97.70.97.126 (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It may well have First Amendment protection, but the US intelligence services were given this information in confidence. The British government didn't expect it to be in the NYT the next day, and they are not very pleased about it. It is unusual for a senior British government official like Amber Rudd to criticise the US government in public, but they are hopping mad over this.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't the place to hash that out. The governments will do that. Drop the stick.--v/r - TP22:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Even Fox News seems to have confirmed that the US president leaked Israeli classified intelligence info to the Russians. And despite the British Home Secretary’s criticism of US leaks of intelligence relating to an on-going terrorist investigation, further breaches have still occurred. Let’s just sincerely hope that nothing bad results in the USA should its allies decide that sharing intelligence with the US is counterproductive. JezGrove (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Should initial reactions and confusion be mentioned?
Up until 2330/midnight on the day, there was still some of the initial news reports that believed perhaps a speaker had malfunctioned or a balloon had burst, which simply caused panic. It did take some time for the true nature and gravity of the situation to become apparent, and a little longer for this to be broken in the news.
There were also some false reports of a shooting at a greater Manchester (Oldham) hospital at about the same time, further adding to the confusion.
I'm not sure if the latter point need be added, but I think it's important to mention that the true action was not known initially, and that this may have added to the shocking nature of the attack. Kingsif (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The bomb went off at around 22:30 and police received the first emergency calls at 22:33. Despite some initial confusion, many people soon realised that a bomb had gone off, as the mobile phone videos of the incident show.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)11:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
If mentioned - it should be very brief. Attacks of this nature on civilian targets (and non-civilian for that matter), particularly during periods of relative quiet (e.g. not present day Iraq or any place one might assume as action given a recent spate of them), invariably lead to confusion. Initial reports from the field are always confused.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This source says that "Manchester police received more than 240 calls from 10.33pm." It's not something that received a great deal of media coverage before midnight in the UK on the evening of the attack, and it wasn't until the following morning that the full horror became apparent. I'm not sure if this needs to be mentioned, per WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)11:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Edit request - photo caption
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved
Not yet knowing the usual format off pat, I am going to take a punt that the photo you have of the suicide bomber shouldn't be captioned in that way, which looks like a way of hiding a bit of editorialising about a controversial part of the article. I can't find any captions elsewhere that say the picture was taken in the mosque, it's generally credited as "handout", which I believe means the police have supplied it. SkagwayEntropy (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Could you expand? Currently the caption IDs him as the suicide bomber. Is that what you had an issue with or was there a different earlier caption? (apologize but I don't want to go through all the edit history to find out). El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, not well versed enough in Wikipedia etiquette - or simply smart enough - to be clear and specific with what I say! Thank you for the change. SkagwayEntropy (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
Briton or British citizen?
A person born in the UK is a Briton, the word is the standard term in British English to mean a British native. Check these recent news links: BBC, Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph. Apart from the fact that I believe this is the correct term, describing someone as British citizen is 'grudging' IMO, as though the person is not really British.
Since no one has come up with any reason why a term habitually used by all the major UK news outlets should not be used on a UK Engvar article, I'm going be bold. 'British-born citizen' is grotesque IMO when a perfectly good term exists.Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Their should be a picture of the inside of the Manchester Arena
Hello, just here to say that I think it would be a good for the reader and people in general to see a picture of the inside of the arena where the attack took place at. --Skim
Not quite so sure here. The bombing did not occur inside the arena or during the concert, so there is a risk of confusing people and giving the impression that this was a repeat of the Bataclan (theatre) attack, which it wasn't. Some of the TV coverage also gives this impression. What we do need is an up to date picture of the exterior of the arena, which shouldn't be too difficult, and of emergency vehicles at the scene. No luck on Flickr so far. This is what the inside of the Arena looks like on Commons, but it's not where the bombing took place.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe the part of the site you need an image of is the box office where it connects to Victoria station. It's at the end of the elevated walkway you can see in some pictures of the station.[2] Geograph has no such image. The interior of the Arena is not so relevant. This image is very close, show the arena in the background, and a sign for the Macdonalds which is in the direct vicinity of the blast (AIUI). The area is public access, so an image might be available when the station re-opens. -- zzuuzz(talk)12:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it worth adding to your image of the exterior that it was taken during the period when the arena was called the M.E.N Arena (because of sponsorship by Manchester Evening News)? (Probably not, but I thought it worth asking.) SkagwayEntropy (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It was in the caption at one point, but someone removed it. It can't be that difficult for someone to take an up to date photo. Per WP:NFCC#1, anything with a copyright, such as a press or stock photo for hire, would be deleted.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Is this any good? Schematic of 2017 Manchester Arena Bomb attack Drawn by myself from diagrams and schematics in the New York Times, Washington Post and The Times.[1] Fine if not. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
References
^Kenber, Billy; Phillip, Catherine; Gibbons, Katie (25 May 2017). "Explosive was designed by expert". The Times. No. 72232. p. 3. ISSN0140-0460.
Reactions
Given that there is currently an election underway in the UK would impartiality not dictate that the reactions from the leaders of other major political parties be included in addition to those of the Prime Minister?
I'd personally prefer the "reactions" section be removed until there's more reporting indicating which reactions are worth mentioning... Loads of people, including those with checkmarks by their names, have tweeted about this -- I'd rather we not make the decision about who's included based on our own opinions of their political clout, electoral campaigns, etc. I've removed the section once already, though, so I'll defer. GorillaWarfare(talk)03:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The UK has three main Political parties - the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberals, additionally there are two big regional parties in the form of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and to be totally inclusive there is also the Greens and UKIP - all I'm suggesting is including the comments of the party leaders. 51.9.21.195 (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Could we please change the reference to the 'Queen of England' (no such thing, AFAIK - the title is the Queen of the United Kingdom [of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]) to just 'Queen'. 93.89.131.57 (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the sentence about Katie Hopkins because of the OR and BLP issues involved in the way the sentence was written. In addition, her views would be given disproportionate weight by including them. BencherliteTalk12:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
All of the so-called "reactions" on the article are the predictable mush from politicians and heads of organisations "condemning" and expressing "condolences". What a bunch of PR bureaucrat pap. The sole actual reaction (if it can be called that) is that the government raised the alert to "Cobra", whatever that means. That is an actual "reaction" (an ACTION). Eliminate everything else, with a link to the "reactions" pablum page that has been created elsewhere. XavierItzm (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with most of your sentiment, as the older one gets, the more life's repetition and predictability wears on oneself. That said, to omit the predictable in a summary would create an uncomfortable information gap for the average reader. Perhaps we should compress the predictable condemnations and condolences down to 1-2 sentences to make room for more interesting and/or more varied reactions. (for example, the many buildings that lit up a Union Jack on their facade) -- sarysa (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the only genuine reactions are that the threat level was raised to critical and that the political parties suspended campaigning for 48 hrs. Everything else is predictable virtue-signaling by posturing politicians and bureaucrats. And really, does anyone give a damn about Yousef Al-Othaimeen, whoever he is, and the "condolences" his P.R. department lackeys put out on a press release? XavierItzm (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Photo of attacker
Re this edit: As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's far more of a problem that the image requires WP:NFCC than whether someone considers him to be a "piece of sh*t". There are probably going to be numerous photos of Abedi, but if past articles about attacks are anything to go by, someone will nominate the image for deletion if it fails NFCC in any way.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
That's an irrelevant WP:NOTCENSORED position. Personally, I don't think that the image that was added has a great deal of contextual significance at the moment, so it's a fair bet that it would be nominated for deletion at some point. Some users are very fussy about this and many articles have ended up with a photo of the attacker deleted because it failed WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
If we are agreed that we should include a picture, I think the picture now should stay. You are able to see what he looks like which I guess is the point.El cid, el campeador (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Why? Why the attacker's photo should be in the article? There is no point for that. It's not adding any relevant information and i's kind to insulting for the families and the people of Manchester and UK. (And also for the Free World). Sokuya (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Those arguments are WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Encyclopedias have to be detached from events, particularly the emotional aspects. Not written by the victims, or the victors, but by individuals who can look beyond their personal stake in a subject. The bottom line is that it was a major incident, the perpetrator is known, his photograph is verified, and removing it would be a disservice to future Wikipedians who are interested in this period's history. -- sarysa (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Eliminate the exiting photo because it is of poor quality? That's an opinion. I say it is pretty good quality, considering the subject dead, and therefore no additional pictures of the terrorist will ever be made. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Keep. XavierItzm (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
"Don't expose names"
It seems like the statement from the British official telling the US to stop leaking names is out of place... it seems to just be editors trying to show that other editors should refrain from leaking information before the whole story is out, and it's found its way into the article. Plus, the part about "the US continued to leak after she asked not to" is absurdist. The U.S. isn't going to stop its presses because of a low ranking British official. Just my thoughts. 97.70.97.126 (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
When the toothpaste is out of the tube, there's not a lot you can do about it. As the article says, the UK government has criticised the US and French intelligence services for leaking things that they were told in confidence, particularly the scene of crime material like the backpack bomb. It was Amber Rudd who criticised the US government, and it is unusual for a senior British government official to do this in public.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
"Home Secretary Amber Rudd said that she was irritated" If that is a big story then by all means keep it in. It needs to be rewritten to include everything that you said, not just that one individual was irritated. I'm just saying how it is now is actually laughable. 97.70.97.126 (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
That was before the backpack bomb photos and details of how the bomb was constructed were in the NYT today. The BBC says "there was "disbelief and astonishment" across Whitehall. A counter terrorism policing spokesperson said it was a breach of trust that undermined relationships with "trusted intelligence, law enforcement and security partners around the world" and undermined the confidence of victims, witnesses and their families. "This damage is even greater when it involves unauthorised disclosure of potential evidence in the middle of a major counter terrorism investigation," the spokesperson added.[3] This has now become a major aspect of the investigation, and may have far reaching impact on relations between the intelligence services in the two countries.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the ongoing leaks by US intelligence sources—described as "a breach of trust" by UK police and government authorities—have resulted in complaints by Home Secretary Amber Rudd to her US counterparts; and, following complaints to the US Embassy in London by Manchester Metropolitan Mayor Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester Police have announced that for the moment no further information will be shared with US intelligence agencies. The BBC is reporting that PM Theresa May is likely to raise concerns directly with Donald Trump at the NATO meeting in Brussels later today. (This kind of information would normally be included in the article.) Mathsci (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It's the top story on the BBC news website today. It's unclear why US officials thought that sharing crime scene specifics was helpful, and they must have been told that the material was confidential/classified at present for operational reasons.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The NYT piece itself says the photos were released by UK (without saying released to whom). I am as flabbergasted as everyone else that this should happen. Pincrete (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
"Islamic terror"
In this edit, a user asserts that "the motive is almost certainly Islamic terror". Is that true? Because all I see from RS is that ISIS claimed responsibility but authorities are still investigating. If so, then it seems we can't call it "Islamic terror" just yet.VRtalk18:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe call it "terror by a known muslim who blew himself up in a standard islamic suicide bombing manner". Self censorship from stating the bleedingly obvious is creepy at best, harmful probably in the long run.--Petlif (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
"The bleeding obvious" is just what we don't state, if the possibility is obvious to you, it is probably obvious to the reader, but could be/probably/is do not mean the same things. Pincrete (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Change "Manchester Bombing" redirect?
Seeing as this recent bombing has come to light and is probably pulling more views than the current "Manchester bombing" (the IRA's attack in '96), would it not make sense to change the redirect to be on this page instead of the IRA attack?
(If this is already being discussed, can I have a link to it, please?)
ↅ𝜞 (Contact me) (See my edits)21:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
"It was the deadliest attack in the United Kingdom since the 7 July 2005 London bombings[7] and the first in Manchester since the 1996 bombing by the Provisional IRA."
Given that the PIRA targeted a building for economic reasons, rather than attempting to kill anybody in Manchester, it seems slightly odd to mention them in an sentence about "deadly attacks". Yeah, I get it, bourgeois liberals love to hold up the PIRA as a card to smugly reel off the sentence "Christians are terrorists, too" and feel very good about themselves, but there should be some nuance in the sentence. The PIRA's paramilitary attacks did not aim to indiscriminately massacre British civilians, as was the Islamist aim in London 2005 and Manchester 2017. It should just be in the see also section. Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the 1990s attacks by PIRA are entirely relevant for this article, but some people have added them anyway. As for PIRA being good guys who never targeted civilians or carried out sectarian killings, give me a break. The only reason that they never admitted to the Kingsmill massacre was because it caused such bad publicity for them.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It isn't to say whether they are good or bad, just that their modus operandi when launching operations abroad in England was to either target the British security services or to bomb economic targets, rather attempting to kill civilians attending pop concerts. Ulster itself internally is more complex since it had aspects of a tit for tit civil war situation. But here we are discussing Manchester and the PIRA shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I would have thought it very relevant that Manchester has experienced terrorism before. The parallels with 1996 have certainly been mentioned by many news sources, not least because the anniversary of that attack is due shortly (see e.g. [4]. Prioryman (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Prioryman relevant that Manchester has experienced terrorism before, we aren't passing judgement on the PIRA cause nor on how (relatively) humane they were. Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Might I suggest we break the sentence up to avoid any drama over this issue, so it reads something like this: "It was the deadliest attack in the United Kingdom since the 7 July 2005 London bombings. It was also the first attack in Manchester since the 1996 bombing by the Provisional IRA."This is Paul (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
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.- MrX16:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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.- MrX18:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 25 May 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.
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 Islamistradicalisation.[2][3]
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".
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]
Britain raises Terror Threat to maximum level "Critical". They would only do this if they thought that they were dealing with a larger network.
Travel to Libya, Germany and Syrian training camps. [7]
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.
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]
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.
Libyan authorities call this an ISIS terror attack - citing the brother's interaction.(See #6 above).
French authorities call it ISIS terror attack - [10]
British investigators call it ISIS terror attack - "Investigators believe Abedi was part of a larger Isis-inspired terror network" [11]
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)
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)
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".
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 talk04:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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, 25 May 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)
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, 25 May 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Nope - The singers template is irrelevent here and adds no purpose or value to the article, If one wants to know about the singer they can click on the various wikilinks. –Davey2010Talk17:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this is appropriate here, and agree with Davey2010, readers that want to know more about her or the tour can follow the wikilink. — xaosfluxTalk17:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
No - She is only incidental to the subject. A person reading about a terrorist attack in the UK is probably not that interested in articles about an American pop singer.- MrX18:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
No - as the purpose being proposed does not meet all five criterion of WP:NAVBOX; which are:
All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
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.
No. Her concert just happened to be the one this happened at. It could've happened at literally any other concert and the concert's main event would still be as irrelevant to the topic of this article as it is now. Plus, it seems a little insensitive, even for Wikipedia. "Here's an article about a bombing that killed 23 people at a concert, now read about the works the artist has created." —Gestrid (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Resolved
![[2]](https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/pic-roof.jpg?w=510&strip=all){kind=link}
Done The page exists. I have formatted it almost exactly to match this article: Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting -- sarysa (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Done TompaDompa (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)