This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Can I reiterate the thanks to all the editors of this page. Watching the press we are now getting the autopsy reports of the victims, and press reports and bios of many of the survivors. I can't decide whether it is just ghoulish or encyclopedic to write a page List of victims and survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy. I am thinking that in 25 years researchers would welcome the list as a microcosm of 2017 West London society- the links it would provide would be immense- documenting the shortened lives of the disposessed rather than the Harrow and Eton bunch. Yes- lots of issues, at least it should be discussed so we can make a positive decision. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 08:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Anna Minton on councillors' links -- ClemRutter ( talk) 08:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Could my edits here be reverted if I only use American spelling? That "scary box" at the top confuses me, otherwise I'll be Wikipedia:BOLD and add my content. Just curious id it's a reason for reverting or not. 🤔 -- Codename Alex ( talk) 07:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
79.77.195.77 ( talk) 21:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Casualties |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As of 28 June 2017, the official presumed number of deaths was 80. As of 5 July 2017, 21 victims have been formally identified and their families informed. A handful more are missing and assumed dead, [1]
The police said they were using "every imaginable source" of information "from government agencies to fast food companies" to identify casualties, but did not expect a final figure until 2018 when the search and recovery operation is over. On 28 June, the authorities stated that there were known survivors from 106 of the tower's 129 flats; eighteen people among the occupants of these flats were reported as dead or missing presumed dead, whereas most of those killed were said to have been in the remaining 23 flats between the 11th and 23rd floors. [2] Some people from lower floors may have tried to move up the building, and it is thought a number of people may have ended up in one flat. [3] Some victims were identified from twenty-six 999 calls made from inside the 23 flats. citation needed The missing include many children including Amaya Ahmedin (aged 3, 19th floor), Biruk Habtom (aged 12), Fathia Ibrahim, Fatima Choucair, Firdaws Hashim, Hania Ibrahim, Jeremiah Dean (2, 14th floor), Jessica Urbano Ramiez (12, 20th floor), Mehdi El-Wahabi (8), Mierna Choucair, Yaqub Hashim, Yayha Hashim and Zeinab Choucair. [4] The youngest of those known killed, Leena Belkadi, was just 6 months old. One victim died in hospital on 15 June due to inhalation of fire fumes. [5] [6] [7] Additionally, one survivor suffered a stillbirth as a result of the fire. [8] A total of 151 homes were destroyed in the tower and surrounding area. The incident ranks as the deadliest structural fire in the United Kingdom since the start of the 20th century, when detailed records began. [9] The death toll is higher than the Bradford City stadium fire of 1985, which killed 56 people. [10]
|
79.77.193.0 ( talk) 19:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
79.77.221.247 ( talk) 13:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
79.77.195.77 ( talk) 22:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the faulty fridge was the origin of the fire. But suggesting that this as the only cause, as the infobox does, seems less than ideal. The causal contribution of the cladding, compared to that of the initial fire source, seems so much greater. How have other fire article infoboxes dealt with this issue? Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you, Martin. (Yes really - I know we've had our differences) In which case...the statement that the faulty appliance was *the cause* is somewhat misleading. Perhaps something along the lines of "first flames, which led to the cladding taking the conflagration up the building" would be appropriate. But then some wikiidiot would probably say "oh that's not yet been proven, that's conjecture or WP:BLABLA" even though everyone knows it to be true. Boscaswell talk 12:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Back to the cladding: Grenfell cladding '14 times combustibility limit' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40645205 The cladding's plastic core would have burned "as quickly as petrol" David Crayford ( talk) 01:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
compensation not getting through -- ClemRutter ( talk) 11:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Worth a watch. https://www.channel4.com/news/dany-cotton-only-a-miracle-could-have-saved-grenfell David Crayford ( talk) 21:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I want to pin down the number of firefighters. 5 FF per engine times 70 engines = 350. The only direct quote I have seen is "More than 200" but I will look further. Cotton says so many were present they could not all fit in the building and were limited by the single stairwell. David Crayford ( talk) 02:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, there is one sub-section, about the Public Inquiry. The rest of the section has paragraphs in it which are about one or another type of investigation (RBKC, police, fire service) which are often mixed up in individual paras. There is also at least one para without any refs at all. I'm not suggesting that what's said in that para isn't valid, but.
I think the section needs to be sorted by subsection and trawled for pieces without any citation. Boscaswell talk 12:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Attempts by myself and This is Paul to add the word 'faulty' to the description of the fridge have been removed by two 1st time editors. The London Fire Brigade highlighted five months before the tragedy reasons why fridge are potentially dangerous.
While most fridges and freezers work safely for years, they are potentially the most dangerous appliance in the home if they are involved in a blaze because they contain so many flammable materials. They are also one of the few electrical items to be always left on when you are sleeping.
In English law it is unnecessary to prove a device is faulty if its behaviour clearly shows it is -see
Res ipsa loquitur. I propose we say it is believed to be caused by a faulty fridge. There are of course far more important issues than the original quite small fire.
JRPG (
talk)
19:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The first one is here. I don't have the time right now to add a full citation to the article, but at some point it might be a good idea to mention these tests and note that the first test was terminated at 8 minutes, because the assembly had already failed the test, when the assembly is supposed to withstand the fire for 40 minutes. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 08:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Here we go again: looks like it spread on the outside of the tower. "Massive fire breaks out at Dubai skyscraper" http://abcnews.go.com/International/massive-fire-breaks-dubai-skyscraper/story?id=49020386 David Crayford ( talk) 22:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Video with sound on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ABC/status/893234385192972288 David Crayford ( talk) 22:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Lacunae: For reference, both Akala and Lily Allen reportedly live in the area [1] [2]. There was no need to repeat the word "local" though, so your edit is an improvement anyway. We could add those two sources to back up the assertion (still implicit in the text now) that they're locals. -- Andreas JN 466 11:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
In British English, deconstruction is an Engineering term meaning to disassemble a structure:
1. (philosophy, literature) A philosophical theory of textual criticism; a form of critical analysis that emphasizes inquiry into the variable projection of the meaning and message of critical works, the meaning in relation to the reader and the intended audience, and the assumptions implicit in the embodied forms of expression.
2. The destroying or taking apart of an object; disassembly.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deconstruction
See also http://www.deconstructuk.com/ for a UK Engineering firm that uses the professional term.
BTW I am happy to leave @Lard_Almighty 's edit to Demolition but it is not technically the same thing :)
David Crayford ( talk) 14:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
In the Political Criticism subsection of the Analyis section there is one massive para which is all to do with the Inquiry. I'm not suggesting that it be moved lock stock and barrel into the Inquiry subsection of the Investigations section, because it needs some re-writing itself, I think. And if it is moved just as it is then the Inquiry subsection in this article will be almost as big as the main article about the Inquiry. But clearly something should be done about this. I have limited Wiki time and work mainly on the Inquiry and Moore-Bick articles, so it won't be me who does it and I'm pointing out the problem here for those working on this article, since when I read through most of the article just now, the point I'm making sprung to mind immediately. Boscaswell talk 19:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I am parking three references here that will be useful.
Guardian child-abuse-panel-members-say-inquiries-are-not-independent
and
and
Guardian broadening to include council response
I also want to use the opportunity to thank David Crayford for all his hard work in monitoring this article ClemRutter ( talk) 07:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone have a photo of the building after the refurbishment? All I'm currently seeing is either before the refurbishment or during/after the fire. MartinezMD ( talk) 22:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Doing some prep with idea of making chronology into a table. Just found some live news site Refs were updated, so no longer prove the text. Think it might be a good idea to work through from the top to check them, bit by bit.
David Crayford ☎ 21:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Added a To Do box. I am still a novice editor so feel free to work on this if you know better. David Crayford ☎ 01:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Firstly- parking a reference.Ruddick, Graham (23 August 2017). "Jon Snow: reporting on Grenfell made me feel on wrong side of social divide". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 August 2017..
This could open a whole new section if anyone is brave enough to tackle it- it is not just the news media, but also Wikipedia that suffers from the same perspectives. Why for instance was there no article on the innovative Grenfell Tower, or indeed The Lancaster West Estate until after the event? -- ClemRutter ( talk) 08:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
OK you are twisting my arm- so I have put in a couple of short paragraphs. ClemRutter ( talk) 20:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I came up with https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/28/grenfell-tower-fire-was-tory-austerity-to-blame-or-do-problems-date-back-to-blair and a string of other references ... , open up your to-do list. ClemRutter ( talk) 23:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I found the following text has been commented out in Similar fires - UK. Should it be deleted, left as is or put back in?
Not a fire that spread through exterior wall assemblies:
*1905 [[Watson Street fire]] – a major fire in Glasgow which led to building regulation changes [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08y24f5 BBC podcast]
David Crayford ☎ 12:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Government published terms of reference for Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety. Need to do some restructuring to consolidate this subject as its mentioned in more than one place. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-review-of-building-regulations-and-fire-safety-publication-of-terms-of-reference David Crayford ☎ 13:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand that social media is not always a reliable source but where does Wikipedia stand on using video footage from a verified account from a public figure as a reference when social media is an increasingly popular communications vector for official bodies? Example: Dany Cotton video shared by LFB. https://twitter.com/LondonFire/status/903260089020272641/video/1 David Crayford ☎ 20:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Is this worthy of inclusion or not? Mjroots ( talk) 19:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grenfell Tower fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
IP Overview ranting |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is the overview of "such substandard content" that the article is better off without any overview at all? I thought this overview had been achieved, by consensus, after months of editing, as an acceptable stable version of a summary. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
|
I've added the polling of Courtfield ward to the "Council response" section. Feel free of course to remove & discuss if you feel it's controversial. Regards JRPG ( talk) 19:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
This makes interesting reading. Probably worthy of a subsection of its own. Mjroots ( talk) 18:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I've undone this unexplained removal of criticism from the article. It is not Wikipedia's job to suppress criticisms made in respect of the fire, events leading up to it, or events afterwards. It is simply our job to report the facts, and supply references for material incorporated into the article. Mjroots ( talk) 13:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Some rewriting is needed, for the reasons I raised on the above thread.
Anywikiuser ( talk) 14:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Anywikiuser ( talk) 14:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Currently Hackitt's review is nested in Section 11. I think it could be promoted up and expanded now the interim report is published. This section might need restructuring. David Crayford ☎ 17:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me but why does it seem like you are changing the timestamps on your posts on this talkpage?... Shearonink ( talk) 03:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This edit by Smithr32 removed the {{ Infobox building}} from the article. I've given this some thought, and on balance I think that the article is poorer without it. I can seen the reasoning behind the removal, which is why I'm raising this for discussion rather than reverting. Should the infobox be restored to the article or not? Mjroots ( talk) 13:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Could the impact section be expanded to mention investigations about similar buildings e.g. whether they will have cladding removed or replaced, who is paying/will pay for it, freeholders & councils refusing to pay for work which they/someone says is needed following the fire and leaseholders being charged huge sums for such work. Zaq69 ( talk) 19:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Going to park news here that can be mined / referenced. Will move some material to the article.
Collections
Video
News
Latest
David Crayford ☎ 12:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an external link to the Guardian article that names the victims giving mini-testimonials. Is this enough- I have refrained from doing anything as I have mixed feelings about how it fits in with wikipedias perception of the scope of an encyclopedia. Also I would know how much prominence to give it. In deciding, not to do so- I became conscious that to deny the victims their place here was a deeply offensive political act, condoning one political view of social housing. We have a whole article on Steven Lawrence so why are these childrens' names denied their place. Can we comment on this and work up a method. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 14:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I am leaving a note here for the editors of this article to say that I have recently uploaded a set of photos of Grenfell Tower and the surrounds in May 2018. See commons:Category:Grenfell Tower - after fire and commons:Category:Grenfell Tower - memorials and appeals on site and look for files with 'May 2018' in the filename (I will add a photo or two to the articles, but please add or remove photos as needed). The scaffolding has been gradually inching up the tower over the past year, along with the white sheeting, and I thought it would be good to have photos of the tower as it now looks. I will try and get more photos if and when the scaffolding and sheeting is extended to the whole tower. Presumably at some point the planned deconstruction/demolition/taking down of the tower will happen, and hopefully someone can document that with photos for use on Wikipedia as well. What will happen after that, I am not sure, though there may be some information in recent official reports and news reports. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
John Cummings ( talk) 20:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Does the section Timeline of reporting still serve a useful purpose? 80.2.41.198 ( talk) 10:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This - very long - article in the London Review of Books is a compelling read, and has lots of information which may be of use in this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
There's a lot of repetition in this article. I've cut some of it, but someone with a better understanding of its structure needs to step in and work out what information will be in each section, then delete the same information from other sections. EddieHugh ( talk) 16:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm just looking at this diff, and wondering if the consensus on not naming him in the article still stands? He's been widely named in the coverage of the inquiry; it seems remarkable for Wikipedia to refuse to do so. Vashti ( talk) 05:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I've scheduled the article to appear as part on On This Day on 14 June. Currently, there is one paragraph that is unreferenced. Can we either find references for this paragraph or remove it. There are some editors that would say this is enough reason to prevent its appearance. My own view is that one unreferenced paragraph in an article with over 400 references should not be a big deal. Mjroots ( talk) 05:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
"In the immediate aftermath of the fire, a number of unsubstantiated reports about casualties circulated online which were to later be debunked."has no citations - but but is supported by the citations in the rest of that section; much like the lede of a whole article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
71,909 page views on 14.06.2018 [3] David Crayford ☎ 09:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Just in case anyone hasn't seen it there is an excellent BBC documentary including interviews with the residents whose human compassion and organising skills contrasts sharply -in my opinion -with Kensington & Chelsea council. JRPG ( talk) 12:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
BBC have a daily podcast that may be of interest. Tower Inquiry Podcast David Crayford ☎ 23:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Another fire. Tower reportedly has cladding. [ Video footage Mile End fire] David Crayford ☎ 12:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I've re-added a very few words on the Courtfield ward leaflet issued 5 months after the fire together with 4 references. This was widely covered BUT -as the sources indicate -it is an indication of how important some councillors feel the issue is. Despite 50 years+ interest in politics, I haven't ever seen such a trivialisation of a disaster like this. I hope I misinterpreted what you meant Anywikiuser. JRPG ( talk) 20:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
We still do not have a photo of the building before it burned (after the cladding was installed). We have only photos before the cladding was installed, or after it burned. MartinezMD ( talk) 15:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Talking of images, the current appearance of the tower has changed again. I took the May 2018 image with the protective covering and scaffolding reaching to near the top of the tower. At the start of May, this news story said "Victims of the fire want the safety screen to be changed to green, which could cost an estimated £400,000." That was followed by this story a week ago (beginning of June 2018) where the top of the tower does now have some green in the form of a heart on banners saying 'Grenfell - Forever in our hearts'. When my train went past the tower this morning, I could see that they have finished putting these banners up. It has been done for the 1-year anniversary tomorrow (14 June). If anyone reading this is paying their respects at the events marking the anniversary, they could maybe get some photos (depending on the situation and if it is appropriate). There is an article here about some of the events taking place, with a 24-hour vigil starting at 6pm today. Something about that could be added to the article. Will probably need its own section, though not sure where (the article is a bit large!). Carcharoth ( talk) 10:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Jpmaytum: Thank you for your addition but did the Shirley Towers fire involve external cladding? This seems to be the characteristic editors use for it to count here under "Similar Fires." David Crayford ☎ 21:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks David. As the previous comment noted the Lakanal fire didn't involve cladding, neither did the Harrow Court fire (which also had spread up the side of the building). The most relevant reasons for linking to the Shirley Towers fire - in my view - are that the Coroner issued a Rule 43 notice to government (and other bodies) calling for the retrofitting of sprinklers into all tower blocks over 30 metres tall. Also the Shirley Towers fire led directly to changes in building regulations, which is also relevant.
Jpmaytum ( talk) 08:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Brokenshire published a long written statement on the future direction of regulation and some detail on the housing situation. He mentions Hackitt's report. Quite a bit of detail here.
Grenfell Update:Written statement David Crayford ☎ 13:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Can I reiterate the thanks to all the editors of this page. Watching the press we are now getting the autopsy reports of the victims, and press reports and bios of many of the survivors. I can't decide whether it is just ghoulish or encyclopedic to write a page List of victims and survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy. I am thinking that in 25 years researchers would welcome the list as a microcosm of 2017 West London society- the links it would provide would be immense- documenting the shortened lives of the disposessed rather than the Harrow and Eton bunch. Yes- lots of issues, at least it should be discussed so we can make a positive decision. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 08:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Anna Minton on councillors' links -- ClemRutter ( talk) 08:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Could my edits here be reverted if I only use American spelling? That "scary box" at the top confuses me, otherwise I'll be Wikipedia:BOLD and add my content. Just curious id it's a reason for reverting or not. 🤔 -- Codename Alex ( talk) 07:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
79.77.195.77 ( talk) 21:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Casualties |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As of 28 June 2017, the official presumed number of deaths was 80. As of 5 July 2017, 21 victims have been formally identified and their families informed. A handful more are missing and assumed dead, [1]
The police said they were using "every imaginable source" of information "from government agencies to fast food companies" to identify casualties, but did not expect a final figure until 2018 when the search and recovery operation is over. On 28 June, the authorities stated that there were known survivors from 106 of the tower's 129 flats; eighteen people among the occupants of these flats were reported as dead or missing presumed dead, whereas most of those killed were said to have been in the remaining 23 flats between the 11th and 23rd floors. [2] Some people from lower floors may have tried to move up the building, and it is thought a number of people may have ended up in one flat. [3] Some victims were identified from twenty-six 999 calls made from inside the 23 flats. citation needed The missing include many children including Amaya Ahmedin (aged 3, 19th floor), Biruk Habtom (aged 12), Fathia Ibrahim, Fatima Choucair, Firdaws Hashim, Hania Ibrahim, Jeremiah Dean (2, 14th floor), Jessica Urbano Ramiez (12, 20th floor), Mehdi El-Wahabi (8), Mierna Choucair, Yaqub Hashim, Yayha Hashim and Zeinab Choucair. [4] The youngest of those known killed, Leena Belkadi, was just 6 months old. One victim died in hospital on 15 June due to inhalation of fire fumes. [5] [6] [7] Additionally, one survivor suffered a stillbirth as a result of the fire. [8] A total of 151 homes were destroyed in the tower and surrounding area. The incident ranks as the deadliest structural fire in the United Kingdom since the start of the 20th century, when detailed records began. [9] The death toll is higher than the Bradford City stadium fire of 1985, which killed 56 people. [10]
|
79.77.193.0 ( talk) 19:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
79.77.221.247 ( talk) 13:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
79.77.195.77 ( talk) 22:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the faulty fridge was the origin of the fire. But suggesting that this as the only cause, as the infobox does, seems less than ideal. The causal contribution of the cladding, compared to that of the initial fire source, seems so much greater. How have other fire article infoboxes dealt with this issue? Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you, Martin. (Yes really - I know we've had our differences) In which case...the statement that the faulty appliance was *the cause* is somewhat misleading. Perhaps something along the lines of "first flames, which led to the cladding taking the conflagration up the building" would be appropriate. But then some wikiidiot would probably say "oh that's not yet been proven, that's conjecture or WP:BLABLA" even though everyone knows it to be true. Boscaswell talk 12:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Back to the cladding: Grenfell cladding '14 times combustibility limit' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40645205 The cladding's plastic core would have burned "as quickly as petrol" David Crayford ( talk) 01:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
compensation not getting through -- ClemRutter ( talk) 11:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Worth a watch. https://www.channel4.com/news/dany-cotton-only-a-miracle-could-have-saved-grenfell David Crayford ( talk) 21:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I want to pin down the number of firefighters. 5 FF per engine times 70 engines = 350. The only direct quote I have seen is "More than 200" but I will look further. Cotton says so many were present they could not all fit in the building and were limited by the single stairwell. David Crayford ( talk) 02:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, there is one sub-section, about the Public Inquiry. The rest of the section has paragraphs in it which are about one or another type of investigation (RBKC, police, fire service) which are often mixed up in individual paras. There is also at least one para without any refs at all. I'm not suggesting that what's said in that para isn't valid, but.
I think the section needs to be sorted by subsection and trawled for pieces without any citation. Boscaswell talk 12:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Attempts by myself and This is Paul to add the word 'faulty' to the description of the fridge have been removed by two 1st time editors. The London Fire Brigade highlighted five months before the tragedy reasons why fridge are potentially dangerous.
While most fridges and freezers work safely for years, they are potentially the most dangerous appliance in the home if they are involved in a blaze because they contain so many flammable materials. They are also one of the few electrical items to be always left on when you are sleeping.
In English law it is unnecessary to prove a device is faulty if its behaviour clearly shows it is -see
Res ipsa loquitur. I propose we say it is believed to be caused by a faulty fridge. There are of course far more important issues than the original quite small fire.
JRPG (
talk)
19:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The first one is here. I don't have the time right now to add a full citation to the article, but at some point it might be a good idea to mention these tests and note that the first test was terminated at 8 minutes, because the assembly had already failed the test, when the assembly is supposed to withstand the fire for 40 minutes. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 08:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Here we go again: looks like it spread on the outside of the tower. "Massive fire breaks out at Dubai skyscraper" http://abcnews.go.com/International/massive-fire-breaks-dubai-skyscraper/story?id=49020386 David Crayford ( talk) 22:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Video with sound on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ABC/status/893234385192972288 David Crayford ( talk) 22:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Lacunae: For reference, both Akala and Lily Allen reportedly live in the area [1] [2]. There was no need to repeat the word "local" though, so your edit is an improvement anyway. We could add those two sources to back up the assertion (still implicit in the text now) that they're locals. -- Andreas JN 466 11:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
In British English, deconstruction is an Engineering term meaning to disassemble a structure:
1. (philosophy, literature) A philosophical theory of textual criticism; a form of critical analysis that emphasizes inquiry into the variable projection of the meaning and message of critical works, the meaning in relation to the reader and the intended audience, and the assumptions implicit in the embodied forms of expression.
2. The destroying or taking apart of an object; disassembly.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deconstruction
See also http://www.deconstructuk.com/ for a UK Engineering firm that uses the professional term.
BTW I am happy to leave @Lard_Almighty 's edit to Demolition but it is not technically the same thing :)
David Crayford ( talk) 14:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
In the Political Criticism subsection of the Analyis section there is one massive para which is all to do with the Inquiry. I'm not suggesting that it be moved lock stock and barrel into the Inquiry subsection of the Investigations section, because it needs some re-writing itself, I think. And if it is moved just as it is then the Inquiry subsection in this article will be almost as big as the main article about the Inquiry. But clearly something should be done about this. I have limited Wiki time and work mainly on the Inquiry and Moore-Bick articles, so it won't be me who does it and I'm pointing out the problem here for those working on this article, since when I read through most of the article just now, the point I'm making sprung to mind immediately. Boscaswell talk 19:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I am parking three references here that will be useful.
Guardian child-abuse-panel-members-say-inquiries-are-not-independent
and
and
Guardian broadening to include council response
I also want to use the opportunity to thank David Crayford for all his hard work in monitoring this article ClemRutter ( talk) 07:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone have a photo of the building after the refurbishment? All I'm currently seeing is either before the refurbishment or during/after the fire. MartinezMD ( talk) 22:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Doing some prep with idea of making chronology into a table. Just found some live news site Refs were updated, so no longer prove the text. Think it might be a good idea to work through from the top to check them, bit by bit.
David Crayford ☎ 21:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Added a To Do box. I am still a novice editor so feel free to work on this if you know better. David Crayford ☎ 01:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Firstly- parking a reference.Ruddick, Graham (23 August 2017). "Jon Snow: reporting on Grenfell made me feel on wrong side of social divide". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 August 2017..
This could open a whole new section if anyone is brave enough to tackle it- it is not just the news media, but also Wikipedia that suffers from the same perspectives. Why for instance was there no article on the innovative Grenfell Tower, or indeed The Lancaster West Estate until after the event? -- ClemRutter ( talk) 08:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
OK you are twisting my arm- so I have put in a couple of short paragraphs. ClemRutter ( talk) 20:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I came up with https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/28/grenfell-tower-fire-was-tory-austerity-to-blame-or-do-problems-date-back-to-blair and a string of other references ... , open up your to-do list. ClemRutter ( talk) 23:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I found the following text has been commented out in Similar fires - UK. Should it be deleted, left as is or put back in?
Not a fire that spread through exterior wall assemblies:
*1905 [[Watson Street fire]] – a major fire in Glasgow which led to building regulation changes [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08y24f5 BBC podcast]
David Crayford ☎ 12:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Government published terms of reference for Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety. Need to do some restructuring to consolidate this subject as its mentioned in more than one place. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-review-of-building-regulations-and-fire-safety-publication-of-terms-of-reference David Crayford ☎ 13:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand that social media is not always a reliable source but where does Wikipedia stand on using video footage from a verified account from a public figure as a reference when social media is an increasingly popular communications vector for official bodies? Example: Dany Cotton video shared by LFB. https://twitter.com/LondonFire/status/903260089020272641/video/1 David Crayford ☎ 20:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Is this worthy of inclusion or not? Mjroots ( talk) 19:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grenfell Tower fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
IP Overview ranting |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is the overview of "such substandard content" that the article is better off without any overview at all? I thought this overview had been achieved, by consensus, after months of editing, as an acceptable stable version of a summary. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
|
I've added the polling of Courtfield ward to the "Council response" section. Feel free of course to remove & discuss if you feel it's controversial. Regards JRPG ( talk) 19:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
This makes interesting reading. Probably worthy of a subsection of its own. Mjroots ( talk) 18:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I've undone this unexplained removal of criticism from the article. It is not Wikipedia's job to suppress criticisms made in respect of the fire, events leading up to it, or events afterwards. It is simply our job to report the facts, and supply references for material incorporated into the article. Mjroots ( talk) 13:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Some rewriting is needed, for the reasons I raised on the above thread.
Anywikiuser ( talk) 14:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Anywikiuser ( talk) 14:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Currently Hackitt's review is nested in Section 11. I think it could be promoted up and expanded now the interim report is published. This section might need restructuring. David Crayford ☎ 17:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me but why does it seem like you are changing the timestamps on your posts on this talkpage?... Shearonink ( talk) 03:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This edit by Smithr32 removed the {{ Infobox building}} from the article. I've given this some thought, and on balance I think that the article is poorer without it. I can seen the reasoning behind the removal, which is why I'm raising this for discussion rather than reverting. Should the infobox be restored to the article or not? Mjroots ( talk) 13:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Could the impact section be expanded to mention investigations about similar buildings e.g. whether they will have cladding removed or replaced, who is paying/will pay for it, freeholders & councils refusing to pay for work which they/someone says is needed following the fire and leaseholders being charged huge sums for such work. Zaq69 ( talk) 19:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Going to park news here that can be mined / referenced. Will move some material to the article.
Collections
Video
News
Latest
David Crayford ☎ 12:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an external link to the Guardian article that names the victims giving mini-testimonials. Is this enough- I have refrained from doing anything as I have mixed feelings about how it fits in with wikipedias perception of the scope of an encyclopedia. Also I would know how much prominence to give it. In deciding, not to do so- I became conscious that to deny the victims their place here was a deeply offensive political act, condoning one political view of social housing. We have a whole article on Steven Lawrence so why are these childrens' names denied their place. Can we comment on this and work up a method. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 14:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I am leaving a note here for the editors of this article to say that I have recently uploaded a set of photos of Grenfell Tower and the surrounds in May 2018. See commons:Category:Grenfell Tower - after fire and commons:Category:Grenfell Tower - memorials and appeals on site and look for files with 'May 2018' in the filename (I will add a photo or two to the articles, but please add or remove photos as needed). The scaffolding has been gradually inching up the tower over the past year, along with the white sheeting, and I thought it would be good to have photos of the tower as it now looks. I will try and get more photos if and when the scaffolding and sheeting is extended to the whole tower. Presumably at some point the planned deconstruction/demolition/taking down of the tower will happen, and hopefully someone can document that with photos for use on Wikipedia as well. What will happen after that, I am not sure, though there may be some information in recent official reports and news reports. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
John Cummings ( talk) 20:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Does the section Timeline of reporting still serve a useful purpose? 80.2.41.198 ( talk) 10:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This - very long - article in the London Review of Books is a compelling read, and has lots of information which may be of use in this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
There's a lot of repetition in this article. I've cut some of it, but someone with a better understanding of its structure needs to step in and work out what information will be in each section, then delete the same information from other sections. EddieHugh ( talk) 16:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm just looking at this diff, and wondering if the consensus on not naming him in the article still stands? He's been widely named in the coverage of the inquiry; it seems remarkable for Wikipedia to refuse to do so. Vashti ( talk) 05:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I've scheduled the article to appear as part on On This Day on 14 June. Currently, there is one paragraph that is unreferenced. Can we either find references for this paragraph or remove it. There are some editors that would say this is enough reason to prevent its appearance. My own view is that one unreferenced paragraph in an article with over 400 references should not be a big deal. Mjroots ( talk) 05:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
"In the immediate aftermath of the fire, a number of unsubstantiated reports about casualties circulated online which were to later be debunked."has no citations - but but is supported by the citations in the rest of that section; much like the lede of a whole article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
71,909 page views on 14.06.2018 [3] David Crayford ☎ 09:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Just in case anyone hasn't seen it there is an excellent BBC documentary including interviews with the residents whose human compassion and organising skills contrasts sharply -in my opinion -with Kensington & Chelsea council. JRPG ( talk) 12:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
BBC have a daily podcast that may be of interest. Tower Inquiry Podcast David Crayford ☎ 23:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Another fire. Tower reportedly has cladding. [ Video footage Mile End fire] David Crayford ☎ 12:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I've re-added a very few words on the Courtfield ward leaflet issued 5 months after the fire together with 4 references. This was widely covered BUT -as the sources indicate -it is an indication of how important some councillors feel the issue is. Despite 50 years+ interest in politics, I haven't ever seen such a trivialisation of a disaster like this. I hope I misinterpreted what you meant Anywikiuser. JRPG ( talk) 20:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
We still do not have a photo of the building before it burned (after the cladding was installed). We have only photos before the cladding was installed, or after it burned. MartinezMD ( talk) 15:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Talking of images, the current appearance of the tower has changed again. I took the May 2018 image with the protective covering and scaffolding reaching to near the top of the tower. At the start of May, this news story said "Victims of the fire want the safety screen to be changed to green, which could cost an estimated £400,000." That was followed by this story a week ago (beginning of June 2018) where the top of the tower does now have some green in the form of a heart on banners saying 'Grenfell - Forever in our hearts'. When my train went past the tower this morning, I could see that they have finished putting these banners up. It has been done for the 1-year anniversary tomorrow (14 June). If anyone reading this is paying their respects at the events marking the anniversary, they could maybe get some photos (depending on the situation and if it is appropriate). There is an article here about some of the events taking place, with a 24-hour vigil starting at 6pm today. Something about that could be added to the article. Will probably need its own section, though not sure where (the article is a bit large!). Carcharoth ( talk) 10:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Jpmaytum: Thank you for your addition but did the Shirley Towers fire involve external cladding? This seems to be the characteristic editors use for it to count here under "Similar Fires." David Crayford ☎ 21:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks David. As the previous comment noted the Lakanal fire didn't involve cladding, neither did the Harrow Court fire (which also had spread up the side of the building). The most relevant reasons for linking to the Shirley Towers fire - in my view - are that the Coroner issued a Rule 43 notice to government (and other bodies) calling for the retrofitting of sprinklers into all tower blocks over 30 metres tall. Also the Shirley Towers fire led directly to changes in building regulations, which is also relevant.
Jpmaytum ( talk) 08:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Brokenshire published a long written statement on the future direction of regulation and some detail on the housing situation. He mentions Hackitt's report. Quite a bit of detail here.
Grenfell Update:Written statement David Crayford ☎ 13:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)