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 |
I want to repeat a "claim" does not mean it is true. I can claim that I own Canada, does this make that true? I have no problem with inclusion in the article but we cant go saying that ISIS is the perp as police haven't ruled this out as a lone wolf terrorist attack. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no change. I've been WP:BOLD and ended this move request for the time being, as there doesn't seem to be much support for it. Best to wait until things settle down.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
2017 Manchester Arena bombing → 2017 Manchester bombing – It's in line with the other two articles about bombings in the same city ( 1992 Manchester bombing and 1996 Manchester bombing). This is the only notable bombing in Manchester this year. Jim Michael ( talk) 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Tagging those who commented under the date section above: WClarke, Gamebuster19901, Shearonink, InedibleHulk, Scott Davis, Blaylockjam10, Ianmacm, Aiken drum, Octoberwoodland, Wikimandia. Neutrality talk 14:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Saying that it's unlike the previous bombings doesn't make sense. The only difference is the ideology of the terrorists and the death toll. Jim Michael ( talk) 14:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's no point in the title being longer than necessary. This is the only bombing at in Manchester this year, so why should the title specify the exact location? For example, 2017 Milan attack is sufficient. Jim Michael ( talk) 15:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
"Reports described the family as being devout and well-known to be against Isis and Islamism. Abedi's father, knwon as Abu Ismael, was described in glowing terms at the Didsbury Mosque where he and the family worshipped." Also, "[Abedi and his brothers] learned the Qur’an by heart." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.234.86 ( talk) 20:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Winsocker, I'd quite like to hear your logic in including the 1992 and 1996 IRA attacks in the lead. You say they are that this attack is the "worst" one since then, but you provided no reliable source, and "worst" could mean many different things in this context Quasar G t - c 16:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I just added the other two attacks which should be included, we can remove the word "Worst" if it helps
It really does belong in the article. There is no point of using other attacks like in 2005 and not including this one. In this logic, the 2005 attack would have nothing to do with the 2017 yet its being kept
There seems to be an edit war over a tweet by shock jock Katie Hopkins. I'm not going to continue past one revert so I will discuss here.
First, although WP:NOTCENSORED means we can't hide opinions because they are possibly attention seeking, there is no way on Earth that she is notable enough for her view to be mentioned here. Put it on her article.
Also the text was loaded, jumping to conclusions and reading between the lines to put a serious BLP claim in Wikipedia's voice. I see Bencherlite previously reverted it for that reason. This edit war needs to be settled while this is on the main page Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 12:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Esnertofidel. In addition to which, comments such as Sauske Sarutobi's ("...diverting attention way from those who deserve it...") is not encyclopediac. Wikipedia does not make moral judgements about who 'deserves' attention. We report what is reported in reliable srources. Amisom ( talk) 13:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is no consensus at all to include it. It is irrelevant to the article. Sure it's well sourced, because she said it publicly. And sure it's on topic, because she made a comment on the topic. Neither of those facts make it worth including. You can't include the comment of every political analyst, so why include this one? Getting news coverage doesn't make something encyclopedic, far from it. It makes no sense to include it, other than to draw attention away from the actual event and be apologists and make Muslims the victims. This isn't about stopping Islamophobia it's about a bombing which occurred. It's absurd to include it. El cid, el campeador ( talk) 14:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Update: the sentence about Hopkins has been removed, and Esnertofidel has been blocked for 48 hours for reaching 9RR in attempting to keep it in. Bencherlite Talk 21:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: I reverted it because it isn't a particularly good image and doesn't add much to the article. We're having problems with finding images that have good WP:IMAGERELEVANCE at the moment, compared to 7 July 2005 London bombings which has a range of images. The problem is that the images should be copyright free to avoid WP:NFCC problems. I had a look on Flickr but no luck. Please keep looking for suitable images.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Should this: #MissinginManchester: The fake images circulating online, be included in the article? More refs:
Seagull123 Φ 22:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
To the person arbitrating our
WP:3O dispute, welcome. The edit in question is
this one. The reason I keep adding it back is explained in
this diff. There are actually two discussions in this section, but my concerns are that the motivations for Winsock's edits are a violation of
WP:NOTCENSORED. Thank you. --
sarysa (
talk) 21:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC) (withdrawn)
The NYT source states that the claim came from ISIL/ISIS, as does the Independent over at the other article. People, mainly (removed) and User:Winsocker are making claims that it coming from ISIL is unconfirmed. The evidence suggests otherwise. We need to put this to rest for the sake of ending this edit war.
While I'm at it, Winsocker keeps removing the details of ISIL's boast on the other page. I have WP:NOTCENSORED on my side but I'm about to hit my second revert. -- sarysa ( talk) 20:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Winsocker (
talk) 21:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)First of all: its an unverified claim so why are you adding details to an unverified claim. Not only are you spreading a wrong definition, you are now intensifying a situation with the wrong definition and giving them fame on something they may have never done. Remember, the users reading this are not as tech savy and do research as us and may want to just skim the page. Wikipedia should be accurate and adding random information from an unverifiable claim is no good.
Winsocker ( talk) 21:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Adding this, a "khalifa" means a successor. If hes not even part of the group (there is no confirmation from official authorities) than what is he succeeding? Not to mention that ISIL is a disorganized group. Please, lets be accurate and remember that people take things on Wikipedia literally (even though they technically shouldnt). Lets keep Wikipedia as accurate and to the point as possible. I understand that some may claim it as "censorship" but how can you censor something that not only we dont have much detail about but may be untrue overall?
Code |
---|
* {{Flag|ISIL}}: The [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]] made an unconfirmed claim of responsibility for the attack,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Yeginsu|first1=Ceylan|last2=Erlanger|first2=Steven|title=ISIS Claims Responsibility for Manchester Concert Attack; Toll Rises to 22|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/world/europe/manchester-arena-attack-ariana-grande.html|accessdate=23 May 2017|work=The New York Times|date=23 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Samuelson|first1=Kate|title=ISIS Claims Responsibility For Manchester Concert Terrorist Attack|url=http://time.com/4790201/isis-manchester-concert-terrorist-attack/|accessdate=23 May 2017|work=Time|date=23 May 2017}}</ref> describing the attacker as "a soldier of the [[Caliphate]]".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manchester-arena-attack-isis-responsible-claim-suicide-bombing-islamic-state-ariana-grande-concert-a7751221.html|title=Isis has claimed responsibility for the Manchester Arena attack|date=23 May 2017|work=The Independent|last1=Dearden|first1=Lizzie|accessdate=23 May 2017}}</ref>
|
Winsocker ( talk) 21:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Fine, just to show i am not being "biased". Im not removing things I dont like, Im making sure what is being posted is correct and we do not post things that have yet to be confirmed.
Just to clarify, my
WP:NOTCENSORED concerns stem from
this edit, where Winsocker stated, "Last thing we need is to list whatever propaganda they say." I'm no fan of giving them a voice either, but we didn't censor their response to the
Orlando shooting either. --
sarysa (
talk) 20:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
Still problems with broken cites and the awful cite format breaking up the references section, after the sentence, Condolences were expressed by the leaders and governments of over two dozen countries.. Sagecandor ( talk) 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
Ref at end of this is breaking up coding in references section ? Sagecandor ( talk) 15:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Can we please not add the suicide bomber as part of the overall death count? Seems rather disrespectful to the victims to treat the attacker as "just another body". It can be put as 22 victims + 1 suicide bomber, or something. -- 84.100.78.182 ( talk) 07:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The youngest killed was 8 years old Coltongoertz ( talk) 22:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, The Islamic Human Rights Commission (UK NGO) has put out a press release calling on the Met to prosecute Katie Hopkins can we add the link to the references on Hopkins' comments on the page. [1] 81.156.85.96 ( talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
References
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.
I feel that splitting her reaction from those of world leaders is merited, as she is deeply tied to the event (it was at her concert), it's likely to expand over the next 24 hours, and it otherwise does not fit the mold of other reactions. Thoughts? -- sarysa ( talk) 16:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks better in a section of her own. But wouldn't having that placed first (followed by domestic and international) be more prominent than having domestic, international, and then Grande's reactions (which is the current order). Wes Wolf Talk 17:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I just nominated the reaction article for deletion. If you have arguments, please write them here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. I just don't think it is relevant to have an article with a lot of flags, saying "country X condemns terrorism". It's like a Facebook wall and not an encyclopedia, in my opinion. Do not argue with me here, but argue at the given link instead. Thank you.-- Rævhuld ( talk) 21:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: It is Salman Ramadan Abedi. [2] His UK birth record is here and it says that he is still alive, which he now isn't. I hope some people don't remove the Ramadan part unnecessarily.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 00:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I guess Salman Ramadan Abedi, who caused this hubbub, could be the "blowback" from NATO's 2011 military intervention in Libya which took Gaddafi down. Was this even right? -- Supreme Dragon ( talk) 03:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Should Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) be included in this article? As far as I'm aware, it has not been determined that the attack was Islamic terrorism. I removed the template once but CadAPL restored it. - Mr X 18:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC), - Mr X 18:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It happened in the European country, IS claims responsibility. Attacker is refugee from Libya. What other motives could he have? There are things that are obvious.-- TonyaJaneMelbourne ( talk) 21:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure earlier versions of this article had a couple relevant (I believe terrorism/ISIL-related) navigation templates at the bottom of the article, which seem to have been removed somewhere along the way. Do editors think there are some helpful navigation templates to include, specifically Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) and/or Template:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 02:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/world/europe/manchester-arena-attack-ariana-grande.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40020168
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/23/europe/manchester-terror-attack-uk/
71.182.248.118 ( talk) 19:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
So there was lots of vandalism on the main page and now on the talk page. Are we ready to lock?
There has been some backwards-and-forwards with the casualty figures in the infobox and the article due largely, I suspect, to inaccuracies in the media. There were 59 people hospitalised as a result of the attack and the authorities stated that they had treated "around 60" walking wounded on site. In addition, there are reports of people going home after the incident but later reporting to hospital with injuries. Many of the references cited give the number of "injured" as 59 but that is clearly wrong - not being hospitalised is not the same as not being injured!
The infobox gave the number of injuries as 59, but the two citations attached both said 120; within the article there was reference to both 59 and 64 with links to media stating 59 or 120! I have replaced some of the citations to articles that report the total number of casualties rather than just the walking wounded and have amended the figures in the article. Misha An interested observer of this and that 13:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not a big deal if the police arrest people. They have to do this to comply with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. If they did not do this, the evidence would be ruled inadmissible in court as the person had not been advised of their rights. It's WP:NOTNEWS to report arrests unless someone is actually charged in connection with the incident.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit not just removes sourced material but also inserts a bad faith comment: "Islamic apologism. Spare the article that". I take offense to that. I really hope we can discuss the merits of an edit without making assumptions as to the users motivations. VR talk 14:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
As this is at risk of becoming an edit war, I'm starting this discussion regarding the repeated removal of the blurb below by User:El cid, el campeador, initially with the comment Islamic apologism. Spare the article that.:
The Muslim Council of Britain strongly condemned the attack.(two refs, see code below)
Code |
---|
The [[Muslim Council of Britain]] strongly condemned the attack.<ref>{{cite news|title=Muslim Council of Britain 'horrified' at Manchester attack|url=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/muslim-council-of-britain-horrified-at-manchester-attack-35746579.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Islamischer Staat bekennt sich zum Attentat|url=https://www.nzz.ch/international/england-tote-bei-explosion-auf-pop-konzert-polizei-geht-vorerst-von-terrorakt-ld.1295955}}</ref>
|
Though it should be obvious that the quote is legitimate as it a domestic reaction from an organization in Britain, I seems we have to have a discussion about it. Something to link to if it's removed again. It is not a statement of fact, merely a reaction as is section-appropriate. Removing it, especially for the reason stated, is an exertion of individual bias. ( WP:POV) sarysa ( talk) 15:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Experts spoke about a new "dimension" of fake news. It's normal that fake news spreads after attacks to make the chaos bigger and out of political motives. But this time, the fake news dimensions was bigger and broader. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]-- Rævhuld ( talk) 15:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello. Sorry that as a new editor I don't feel confident to actually make changes and so am asking lots of questions.
This is an edit request on the Aftermath section re Operation Temperer. While the operation allows for "up to 5,000 troops" to be deployed, at the moment the actual number deployed is 980.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-manchester-40007967
I can't find a separate article reporting that, but it's in the updates at 16:22.
Suggested wording: "Operation Temperer was activated for the first time, allowing for up to 5,000 soldiers to replace police officers on guard duty at high-risk locations. An initial deployment of 980 troops was made."
SkagwayEntropy ( talk) 16:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
In the "Perpetrator" section I read "He had drawn attention to himself in 2015 by complaining after a sermon against terrorism and about the sanctity of life." The source requires a subscription. Is there another source that is more readily accessible supporting that assertion? Bus stop ( talk) 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Should the victims be named in the article?- Mr X 13:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Now that sounds a bit odd. -- 105.5.210.70 ( talk) 18:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
User Winsocker has reverted two edits made to the article with specific regard to the affiliation of the bomber with Islam. I did a little digging and found that he also made changes to the 2004 Madrid train bombings article and changed the motive from "Islamic extremism" to "Terrorism". I believe that Winsocker is acting in bad faith with these revisions and is trying to remove as much information as possible on this article that links the bombings to Islamic extremism.
I believe including that the bomber was a Muslim (and, per source, a radical one) is material to the article. Happy to hear what anyone else has to say. 118.210.154.206 ( talk) 04:37, 24 May 2017 (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 |
I want to repeat a "claim" does not mean it is true. I can claim that I own Canada, does this make that true? I have no problem with inclusion in the article but we cant go saying that ISIS is the perp as police haven't ruled this out as a lone wolf terrorist attack. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no change. I've been WP:BOLD and ended this move request for the time being, as there doesn't seem to be much support for it. Best to wait until things settle down.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
2017 Manchester Arena bombing → 2017 Manchester bombing – It's in line with the other two articles about bombings in the same city ( 1992 Manchester bombing and 1996 Manchester bombing). This is the only notable bombing in Manchester this year. Jim Michael ( talk) 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Tagging those who commented under the date section above: WClarke, Gamebuster19901, Shearonink, InedibleHulk, Scott Davis, Blaylockjam10, Ianmacm, Aiken drum, Octoberwoodland, Wikimandia. Neutrality talk 14:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Saying that it's unlike the previous bombings doesn't make sense. The only difference is the ideology of the terrorists and the death toll. Jim Michael ( talk) 14:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's no point in the title being longer than necessary. This is the only bombing at in Manchester this year, so why should the title specify the exact location? For example, 2017 Milan attack is sufficient. Jim Michael ( talk) 15:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
"Reports described the family as being devout and well-known to be against Isis and Islamism. Abedi's father, knwon as Abu Ismael, was described in glowing terms at the Didsbury Mosque where he and the family worshipped." Also, "[Abedi and his brothers] learned the Qur’an by heart." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.234.86 ( talk) 20:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Winsocker, I'd quite like to hear your logic in including the 1992 and 1996 IRA attacks in the lead. You say they are that this attack is the "worst" one since then, but you provided no reliable source, and "worst" could mean many different things in this context Quasar G t - c 16:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I just added the other two attacks which should be included, we can remove the word "Worst" if it helps
It really does belong in the article. There is no point of using other attacks like in 2005 and not including this one. In this logic, the 2005 attack would have nothing to do with the 2017 yet its being kept
There seems to be an edit war over a tweet by shock jock Katie Hopkins. I'm not going to continue past one revert so I will discuss here.
First, although WP:NOTCENSORED means we can't hide opinions because they are possibly attention seeking, there is no way on Earth that she is notable enough for her view to be mentioned here. Put it on her article.
Also the text was loaded, jumping to conclusions and reading between the lines to put a serious BLP claim in Wikipedia's voice. I see Bencherlite previously reverted it for that reason. This edit war needs to be settled while this is on the main page Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 12:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Esnertofidel. In addition to which, comments such as Sauske Sarutobi's ("...diverting attention way from those who deserve it...") is not encyclopediac. Wikipedia does not make moral judgements about who 'deserves' attention. We report what is reported in reliable srources. Amisom ( talk) 13:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is no consensus at all to include it. It is irrelevant to the article. Sure it's well sourced, because she said it publicly. And sure it's on topic, because she made a comment on the topic. Neither of those facts make it worth including. You can't include the comment of every political analyst, so why include this one? Getting news coverage doesn't make something encyclopedic, far from it. It makes no sense to include it, other than to draw attention away from the actual event and be apologists and make Muslims the victims. This isn't about stopping Islamophobia it's about a bombing which occurred. It's absurd to include it. El cid, el campeador ( talk) 14:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Update: the sentence about Hopkins has been removed, and Esnertofidel has been blocked for 48 hours for reaching 9RR in attempting to keep it in. Bencherlite Talk 21:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: I reverted it because it isn't a particularly good image and doesn't add much to the article. We're having problems with finding images that have good WP:IMAGERELEVANCE at the moment, compared to 7 July 2005 London bombings which has a range of images. The problem is that the images should be copyright free to avoid WP:NFCC problems. I had a look on Flickr but no luck. Please keep looking for suitable images.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Should this: #MissinginManchester: The fake images circulating online, be included in the article? More refs:
Seagull123 Φ 22:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
To the person arbitrating our
WP:3O dispute, welcome. The edit in question is
this one. The reason I keep adding it back is explained in
this diff. There are actually two discussions in this section, but my concerns are that the motivations for Winsock's edits are a violation of
WP:NOTCENSORED. Thank you. --
sarysa (
talk) 21:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC) (withdrawn)
The NYT source states that the claim came from ISIL/ISIS, as does the Independent over at the other article. People, mainly (removed) and User:Winsocker are making claims that it coming from ISIL is unconfirmed. The evidence suggests otherwise. We need to put this to rest for the sake of ending this edit war.
While I'm at it, Winsocker keeps removing the details of ISIL's boast on the other page. I have WP:NOTCENSORED on my side but I'm about to hit my second revert. -- sarysa ( talk) 20:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Winsocker (
talk) 21:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)First of all: its an unverified claim so why are you adding details to an unverified claim. Not only are you spreading a wrong definition, you are now intensifying a situation with the wrong definition and giving them fame on something they may have never done. Remember, the users reading this are not as tech savy and do research as us and may want to just skim the page. Wikipedia should be accurate and adding random information from an unverifiable claim is no good.
Winsocker ( talk) 21:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Adding this, a "khalifa" means a successor. If hes not even part of the group (there is no confirmation from official authorities) than what is he succeeding? Not to mention that ISIL is a disorganized group. Please, lets be accurate and remember that people take things on Wikipedia literally (even though they technically shouldnt). Lets keep Wikipedia as accurate and to the point as possible. I understand that some may claim it as "censorship" but how can you censor something that not only we dont have much detail about but may be untrue overall?
Code |
---|
* {{Flag|ISIL}}: The [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]] made an unconfirmed claim of responsibility for the attack,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Yeginsu|first1=Ceylan|last2=Erlanger|first2=Steven|title=ISIS Claims Responsibility for Manchester Concert Attack; Toll Rises to 22|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/world/europe/manchester-arena-attack-ariana-grande.html|accessdate=23 May 2017|work=The New York Times|date=23 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Samuelson|first1=Kate|title=ISIS Claims Responsibility For Manchester Concert Terrorist Attack|url=http://time.com/4790201/isis-manchester-concert-terrorist-attack/|accessdate=23 May 2017|work=Time|date=23 May 2017}}</ref> describing the attacker as "a soldier of the [[Caliphate]]".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manchester-arena-attack-isis-responsible-claim-suicide-bombing-islamic-state-ariana-grande-concert-a7751221.html|title=Isis has claimed responsibility for the Manchester Arena attack|date=23 May 2017|work=The Independent|last1=Dearden|first1=Lizzie|accessdate=23 May 2017}}</ref>
|
Winsocker ( talk) 21:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Fine, just to show i am not being "biased". Im not removing things I dont like, Im making sure what is being posted is correct and we do not post things that have yet to be confirmed.
Just to clarify, my
WP:NOTCENSORED concerns stem from
this edit, where Winsocker stated, "Last thing we need is to list whatever propaganda they say." I'm no fan of giving them a voice either, but we didn't censor their response to the
Orlando shooting either. --
sarysa (
talk) 20:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
Still problems with broken cites and the awful cite format breaking up the references section, after the sentence, Condolences were expressed by the leaders and governments of over two dozen countries.. Sagecandor ( talk) 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
Ref at end of this is breaking up coding in references section ? Sagecandor ( talk) 15:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Can we please not add the suicide bomber as part of the overall death count? Seems rather disrespectful to the victims to treat the attacker as "just another body". It can be put as 22 victims + 1 suicide bomber, or something. -- 84.100.78.182 ( talk) 07:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The youngest killed was 8 years old Coltongoertz ( talk) 22:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, The Islamic Human Rights Commission (UK NGO) has put out a press release calling on the Met to prosecute Katie Hopkins can we add the link to the references on Hopkins' comments on the page. [1] 81.156.85.96 ( talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
References
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.
I feel that splitting her reaction from those of world leaders is merited, as she is deeply tied to the event (it was at her concert), it's likely to expand over the next 24 hours, and it otherwise does not fit the mold of other reactions. Thoughts? -- sarysa ( talk) 16:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks better in a section of her own. But wouldn't having that placed first (followed by domestic and international) be more prominent than having domestic, international, and then Grande's reactions (which is the current order). Wes Wolf Talk 17:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I just nominated the reaction article for deletion. If you have arguments, please write them here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. I just don't think it is relevant to have an article with a lot of flags, saying "country X condemns terrorism". It's like a Facebook wall and not an encyclopedia, in my opinion. Do not argue with me here, but argue at the given link instead. Thank you.-- Rævhuld ( talk) 21:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: It is Salman Ramadan Abedi. [2] His UK birth record is here and it says that he is still alive, which he now isn't. I hope some people don't remove the Ramadan part unnecessarily.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 00:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I guess Salman Ramadan Abedi, who caused this hubbub, could be the "blowback" from NATO's 2011 military intervention in Libya which took Gaddafi down. Was this even right? -- Supreme Dragon ( talk) 03:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Should Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) be included in this article? As far as I'm aware, it has not been determined that the attack was Islamic terrorism. I removed the template once but CadAPL restored it. - Mr X 18:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC), - Mr X 18:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It happened in the European country, IS claims responsibility. Attacker is refugee from Libya. What other motives could he have? There are things that are obvious.-- TonyaJaneMelbourne ( talk) 21:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure earlier versions of this article had a couple relevant (I believe terrorism/ISIL-related) navigation templates at the bottom of the article, which seem to have been removed somewhere along the way. Do editors think there are some helpful navigation templates to include, specifically Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) and/or Template:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 02:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/world/europe/manchester-arena-attack-ariana-grande.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40020168
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/23/europe/manchester-terror-attack-uk/
71.182.248.118 ( talk) 19:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
So there was lots of vandalism on the main page and now on the talk page. Are we ready to lock?
There has been some backwards-and-forwards with the casualty figures in the infobox and the article due largely, I suspect, to inaccuracies in the media. There were 59 people hospitalised as a result of the attack and the authorities stated that they had treated "around 60" walking wounded on site. In addition, there are reports of people going home after the incident but later reporting to hospital with injuries. Many of the references cited give the number of "injured" as 59 but that is clearly wrong - not being hospitalised is not the same as not being injured!
The infobox gave the number of injuries as 59, but the two citations attached both said 120; within the article there was reference to both 59 and 64 with links to media stating 59 or 120! I have replaced some of the citations to articles that report the total number of casualties rather than just the walking wounded and have amended the figures in the article. Misha An interested observer of this and that 13:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not a big deal if the police arrest people. They have to do this to comply with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. If they did not do this, the evidence would be ruled inadmissible in court as the person had not been advised of their rights. It's WP:NOTNEWS to report arrests unless someone is actually charged in connection with the incident.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit not just removes sourced material but also inserts a bad faith comment: "Islamic apologism. Spare the article that". I take offense to that. I really hope we can discuss the merits of an edit without making assumptions as to the users motivations. VR talk 14:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
As this is at risk of becoming an edit war, I'm starting this discussion regarding the repeated removal of the blurb below by User:El cid, el campeador, initially with the comment Islamic apologism. Spare the article that.:
The Muslim Council of Britain strongly condemned the attack.(two refs, see code below)
Code |
---|
The [[Muslim Council of Britain]] strongly condemned the attack.<ref>{{cite news|title=Muslim Council of Britain 'horrified' at Manchester attack|url=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/muslim-council-of-britain-horrified-at-manchester-attack-35746579.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Islamischer Staat bekennt sich zum Attentat|url=https://www.nzz.ch/international/england-tote-bei-explosion-auf-pop-konzert-polizei-geht-vorerst-von-terrorakt-ld.1295955}}</ref>
|
Though it should be obvious that the quote is legitimate as it a domestic reaction from an organization in Britain, I seems we have to have a discussion about it. Something to link to if it's removed again. It is not a statement of fact, merely a reaction as is section-appropriate. Removing it, especially for the reason stated, is an exertion of individual bias. ( WP:POV) sarysa ( talk) 15:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Experts spoke about a new "dimension" of fake news. It's normal that fake news spreads after attacks to make the chaos bigger and out of political motives. But this time, the fake news dimensions was bigger and broader. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]-- Rævhuld ( talk) 15:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello. Sorry that as a new editor I don't feel confident to actually make changes and so am asking lots of questions.
This is an edit request on the Aftermath section re Operation Temperer. While the operation allows for "up to 5,000 troops" to be deployed, at the moment the actual number deployed is 980.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-manchester-40007967
I can't find a separate article reporting that, but it's in the updates at 16:22.
Suggested wording: "Operation Temperer was activated for the first time, allowing for up to 5,000 soldiers to replace police officers on guard duty at high-risk locations. An initial deployment of 980 troops was made."
SkagwayEntropy ( talk) 16:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
In the "Perpetrator" section I read "He had drawn attention to himself in 2015 by complaining after a sermon against terrorism and about the sanctity of life." The source requires a subscription. Is there another source that is more readily accessible supporting that assertion? Bus stop ( talk) 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Should the victims be named in the article?- Mr X 13:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Now that sounds a bit odd. -- 105.5.210.70 ( talk) 18:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
User Winsocker has reverted two edits made to the article with specific regard to the affiliation of the bomber with Islam. I did a little digging and found that he also made changes to the 2004 Madrid train bombings article and changed the motive from "Islamic extremism" to "Terrorism". I believe that Winsocker is acting in bad faith with these revisions and is trying to remove as much information as possible on this article that links the bombings to Islamic extremism.
I believe including that the bomber was a Muslim (and, per source, a radical one) is material to the article. Happy to hear what anyone else has to say. 118.210.154.206 ( talk) 04:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)