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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
With the recent event on/near London Bridge a strange pattern seems to emerge with regard to missing girls. There is one from Queensland who was with friends and seen running away - and yet three days later she had not been located, as far as I could ascertain. A Scottish girls seems to be missing from the Manchester attack. What I found today is some days old, but I have not found that she was found. I don't know what to think of that, but I do not think that should be omitted. 2001:8003:A072:4800:7DEF:9F0F:B8C7:2995 ( talk) 04:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Would a list of victims with names and ages be applicable? As most dead have been confirmed by families or the police. Or is that not necessary or needed at this time? I appreciate hearing others thoughts on this as if thought of will be adding this or someone else possibly doing it thanks. My regards.
DeAllenWeten (
talk) 03:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I see no clear consensus. Several yeses, many maybes, conditional on proper sourcing. The "nos" were grounded in feels, not policy.
Any case where a victim is singled out by notable media coverage should be included. For example http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/family-say-kelly-brewster-died-body-shielded-young-niece-manchester/ an aunt and civil servant is covered for her heroic act saving a child. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 05:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I see no problem with a brief list of names, ages, and country of origin. It's standard practice. We did it for the Orlando event, we did it for both Malaysian Airlines flights, other accidents and events, etc. I think it adds plenty to the article to have such a list. Coolgamer ( talk) 06:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
If there are WP:RS citing a list of the casualties, it seems quite unencyclopaedic to censor our these WP:RS, unless Wikipedia is somehow running out of space. XavierItzm ( talk) 23:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere., the part at WP:NOTEVERYTHING that says
Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful., and the part at WP:INDISCRIMINATE that says
[...] merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.TompaDompa ( talk) 18:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@ ZodKneelsFirst: - The attacker's name should be mentioned in the lead, as it is mentioned in the lead of any news coverage (or any long lasting coverage of the events). Your edit summaries of "Removed the attacker's name from the preview as this only seems to aid the perpetrators' aggrandisement of the murderer. The details are further down the page for anyone who wants it." and "The attacker's name is not "hightly pertinent". It's relevant, and the information is there on the page. By making him the headline you're doing Daesh's job for them." exhibit that you aren't exercising NPOV. Articles should be NPOV in relation to Islamic State / UK relations. I might agree with the UK POV, but when editing one should be NPOV. This is an encyclopedia - not a soapbox for either side. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
On 22 May 2017, a suicide bombing occurred at Manchester Arena in Manchester, England, following a concert by American singer Ariana Grande. The perpetrator detonated a shrapnel-laden homemade bomb at the exit of the arena after the show.Twenty-three adults and children were killed, including the attacker, a 22-year-old British Muslim named as Salman Ramadan Abedi, and 119 were injured, 23 critically.
Wikipedia is not a memorial, and stating that friends remember him being a footballer and a ManU fan is utter rubbish. It's wholly unrelated to the event and his motivations. El cid, el campeador ( talk) 15:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: evidence given at the inquest today has said that the bomb went off at 22:31. [1] This is more exact than the previous timing given by the police of around 22:30. It doesn't invalidate the point that 22:33 was when the police received the first emergency phone calls; according to the inquest evidence, it was around two minutes before the first emergency calls were received.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The non-free image of Salman Ramadan Abedi is used in this article. After photos of perpetrators have been deleted from other pages, is this an exception or no exception to generally photos of such perpetrators? Does this photo help readers understand the event in question? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
WClarke, who uploaded the image, is out of town. I thought about adding PROD on it, John (I wonder whether you knew that PROD now applies also to files). However, I decide wait for the uploader's response unless not necessary. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Image is taken to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 13. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Some consensus. Openly accuse editors who disagree with the inclusion of this organization as individually biased right off the hop. Far cry from the wikipedia BRD. For the record I oppose the inclusion of this organization simply virtue signalling and political advertising. It is not an authoritative voice. - A Canadian Toker (
talk) 00:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The former basis falls squarely under WP:Original research, and has been discounted when determining consensus per WP:Closing discussions. The latter concerns whether the inclusion of the template would violate Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy.
In determining whether the assertion that this is Islamic/Islamist terrorism is verified by reliable sources, the only thing that has been considered is whether the bombing has been explicitly identified as such. Circumstantial evidence and speculation can be added in prose, but the inclusion or exclusion of a template is black and white without possibility for such nuance. Note that the WP:Burden of demonstrating verifiability lies with those in favour of including the template.
Reviewing the sources put forth in this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that none of them explicitly identify the bombing as Islamic/Islamist terrorism. Consequently, they do not verify the assertion, and are not sufficient grounds for including the template. Looking at the sources in the article itself, however, I found this one from Reuters where Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Theresa May refers to this bombing as one of three terrorist attacks this year that are bound together by Islamist extremism. I'll note that Mrs. May does not use the words "Islamist" and "terrorist" in conjunction, but I would consider accusations of WP:Synthesis with regards to this to be pure WP:Wikilawyering; it cannot be both Islamist and a terrorist attack without being Islamist terrorism.
In summary, the consensus is: The template shall be included. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Should the template Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) be included in this article, (and, by extension should the article be listed in the template)? Mr X 16:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Terrorism in Europe whether you are left or right in your political leanings, is primarily Islamic in motive, readers already know that it was a Muslim who committed the crime, do you know why? Because it almost always is. The fact of the matter is, only recently did we get an attack in Egypt, you need to make a link between Islamism and this page, because thats clear to anyone who isn't in denial. Political motive and Islamism are strongly connected, I need only point you to the examples of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and other variants in other Islamic republics. The ideal of Sharia links in to this. If I am a robot, with no political leanings, no biases or agendas regarding pointing blame to ordinary Muslims, or trying to not mention the word at all to avoid offence. What would I do? I would state he was indeed a Muslim, as this was his master status, or most important defining characteristic. We know he killed himself for his beliefs, so lets state that, rather than treading on eggshells to avoid offence, don't get me wrong, I don't like that this causes people to justify Islamophobia, but we must tell the truth, this is the truth, I don't want this site to be loose with the truth and omit words for fear of offence. Factsoverfeelings ( talk) 14:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
"Islamic" terrorism? Many leaders of the Islamic faith in the UK and elsewhere condemn all Islamist terrorism, including the most recent attacks in the UK which are being attributed to Islamists. Isn't the phrase "Islamic terrorism" inaccurate, a breach of WPNPOV, and, dare I say it, Islamophobic? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
This is on the front page of The Times today. The story is here but as usual it has a paywall so you can't see all of it. From what I read, the story is a bit misleading. Abedi may well have looked at YouTube videos, but it's unlikely that every dot and comma of the bomb's construction came from a YouTube video. As the story points out, he downloaded material from other websites about Acetone peroxide (TATP), and may have had additional help when he visited Libya.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: It was reverted because it was added as part of the caption of the photo of Abedi. He was banned from a mosque "after criticising an imam for "talking bollocks"" [3] but it's unclear if it was the mosque at which the photo was taken. It's also unclear if the photo was taken at a mosque, although various sources have said that it was. Some sources say that he was banned from Didsbury mosque. [4] The fact that he was banned from a mosque is notable and worth mentioning, but it needs to stick closely to the sourcing.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The entry involving this event is proposed at Talk:2017#RfC: Events in May and June 2017, where I invite you to comment. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@
Ianmacm: @
Mymis: There has been some back&forth about whether or not the concert should be either characterized as sold-out ("sold-out" - early reporting from SkyNews) or if the tickets sold should be 14,200 with edit summaries stating that "it was not sold out, per Billboard".
Unless someone is going to try to step in and characterize Billboard as being somehow unreliable, then the Billboard box-office figure of "14,158" should probably be allowed to stand as authoritative. Shearonink ( talk) 00:28, 5 July 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.
I have questions about the widespread use of the noun "attack" to describe this event. These questions similarly concern other accounts of violence where the use of the word "attack" seems related to the country of origin or religion of the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators. I will therefore try to raise this concern elsewhere as well. (For this reason, please bear with me if you see this comment elsewhere and it seems repetitive.)
My concern is roughly as follows. First, calling such an incident an attack uses the register of war to characterize the event. (Consider for example the widespread use of the expression _armed attack_ in the UN Charter and in other instruments treating the laws of war.) This is a very specific move and seems to me to be one of consequence in our understanding of such an event. This is to say that the use of war as an animating backdrop into which to integrate our understanding of the event is a very specific choice, and by no means the only option at our disposal. Using the noun "attack" and the backdrop of war to characterize an individual event assimilates it to the plane of collective action. Assimilating an individual act to wider collective action is a very specific interpretive choice, and one that is not disinterested. For example, characterization of an event as a crime does not generally carry the suggestion of collective action. It might be objected that characterizing such an event as a crime is not apt because of the apparent political motivation of the violence considered. Options other than imposing a frame of either war or collective action onto our understand of an event are nonetheless available. Consider our understanding of the Oklahoma City bombing or the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, for example. No one doubts the political motivation underlying either event, yet our understanding of neither of these events is animated by the suggestion of either war or collective action more generally. If it is wished to indicate a wider conspiracy underlying an individual event, such a conspiracy should be indicated explicitly, not by means of suggestion or innuendo. In a dispassionate account with ambitions of being held out as a reliable encyclopedia article, collective action should be demonstrated by the evidence provided. Collective action should not be an unsubstantiated, hollow spectre that looms over every corner of such an account.
Second, even in the case that collective action--specifically, war--is chosen and adopted as the animating register for the discussion of this event, "attack" is a particularly odd choice in characterizing it. To repeat what's already stated above, both war--and more generally, collective action--are specific interpretative choices for our understanding of this event, neither is obvious or necessary. If such an interpretative choice is adopted, such a choice should be explicit and, ideally, demonstrated by the evidence--deserving a discussion of its own. Now, in the case that collective action and war is chosen as a rubric in which to understand this event, "attack" carries an added suggestion. "Attack" suggests the initiation of hostilities. Once again the claim being made is not explicit, but is glossed over by means of suggestion and innuendo. Again, one suspects that the claim comes by way of suggestion and innuendo because it would collapse if it were made explicitly. The Pentagon and Whitehall began bombing Afghanistan in October 2001, Iraq in March 2003, Syria in September 2014, and Somalia since at least October 2016. French and affiliated NATO forces began their occupation of Afghanistan in December 2001, and of Libya in March 2011. (France has also announced a bombing campaign of the Sahel region in August 2014, that includes parts of Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, Eritrea, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and Ethiopia.) One is by no means obligated to understand an individual act of violence in the United States, UK, or France in the context of "war" that includes these military campaigns singularly or collectively; as already emphasized, taking such an act to be one of war is the result of a specific interpretive choice. However, in the case that this route is selected--and an act in the United States, Britain, or France is taken to be part of a war--it seems highly misleading to further portray such an act with an incipient or initiating flavor that "attack" suggests. This portrayal is again glossed over without discussion and seemingly counter to all evidence: if an individual event is understood as a collective action that is part of a wider war, using language that suggests or attributes an initiating character to such an event seems highly dubious when that event takes place 15+ years into the supposed war. Characterizing such an event as an attack seems to want it both ways: to push an account of the event as a collective action that is an act of war, and to at the same time avoid any discussion of that wider war ("attack" with its suggestion that t=0; as opposed to "response," usually reserved for justifications of the ensuring state-violence).
Use of the word "attack" to describe such an individual act thus seems to me highly incoherent. It is an interpretive choice that on the one hand suggests collective responsibility for an individual act of violence, and does so by means of innuendo rather than explicitly (for doing so explicitly would seem dubious in the absence of specific evidence that is often simply not there to be found). And on the other hand, substantive discussion of the wider war being suggested as the animating context in which the event occurs is avoided; "attack" carries with it the suggestion (again, pure innuendo unlikely to survive serious discussion) that the event has an initiating character, glossing over the possibility that such an event could be the response to something.
For these reasons, this word does not seem worthy to form the basis of a discussion which aims to be neutral or dispassionate. Rather it seems highly politicized, and on even a moment's inspection, a tendentious characterization that summarily assimilates an individual event to a collective act of war, while at the same time denying the continuity of the very war being supposed ("attack" bearing the suggestion that event initiates, rather than responds to anything). Moreover, one wonders if the term carries slanderous suggestions; the spectre of collective responsibility cast by the word seems particularly given to scapegoating. "Conspiracy theorist" is a term of derision often used to characterize the speculations of those that suppose collective action or a plot in the absence of good evidence. Well, in addition to its being unthinking newspeak--in its current, and now longstanding, uniform use--"attack" is nothing if not a term of the conspiracy theorist. Collective action is supposed in the absence of evidence. The fear-mongering of supposed collective action gives rise to the war-mongering of suggested collective responsibility.
The innuendo and spectres that one might expect to litter Pentagon briefings should not provide the basis for an encyclopedia article that aims to be disinterested. Alfred Nemours ( talk) 15:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I would characterize the 2017 bombing of the Manchester Arena as an attack. Shearonink ( talk) 21:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Usage of the word "attack" to describe politically-motivated assaults, various truck-bombings, targeted suicide-bombings, mass murders of individuals identifying as being part of a group, etc
And then there's:
The word "attack" is a perfectly serviceable word, it describes what happened in all of these instances, in the various yearly "Attack" Categories, in the List of attacks and so on. I think, Alfred Nemours, that you consider the word to be somehow unfairly or pejoratively applied within the pages of Wikipedia, but so far, the overwhelming editorial consensus is to keep the word as is in the articles you have posted on multiple Wikipedia talkpages about. You are focussed on your interpretation of one particular understanding of the word but there are other definitions that apply:
It seems to me:
then I have to say I don't understand what the problem is with using the word "attack" in Wikipedia article titles and within the articles themselves. Shearonink ( talk) 22:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Re closure reason by Ian, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_56#Use_of_the_word_"attack"_in_various_article_titles for discussion. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 20:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Why is this article categorized under "WikiProject Islam Articles" (as well as under "C-Class Islam-related articles" and "Low-importance Islam-related articles")? Odd.
Jim Crow was justified by means of Biblical injunction. Should Jim Crow be linked to "WikiProject Christianity"? Or "WikiProject Bible"? Alfred Nemours ( talk) 09:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm just wondering if this would be worth a brief mention somewhere. It's getting a lot of coverage, though I suspect only because of what happened in Manchester. Any thoughts? This is Paul ( talk) 13:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014-present) and 2017 Westminster attack are largely redundant, because they are already covered by other see alsos and portal links. The Boston Marathon bombing is not a related incident in an immediate and obvious way that needs mentioning.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved DrStrauss talk 09:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
2017 Manchester Arena bombing →
Manchester Arena bombing – The present title contravenes Wikipedia policy, common sense and good taste.
Re this edit: I think it has problems with WP:PERTINENCE because it doesn't show the actual area of the bombing clearly. It would be better to have an infobox image of the Arena building that is newer than the one from 2010 which is used. If G-13114 is in or near Manchester, it would be very useful as the exterior of the Arena looks considerably different now than it did in 2010. The sponsorship and branding with the Manchester Evening News ended in 2011, [5] so the image is out of date; people have pointed this out before. Surely someone must be able to take an up to date photo.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Re this edit: numerous mosques and undertakers in the UK said that they would not handle Abedi's body. [6] [7] According to this source from November 2017 "His family could not find a mosque which would deal with his remains so flew them to Tripoli where they were buried in a secret location without a full Islamic service." However, it isn't strong sourcing.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Lede should include this, one way or the other. I came here to "remember" this particular attack and tbh at this point I don't know if he was Muslim or not. Expected to see it, one way or the other, in the lede. It's not there. That looks like censorship if true, and censorship by failing to say he was NOT Muslim, if it's not true. (Pandering to a religious group known world-wide to do this sort of thing over a long period of time, by failing to note that in this case it the bomber was NOT muslim, or being fearful of Muslim reprisals by failing to answer the obvious question everyone is asking.) Either way, it's censorship, IMO. The only way to deal with it is to deal with it directly. 2605:6000:6947:AB00:11DD:A43D:6F9:D330 ( talk) 08:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Recent edits have removed the wording "Islamist terror" etc from the article - I have restored the wording but let's discuss the matter here. Shearonink ( talk) 18:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
So there’s no motive for his actions? Lavinia Belcrove ( talk) 02:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a clear ideology behind the attempt to deny and wipe out the Muslim origin of so many terrorist attacks nowadays. The origin is Islam, and the big plan of these terrorists to turn the whole world to be Muslim. This idea is clearly expressed and preached in mosques and elsewhere, and is the source of motivation to these attacks. It is not a question of race or ethnicity but of a cultural motivation. Known are the cases of Western origin individuals who converted to Islam and then went out to commit terrorist attacks in the name of Islam.
On the other hand, there is the approach of ideologists, such as Barack Obama, who think that if they deny this fact, they would somehow contribute to world peace. I still remember how Obama described the Islamic terrorist attack on the Jewish supermarket in Paris, killing four jews this way: "...a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who... randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” [11]. Muslims turned into zealots and Jews turned into folks. What a way to understand reality.
As far as the human experience is accumulated so far, denying a problem is never the way to solve it, and even if it was, the job of Wikipedia is to tell the truth, otherwise it stops being an encyclopedia and turns into Pravda. ( אריסטו המקורי ( talk) 10:03, 7 March 2019 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
With the recent event on/near London Bridge a strange pattern seems to emerge with regard to missing girls. There is one from Queensland who was with friends and seen running away - and yet three days later she had not been located, as far as I could ascertain. A Scottish girls seems to be missing from the Manchester attack. What I found today is some days old, but I have not found that she was found. I don't know what to think of that, but I do not think that should be omitted. 2001:8003:A072:4800:7DEF:9F0F:B8C7:2995 ( talk) 04:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Would a list of victims with names and ages be applicable? As most dead have been confirmed by families or the police. Or is that not necessary or needed at this time? I appreciate hearing others thoughts on this as if thought of will be adding this or someone else possibly doing it thanks. My regards.
DeAllenWeten (
talk) 03:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I see no clear consensus. Several yeses, many maybes, conditional on proper sourcing. The "nos" were grounded in feels, not policy.
Any case where a victim is singled out by notable media coverage should be included. For example http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/family-say-kelly-brewster-died-body-shielded-young-niece-manchester/ an aunt and civil servant is covered for her heroic act saving a child. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 05:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I see no problem with a brief list of names, ages, and country of origin. It's standard practice. We did it for the Orlando event, we did it for both Malaysian Airlines flights, other accidents and events, etc. I think it adds plenty to the article to have such a list. Coolgamer ( talk) 06:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
If there are WP:RS citing a list of the casualties, it seems quite unencyclopaedic to censor our these WP:RS, unless Wikipedia is somehow running out of space. XavierItzm ( talk) 23:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere., the part at WP:NOTEVERYTHING that says
Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful., and the part at WP:INDISCRIMINATE that says
[...] merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.TompaDompa ( talk) 18:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@ ZodKneelsFirst: - The attacker's name should be mentioned in the lead, as it is mentioned in the lead of any news coverage (or any long lasting coverage of the events). Your edit summaries of "Removed the attacker's name from the preview as this only seems to aid the perpetrators' aggrandisement of the murderer. The details are further down the page for anyone who wants it." and "The attacker's name is not "hightly pertinent". It's relevant, and the information is there on the page. By making him the headline you're doing Daesh's job for them." exhibit that you aren't exercising NPOV. Articles should be NPOV in relation to Islamic State / UK relations. I might agree with the UK POV, but when editing one should be NPOV. This is an encyclopedia - not a soapbox for either side. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
On 22 May 2017, a suicide bombing occurred at Manchester Arena in Manchester, England, following a concert by American singer Ariana Grande. The perpetrator detonated a shrapnel-laden homemade bomb at the exit of the arena after the show.Twenty-three adults and children were killed, including the attacker, a 22-year-old British Muslim named as Salman Ramadan Abedi, and 119 were injured, 23 critically.
Wikipedia is not a memorial, and stating that friends remember him being a footballer and a ManU fan is utter rubbish. It's wholly unrelated to the event and his motivations. El cid, el campeador ( talk) 15:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: evidence given at the inquest today has said that the bomb went off at 22:31. [1] This is more exact than the previous timing given by the police of around 22:30. It doesn't invalidate the point that 22:33 was when the police received the first emergency phone calls; according to the inquest evidence, it was around two minutes before the first emergency calls were received.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The non-free image of Salman Ramadan Abedi is used in this article. After photos of perpetrators have been deleted from other pages, is this an exception or no exception to generally photos of such perpetrators? Does this photo help readers understand the event in question? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
WClarke, who uploaded the image, is out of town. I thought about adding PROD on it, John (I wonder whether you knew that PROD now applies also to files). However, I decide wait for the uploader's response unless not necessary. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Image is taken to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 13. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Some consensus. Openly accuse editors who disagree with the inclusion of this organization as individually biased right off the hop. Far cry from the wikipedia BRD. For the record I oppose the inclusion of this organization simply virtue signalling and political advertising. It is not an authoritative voice. - A Canadian Toker (
talk) 00:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The former basis falls squarely under WP:Original research, and has been discounted when determining consensus per WP:Closing discussions. The latter concerns whether the inclusion of the template would violate Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy.
In determining whether the assertion that this is Islamic/Islamist terrorism is verified by reliable sources, the only thing that has been considered is whether the bombing has been explicitly identified as such. Circumstantial evidence and speculation can be added in prose, but the inclusion or exclusion of a template is black and white without possibility for such nuance. Note that the WP:Burden of demonstrating verifiability lies with those in favour of including the template.
Reviewing the sources put forth in this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that none of them explicitly identify the bombing as Islamic/Islamist terrorism. Consequently, they do not verify the assertion, and are not sufficient grounds for including the template. Looking at the sources in the article itself, however, I found this one from Reuters where Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Theresa May refers to this bombing as one of three terrorist attacks this year that are bound together by Islamist extremism. I'll note that Mrs. May does not use the words "Islamist" and "terrorist" in conjunction, but I would consider accusations of WP:Synthesis with regards to this to be pure WP:Wikilawyering; it cannot be both Islamist and a terrorist attack without being Islamist terrorism.
In summary, the consensus is: The template shall be included. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Should the template Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) be included in this article, (and, by extension should the article be listed in the template)? Mr X 16:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Terrorism in Europe whether you are left or right in your political leanings, is primarily Islamic in motive, readers already know that it was a Muslim who committed the crime, do you know why? Because it almost always is. The fact of the matter is, only recently did we get an attack in Egypt, you need to make a link between Islamism and this page, because thats clear to anyone who isn't in denial. Political motive and Islamism are strongly connected, I need only point you to the examples of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and other variants in other Islamic republics. The ideal of Sharia links in to this. If I am a robot, with no political leanings, no biases or agendas regarding pointing blame to ordinary Muslims, or trying to not mention the word at all to avoid offence. What would I do? I would state he was indeed a Muslim, as this was his master status, or most important defining characteristic. We know he killed himself for his beliefs, so lets state that, rather than treading on eggshells to avoid offence, don't get me wrong, I don't like that this causes people to justify Islamophobia, but we must tell the truth, this is the truth, I don't want this site to be loose with the truth and omit words for fear of offence. Factsoverfeelings ( talk) 14:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
"Islamic" terrorism? Many leaders of the Islamic faith in the UK and elsewhere condemn all Islamist terrorism, including the most recent attacks in the UK which are being attributed to Islamists. Isn't the phrase "Islamic terrorism" inaccurate, a breach of WPNPOV, and, dare I say it, Islamophobic? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
This is on the front page of The Times today. The story is here but as usual it has a paywall so you can't see all of it. From what I read, the story is a bit misleading. Abedi may well have looked at YouTube videos, but it's unlikely that every dot and comma of the bomb's construction came from a YouTube video. As the story points out, he downloaded material from other websites about Acetone peroxide (TATP), and may have had additional help when he visited Libya.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: It was reverted because it was added as part of the caption of the photo of Abedi. He was banned from a mosque "after criticising an imam for "talking bollocks"" [3] but it's unclear if it was the mosque at which the photo was taken. It's also unclear if the photo was taken at a mosque, although various sources have said that it was. Some sources say that he was banned from Didsbury mosque. [4] The fact that he was banned from a mosque is notable and worth mentioning, but it needs to stick closely to the sourcing.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The entry involving this event is proposed at Talk:2017#RfC: Events in May and June 2017, where I invite you to comment. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@
Ianmacm: @
Mymis: There has been some back&forth about whether or not the concert should be either characterized as sold-out ("sold-out" - early reporting from SkyNews) or if the tickets sold should be 14,200 with edit summaries stating that "it was not sold out, per Billboard".
Unless someone is going to try to step in and characterize Billboard as being somehow unreliable, then the Billboard box-office figure of "14,158" should probably be allowed to stand as authoritative. Shearonink ( talk) 00:28, 5 July 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.
I have questions about the widespread use of the noun "attack" to describe this event. These questions similarly concern other accounts of violence where the use of the word "attack" seems related to the country of origin or religion of the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators. I will therefore try to raise this concern elsewhere as well. (For this reason, please bear with me if you see this comment elsewhere and it seems repetitive.)
My concern is roughly as follows. First, calling such an incident an attack uses the register of war to characterize the event. (Consider for example the widespread use of the expression _armed attack_ in the UN Charter and in other instruments treating the laws of war.) This is a very specific move and seems to me to be one of consequence in our understanding of such an event. This is to say that the use of war as an animating backdrop into which to integrate our understanding of the event is a very specific choice, and by no means the only option at our disposal. Using the noun "attack" and the backdrop of war to characterize an individual event assimilates it to the plane of collective action. Assimilating an individual act to wider collective action is a very specific interpretive choice, and one that is not disinterested. For example, characterization of an event as a crime does not generally carry the suggestion of collective action. It might be objected that characterizing such an event as a crime is not apt because of the apparent political motivation of the violence considered. Options other than imposing a frame of either war or collective action onto our understand of an event are nonetheless available. Consider our understanding of the Oklahoma City bombing or the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, for example. No one doubts the political motivation underlying either event, yet our understanding of neither of these events is animated by the suggestion of either war or collective action more generally. If it is wished to indicate a wider conspiracy underlying an individual event, such a conspiracy should be indicated explicitly, not by means of suggestion or innuendo. In a dispassionate account with ambitions of being held out as a reliable encyclopedia article, collective action should be demonstrated by the evidence provided. Collective action should not be an unsubstantiated, hollow spectre that looms over every corner of such an account.
Second, even in the case that collective action--specifically, war--is chosen and adopted as the animating register for the discussion of this event, "attack" is a particularly odd choice in characterizing it. To repeat what's already stated above, both war--and more generally, collective action--are specific interpretative choices for our understanding of this event, neither is obvious or necessary. If such an interpretative choice is adopted, such a choice should be explicit and, ideally, demonstrated by the evidence--deserving a discussion of its own. Now, in the case that collective action and war is chosen as a rubric in which to understand this event, "attack" carries an added suggestion. "Attack" suggests the initiation of hostilities. Once again the claim being made is not explicit, but is glossed over by means of suggestion and innuendo. Again, one suspects that the claim comes by way of suggestion and innuendo because it would collapse if it were made explicitly. The Pentagon and Whitehall began bombing Afghanistan in October 2001, Iraq in March 2003, Syria in September 2014, and Somalia since at least October 2016. French and affiliated NATO forces began their occupation of Afghanistan in December 2001, and of Libya in March 2011. (France has also announced a bombing campaign of the Sahel region in August 2014, that includes parts of Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, Eritrea, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and Ethiopia.) One is by no means obligated to understand an individual act of violence in the United States, UK, or France in the context of "war" that includes these military campaigns singularly or collectively; as already emphasized, taking such an act to be one of war is the result of a specific interpretive choice. However, in the case that this route is selected--and an act in the United States, Britain, or France is taken to be part of a war--it seems highly misleading to further portray such an act with an incipient or initiating flavor that "attack" suggests. This portrayal is again glossed over without discussion and seemingly counter to all evidence: if an individual event is understood as a collective action that is part of a wider war, using language that suggests or attributes an initiating character to such an event seems highly dubious when that event takes place 15+ years into the supposed war. Characterizing such an event as an attack seems to want it both ways: to push an account of the event as a collective action that is an act of war, and to at the same time avoid any discussion of that wider war ("attack" with its suggestion that t=0; as opposed to "response," usually reserved for justifications of the ensuring state-violence).
Use of the word "attack" to describe such an individual act thus seems to me highly incoherent. It is an interpretive choice that on the one hand suggests collective responsibility for an individual act of violence, and does so by means of innuendo rather than explicitly (for doing so explicitly would seem dubious in the absence of specific evidence that is often simply not there to be found). And on the other hand, substantive discussion of the wider war being suggested as the animating context in which the event occurs is avoided; "attack" carries with it the suggestion (again, pure innuendo unlikely to survive serious discussion) that the event has an initiating character, glossing over the possibility that such an event could be the response to something.
For these reasons, this word does not seem worthy to form the basis of a discussion which aims to be neutral or dispassionate. Rather it seems highly politicized, and on even a moment's inspection, a tendentious characterization that summarily assimilates an individual event to a collective act of war, while at the same time denying the continuity of the very war being supposed ("attack" bearing the suggestion that event initiates, rather than responds to anything). Moreover, one wonders if the term carries slanderous suggestions; the spectre of collective responsibility cast by the word seems particularly given to scapegoating. "Conspiracy theorist" is a term of derision often used to characterize the speculations of those that suppose collective action or a plot in the absence of good evidence. Well, in addition to its being unthinking newspeak--in its current, and now longstanding, uniform use--"attack" is nothing if not a term of the conspiracy theorist. Collective action is supposed in the absence of evidence. The fear-mongering of supposed collective action gives rise to the war-mongering of suggested collective responsibility.
The innuendo and spectres that one might expect to litter Pentagon briefings should not provide the basis for an encyclopedia article that aims to be disinterested. Alfred Nemours ( talk) 15:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I would characterize the 2017 bombing of the Manchester Arena as an attack. Shearonink ( talk) 21:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Usage of the word "attack" to describe politically-motivated assaults, various truck-bombings, targeted suicide-bombings, mass murders of individuals identifying as being part of a group, etc
And then there's:
The word "attack" is a perfectly serviceable word, it describes what happened in all of these instances, in the various yearly "Attack" Categories, in the List of attacks and so on. I think, Alfred Nemours, that you consider the word to be somehow unfairly or pejoratively applied within the pages of Wikipedia, but so far, the overwhelming editorial consensus is to keep the word as is in the articles you have posted on multiple Wikipedia talkpages about. You are focussed on your interpretation of one particular understanding of the word but there are other definitions that apply:
It seems to me:
then I have to say I don't understand what the problem is with using the word "attack" in Wikipedia article titles and within the articles themselves. Shearonink ( talk) 22:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Re closure reason by Ian, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_56#Use_of_the_word_"attack"_in_various_article_titles for discussion. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 20:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Why is this article categorized under "WikiProject Islam Articles" (as well as under "C-Class Islam-related articles" and "Low-importance Islam-related articles")? Odd.
Jim Crow was justified by means of Biblical injunction. Should Jim Crow be linked to "WikiProject Christianity"? Or "WikiProject Bible"? Alfred Nemours ( talk) 09:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm just wondering if this would be worth a brief mention somewhere. It's getting a lot of coverage, though I suspect only because of what happened in Manchester. Any thoughts? This is Paul ( talk) 13:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014-present) and 2017 Westminster attack are largely redundant, because they are already covered by other see alsos and portal links. The Boston Marathon bombing is not a related incident in an immediate and obvious way that needs mentioning.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved DrStrauss talk 09:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
2017 Manchester Arena bombing →
Manchester Arena bombing – The present title contravenes Wikipedia policy, common sense and good taste.
Re this edit: I think it has problems with WP:PERTINENCE because it doesn't show the actual area of the bombing clearly. It would be better to have an infobox image of the Arena building that is newer than the one from 2010 which is used. If G-13114 is in or near Manchester, it would be very useful as the exterior of the Arena looks considerably different now than it did in 2010. The sponsorship and branding with the Manchester Evening News ended in 2011, [5] so the image is out of date; people have pointed this out before. Surely someone must be able to take an up to date photo.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Re this edit: numerous mosques and undertakers in the UK said that they would not handle Abedi's body. [6] [7] According to this source from November 2017 "His family could not find a mosque which would deal with his remains so flew them to Tripoli where they were buried in a secret location without a full Islamic service." However, it isn't strong sourcing.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Lede should include this, one way or the other. I came here to "remember" this particular attack and tbh at this point I don't know if he was Muslim or not. Expected to see it, one way or the other, in the lede. It's not there. That looks like censorship if true, and censorship by failing to say he was NOT Muslim, if it's not true. (Pandering to a religious group known world-wide to do this sort of thing over a long period of time, by failing to note that in this case it the bomber was NOT muslim, or being fearful of Muslim reprisals by failing to answer the obvious question everyone is asking.) Either way, it's censorship, IMO. The only way to deal with it is to deal with it directly. 2605:6000:6947:AB00:11DD:A43D:6F9:D330 ( talk) 08:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Recent edits have removed the wording "Islamist terror" etc from the article - I have restored the wording but let's discuss the matter here. Shearonink ( talk) 18:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
So there’s no motive for his actions? Lavinia Belcrove ( talk) 02:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a clear ideology behind the attempt to deny and wipe out the Muslim origin of so many terrorist attacks nowadays. The origin is Islam, and the big plan of these terrorists to turn the whole world to be Muslim. This idea is clearly expressed and preached in mosques and elsewhere, and is the source of motivation to these attacks. It is not a question of race or ethnicity but of a cultural motivation. Known are the cases of Western origin individuals who converted to Islam and then went out to commit terrorist attacks in the name of Islam.
On the other hand, there is the approach of ideologists, such as Barack Obama, who think that if they deny this fact, they would somehow contribute to world peace. I still remember how Obama described the Islamic terrorist attack on the Jewish supermarket in Paris, killing four jews this way: "...a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who... randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” [11]. Muslims turned into zealots and Jews turned into folks. What a way to understand reality.
As far as the human experience is accumulated so far, denying a problem is never the way to solve it, and even if it was, the job of Wikipedia is to tell the truth, otherwise it stops being an encyclopedia and turns into Pravda. ( אריסטו המקורי ( talk) 10:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC))