Talk:2017 Finsbury Park van attack/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Aftermath

Is it noteworthy that the Red Cross helped victims? It's the Red Cross. We can assume the victims received medical care. The "Aftermath" section looks too paltry to be justified as a section. RustlingLeaves (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say not, no more then saying the Police or St Johns ambulance responded (if they did). But the section should stay.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I've merged sections and hadn't read prev. comment, I have no opinion as to whether BRC contribution is noteworthy.Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the Red Cross part per WP:BOLD. TompaDompa (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Including ISIS' response

Previously there was a short paragraph under "Organisations" where ISIS gave their response. This has since been deleted because it's ISIS and they're bad guys / biased. Can someone with more experience clarify if there's a rule that we don't quote ISIS? I personally didn't have a problem with it. RustlingLeaves (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It is one thing to quote terrorist supporters or even activists provided there is a link to a valid media source and it clarifies something or explains something. To quote such ilk willy-nilly to justify or threaten is something else. And um, by the way, I don't recall anyone quoting the Ku Klux Klan after Dylann Roof perpetrated the massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, just to cite one example. Quis separabit? 01:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Ku Klux Klan, to my understanding, is not really an active organization that is carrying out actual attacks - but is rather at present (the 3rd klan) - a set of diverse (and very small) groups that use the Klan's name (so it is really dozens of different "Klans" - all still bigoted). The Klan actually is not the correct analogy - the analogy here would be Black supremacists (e.g. Black Guerrilla Family or New Black Panther Party) - had they used Roof's act as a call for Black action. I do not recall such a thing being covered by WP:RS at the time. In ISIS's case in relation to this attack - we have an active belligerent (responsible for multiple attacks in Britain) which is covered in WP:RS making calls for violence because of the Finsbury attack.Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

An ISIS supporter isn't ISIS. One is a major organization, the other is a person with Internet access and an opinion. ISIS' response is worth a paragraph, when it exists. When it doesn't, we often go with Amaq's opinion. But when that's also absent, we don't resort to scraping the bottom of the barrel. I get that it's weird to hear of Muslims, terror, Britain and not ISIS in one of these things, but reaching just for the sake of consistency is weirder. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiple WP:RS are covering ISIS's response and use of this incident as incitement/recruitment for attacks. This is a conflict - to which ISIS is a major belligerent side (carrying out 3 major attacks in the UK this year, so far). We should cover, on Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, responses from all sides - Radical Islamists, anti-Islamists, and the peaceful majority in-between. Just as we would include IRA and Ulster Unionists responses during the Troubles (as well as the UK government). If all we do here - is parrot the boiler-plate condemnations (which are 99% of responses) - that's not what an encyclopedia does. The perpetrator in this incident acted in a particular environment. Others support his actions (so while 99% may oppose, he is not alone), the radical Islamists who are another side to this conflict are also with support. If we cut this out - we make this look like - "man out of the blue decided all by himself, without a soul in the world influencing him (and the opposing side), to attack" - which is not the situation here. The anti-Islamists and Islamists - are feeding off each other, and when this is noted by WP:RS - we should note this as well.Icewhiz (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Then use a source attributing these incitements/recruitments to ISIS instead of ISIS supporters. Everything has fans online, these fans can't represent the things. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

ISIS recruits and incites people via on-line activity. Not everything is "official" statements - most aren't. In this case we have multiple WP:RS covering the use of this incident to incite further violence - this is notable. This isn't "one random guy" - but a mass of activity, that has attracted the attention both of counter-terrorism experts and the media. How we phrase this - is a different matter.Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Anybody can be anybody online, and often are. But when reliable sources explicitly say a message "verified" by an analyst is from a supporter, it's not Wikipedia's place to assume he's a secret member or unofficial spokesman, just because it's possible. Could be an undercover cop, too. I don't know where you saw anything resembling a mass of activity or a second expert. It was just Michael Smith (a likely name) reading a few things he found, in both stories we'd used. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is relevant because several ISIS supporters have used this to incite violence. ISIS is an informal network - at least outside of zones they control in Syria/Iraq (and elsewhere via affiliates) - many of the attackers in the West who have claimed ISIS allegiance weren't "members" in any sense of the word - they "self radicalized" and chose to carry out attacks in the name of ISIS (to the point, Obama when refering to Omar Mateen said “investigators do not have any information to indicate that a foreign terrorist group directed the attack in Orlando.”[1]. It doesn't seem to me, from my knowledge of the sources, that "self radicalization" relies on "official" ISIS people - for instance Ahmad Musa Jibril (an article I worked on recently - as a result of the London Bridge attack) isn't known to be affiliated with ISIS. He doesn't even explicitly extol violence. He mainly (in the on-line videos) covers, in English, Salafist doctrinal teachings on day to day life in the West (Islamic behavior, fasting, western medicine, etc.) while speaking sympathetically regarding the plight of Syrians - and despite that - he's cited (widely!) as being a major influence on many Jihadists who carry out attacks (both in the West, and on Western Jihadis who travel to Syria (at one point - IIRC 60%+ of such Western English-speaking Jihadies studied were following Jibril's twitter)).Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

ISIS uses every Muslim killed by any coalition member, civilian or military, to rally for killing all coalition members, civilian or military. There's nothing stopping independent terrorists from reaching the same simple idea, as Mateen did, and naturally leaning toward the most famous enemy of their enemy, especially when it'll give their demands publicity. Pledging allegiance to a group only means considering oneself an ally. Says nothing about membership, or appropriateness to speak on the group's behalf. I don't know how we'd even begin deciding who speaks for the self-radicalized as a whole, since there inherently is no whole and never has been. Whoever it is, it should have a name, unlike the nobody (or nobodies) we heard from here. They weren't even speaking to the press, just discovered. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

They use every Muslim death, sure, but some are used more than others - and this is one of them (Muslim worshipers struck after Ramadan prayers). Before the 1990s (and more so 2000s) all the self-radicalization thing was non-existent. You had groups. Chains of command. Leaders. Orders. etc. With the rise of Twitter, Facebook, and the self-radicalized - you have sounding chambers where cliques of relatively anonymous (and shifting) people have a much wider influence than before. Alas - this is the nature of the 2010s terror - the message is spread by diffuse means, and individuals choose to act on their own accord following online instruction on motivation and methods. 20-30 years ago the message of "Jihadi Joe" was of no consequence - today the mass of such Joes is. (This is an area which is a hot research topic).Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence of the paragraph had also turned the complaint about crusaders killing Muslims seeking revenge for killed Muslims to one about police "dealing with ISIS terrorists". Even if the source of an instant message is anonymous (or a bad guy), that's less a paraphrase and more plain twisted. If you don't want to relay what someone actually says, don't relay it at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It was a summary of at least three different statements - perhaps a (self admittedly) badly done summary.Icewhiz (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It was all in one statement from one account. The Independent called it "messages" and referred to the same post from the other two paragraphs as "one such post", so I can see how you might have imagined three. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree that I am not sure this is really all that relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

As of yet ISIS has nothing to do with this terrorist attack. Funkinwolf (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The East London Mosque

Is there reason to believe the hoax bomb call at the East London Mosque was connected to the Finsbury Park Attack, or is the article just collecting mosque harassment? Slipping that in at the end implies a connection. RustlingLeaves (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not dis-similar to coats and other bric-a-brac causing bomb scares after other recent attacks and it isn't essential that there be any connection. More importantly, I can't see this in the used source. Pincrete (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The death is still not confirmed

Someone has removed the "possibly" to give the impression that a cause of death has been confirmed. It has not. The cited article says "a coroner’s inquest would formally establish the cause of death" and "an investigation was underway to establish whether Mr Ali’s death was linked to the atrocity". RustlingLeaves (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I was that someone. My understanding was that the post-mortem report (which was covered in multiple RS - I quoted just one) determined that he collapsed initially due a leg problem, and that he subsequently died of "multiple injuries" - from being run over. There will still be a coroner's inquest - but my understanding is that this is a formality (that would be carried out in any case). Initially there were doubts as to whether he had a heart attack - these seem to have been allayed - and the status is now similar to any terror (or crime) incident in which people have died and a coroner's inquest was not concluded (a few days/weeks after) - which would typically be written up here a "dead" and not "possibly". My understanding is that this is now not a "possibly".Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is CNN - [2] - A 51-year-old man who suffered "multiple injuries" during the Finsbury Park terror attack in London earlier this week has died, British police said on Thursday. A post-mortem carried out at London's Whittington Hospital confirmed Makram Ali died of the injuries sustained when a man plowed his van into a crowd of worshipers leaving Ramadan prayers in the early hours of Monday morning. - whose interpretation of "multiple injuries" is "died of the injuries sustained when a man plowed his van".Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be saying he definitely died from the injuries then, whereas the Independent article says police are still investigating that. I'm a bit suspicious, the relatives are saying he collapsed from a weak leg. Why would he need CPR for a weak leg. Witnesses and earlier reports all said heart attack and CPR. Was he receiving CPR or not. RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The previous CPR bit wasn't 100% confirmed - it was in some sources, yes. But others just said first aid. He was on the floor and tended to at the time of the attack (that much was certain). the CPR bit could've come from witnesses who didn't quite know what was going on - you get that in these kinds of scenarios. The police are still investigating until the suspect is prosecuted - but that is true in any attack. I think the initial uncertainty regarding the cause of death has been allayed quite a bit - at least per my understanding RS today.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I undid the changes based on the cited source, before I saw this discussion. Sorry about that. I'll look into this some more and maybe self-revert (and replace the source) afterwards. TompaDompa (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so I found this from the Metropolitan Police, which states: Preliminary findings are that Mr Ali died of multiple injuries. Based on the word preliminary, I'm not going to self-revert. I am, however, going to add this source to the infobox. TompaDompa (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of "preliminary" in this context - is that the certainty here has risen to a "usual" victim of a "usual" attack - prior to full coroner inquest (which takes time) - e.g. - this would be same status as the London Bridge casualties for a few days after the attack - who were usually listed (in RS and on-wiki) as dead due to the attack and not possibly dead due to the attack. I'll note that I added the possibly qualification to begin with (when the article was written up).Icewhiz (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand the point you're making, but I don't entirely agree. For one thing, I don't think your interpretation of "preliminary" in this context is a self-evident one. For another, I don't think it's a one-to-one comparison; in most cases, there is no other suspected potential cause of death. Fortunately, we don't really need to make a firm decision in this particular case – we can simply stick to the "safe" phrasing (i.e. the one with "possibly") until the official cause of death is established, since we know that the coroner is working on it. TompaDompa (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the 'possibly', but retained the note. There is no doubt that there was one fatality, the only doubt was/is whether that death was (wholly) caused by the incident. Surely? Pincrete (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I would've retained "possibly" (or some other disclaimer). It seems odd to me to include someone who died at the time and place if they died for a different reason (which may or may not be the case here; preliminary findings indicate that it isn't). I wouldn't count FDR or Hitler as WWII deaths, either. TompaDompa (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The existence of the murder charge means police reasonably suspect buddy was killed by the who and what, not just in the where and when. Police have been authoritative enough for all the similar infoboxes I remember. Unless and until that charge is dropped, it seems straightforward to me. Even if the man was already dying of something natural or accidental, any intervening cause of death is always the only cause of death. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Innocent untill proven guilty.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course. The parameter is simply for deaths, though, not murder victims. We list five dead for the 2017 Stockholm attack and one for the 2017 Times Square car crash, without issue. I only mention the murder charge because it illustrates that police don't believe Ali died coincidentally. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The difference is (as far as I can tell) that the reason they are listed without issue is that they are listed as having been killed as a result of wounds sustained in the attack, and not (possibly) due to just dying at the same time as they attack.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Same as this guy, unless we discount the murder charge and the multitude of sources covering his multiple fatal injuries. Is there any other plausible explanation in reliable sources as to what caused those? If not, all doubt is original research. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The existence of the murder charge means police reasonably suspect buddy was killed by the who and what, not just in the where and when. I think that's a fair point. TompaDompa (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes is nullified by innocent until proven guilty, so all we in fact have is he dies at the scene. In the other cases (as far as I know) no one has suggested they were killed by anything other the the actions of the attacker.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

And who suggests anything else this time? Collapsing sounds deadly, without context, but now the story seems settled that he fell for a bum leg. An annoying medical condition, but very rarely fatal unless you've fallen in the path of something deadlier. Simply killing someone isn't murder, so it's not prejudicial unless we imply he did so with malicious intent or without lawful excuse. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

'innocent until proven guilty' has no bearing at all on whether this death occurred during the event, which is all the infobox says. We don't wait for coroner's inquiries or murder trials on any other deaths, merely not imply that the accused was the intentional, decided causer of the death. We know he died we don't know exactly why or whose fault it was yet. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

But inclusion of it in the info box of this event implies it was a result of this event.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

As do the sources we're meant to reflect. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

And we are not those sources, we have rules such as BLP. We are not supposed to crate inferences, only report what RS say. Do any RS say he died as a result of this attack? If they do not we cannot infer it. The info box should only state what we know, as we do not know he died as a result of this attack we cannot include it in the info box. In the body we can say that the police have made the charge, and that is all we should say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

"He was killed by the impact". "The van he was driving ploughed into pedestrians near Finsbury Park Mosque in North London early Monday morning, killing one person and injuring 10." "Theresa May has vowed that "hatred and evil" of the kind seen in the terror attack on a north London mosque that left one man dead..."

The van isn't a living person, nor is the impact or the terror attack, but all are parts of this event, which resulted in the man's death. None of those writers will be sued and neither will we. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to point out that the effect of 'possibly', like the title of this section (The death is still not confirmed), is to suggest that we don't know whether someone is dead or not (can't find the body?), rather than the intended 'we are not sure of the cause, therefore if there is a culprit'. Glad to see someone has removed 'possibly' since I think it is unclear.Pincrete (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Possibly should be dropped (because we now know he was killed by the van - and not an unrelated medical condition). It was warranted when there was a strong possibility he had a heart attack or something similar (which per initial reports - was possibly). Innocent before proven guilty... Whomever is taking that line should claim we should qualify the injuries as well as "possibly".Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The van company owner's son's arrest

If we're going to say the van company owner's son was arrested as part of the aftermath, we should explain why. RustlingLeaves (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that this should be in, including what he allegedly said (on facebook), which was widely reported, also prior to his arrest.Icewhiz (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Dubious about this, whilst he was arrested for being a dick I am not sure it is really that worthy of inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Me too. As far as I know, "being a dick" (posting reprehensible pro-terrorist remarks on social media, even from someone with a connection to the terrorist incident in question) is not an arrestable offense, or even a crime at all. Apparently the police know more than we do, since the published sources quote him as saying he wasn't involved in the transaction. We should not be speculating about this stuff on Wikipedia. Better to just leave it out until we have more info. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Being a dick is a crime when it's intended to incite racial hatred. I've noted this is what he's accused of, but don't feel it's particularly important to the event itself. Just better to be clear if we're saying anything at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

He was released without charge and deleted his remarks, so I've deleted ours. There's no encyclopedic value in merely writing what a guy who knows a guy who met a guy who rented a van thinks about flattening people. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not just a guy who knows a guy who met a guy who rented a van. It's the son of the guy that rented the weapon to the suspect. In any case, the police thought his comment was important enough to arrest him. RustlingLeaves (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

And WP:RS covered this with quite some depth and persistence (in fact, prior to his arrest, it would seem that media reports led to his arrests). Just because he erased his comments - after being arrested - doesn't erase the coverage. He should be in - without his name (per BLPNAME).Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary repetition ?

I think the repetition here is unnecessary (apart from being ungrammatical, 'This suspected terrorist' = Osborne). I changed the text to "This attack followed three Islamic terrorist attacks that had occurred in the UK since March 2017", but was reverted. I agree that this event is being treated as 'terrorist' by authorities and the article should state that clearly, but disagree that we need to say this every time the event is mentioned, and specifically here it just makes the text less clear.

The immediately preceding sentences are "The incident is being investigated by counter-terrorism police. On 23 June, Darren Osborne of Cardiff was charged with terrorism-related murder and attempted murder.[4] His motive is still under investigation." .... so I think the reader will get the message. Pincrete (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Some people are very keen to hammer home the word "terrorist" at every turn, as if calling it "terrorist" makes it worse. It's the same attack whether called "terrorist" or not. I'd be quite happy to just call them all "attacks", this and the Islamist ones. We know what happened, it was on purpose, 11 people injured, being investigated by counter-terrorism. RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@RustlingLeaves: What exactly was the purpose of your above comment? I am seriously curious. I can't quite figure out its relation to the the previous remark to which you were responding. It was about repetition, which had actually originated in a distaste for naming the suspect (who had been neither charged nor convicted, and not named in several sources) more than necessary, rather than in a specific desire to throw any particular epithet at the incident. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Knock it on the head BOTH of you. Is the repetition necessary or distracting is the only question. Pincrete (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've stopped rising to him/her. I gave my opinion, I think it's distracting. And the way the sentence reads is horrible. "The suspected terrorist followed"? The suspected terrorist being Osbourne? The article is about the attack, with the suspect down in a later sub-section. It should read "the attack followed". Or, if people insist, "the suspected terrorist attack followed". RustlingLeaves (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

All the other recent attacks in the background section start their articles with "the attack". This one starts with "the suspected terrorist". Should we just change it to "the attack"? Everyone agrees it was an attack. RustlingLeaves (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The suspect's comments

Our two sources for the suspect's "kill Muslims" comment actually differ slightly in the quote. The Guardian says "I want to kill all Muslims", whereas the BBC says "I want to kill Muslims". The Telegraph is reporting "kill all Muslims", Metro is reporting "I'm going to kill all Muslims". These phrases are all different. It was a chaotic situation, so who knows which one is right.

He also said "this is for London Bridge", which seems to be consistent everywhere. He also said "Kill me, kill me", "I've done my job" and/or "I did my bit". We're not quoting those for some reason, but I see no reason not to. RustlingLeaves (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is a case all may be correct. He was talking at length - both as he was scuffling, and as he was being pinned down - he was there for quite a while until the police arrived and arrested him - and he also made comments as he was arrested. I've seen some of these repeated by the same witness in reports - including some quotes that repeat the line twice. The media (as we probably should as well) - then trimmed these down - and they basically boiled down to "kill Muslims" (or all Muslims), "I did my bit", "for London bridge", "kill me" - but the trim down was different in different sources.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Coverage of Mr. Robinson's statements and other far-right leaders

@Hijiri88: I think this should be in. Maybe with some other tone and/or tweaks. Mr. Robinson's comments (and subsequent interviews) received SIGCOV. We should give coverage to all sides of the conflict. Just as we quote ISIS outlets justifying ISIS attacks - we should quote UK political elements of note (such as Mr. Robinson - even if far-right minority) who appear to be possibly justifying the attack. You could re-work how this is covered - there was significant subsequent criticism of Robinson and he's made some more statements. This was Front-Page news the few days after the attack. There are obviously (as can be seen for instance in Wikipedia's trolls vandalizing the page! And of course more established ways of seeing support) - some people (maybe a very small minority) who are justifying the attack - and this is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree, we repeat ISIL claims because usually it is ISIL claiming they carried out the attack. Also ISIL are a major regional power we are at war with. Mr. Robinson is a glorified football hooligan who gets coverage in order to fill papers (and was it front page news?). He is not a "UK political element of note", this is the first time he has been noticed for months.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

On the web (easily accessible) - yes. See for instance Telegraph here: [3]. And amount of coverage here - [4] (Robinson on past week). This was a statement that was repeated (the next day on a TV on Good Morning Britain - [5] - criticized - [6] [7] - he made additional statements) - and was lambasted widely.Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

So then, yes, he is getting the coverage only over this one incident. Prior to this he had been largely ignored over issues like Brexit of thew election. This belongs on his page, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course Tommy Robinson was "largely ignored over issues like Brexit of thew election" (sic). That's not his issue. The Muslim Council was also ignored over Brexit, because it's got nothing to do with it. Tommy Robinson is not notable because of activism about Brexit, he is notable because of activism about Islam. RustlingLeaves (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but we are talking about someone who led a "street protest movement" which focused on marching through Muslim areas and other such activities, engaging in confrontation (and had (has?) some wider support). In which political camp would you place the attacker, who allegedly said "Kill all Muslims" (and other such statements) right after the attack? Was his action the action of an isolated individual with absolutely no support? Or does he have the support of some, even if a fringe? This may be a fringe viewpoint - but such that is in the "same area code" of the attacker.Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well I know he does not have enough support to have been a factor in Brexit (a far more important event then this attack), So as I said, he is now (in effect) notable for only this one statement (and it's follow up). A political nobody who is only listened to when the media want to portray a shouty nutter. In fact (even here) he is off less note then the reaction to him. But I will let others join in now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I'm essentially in agreement with Slatersteven, though perhaps for different reasons. I don't really know or care whether he is a glorified football connoisseur, as I have never heard of him; I'm more concerned that the comment we attribute to him seems to be nothing more than hateful trolling, and no doubt an extreme minority view. I'm also (a little) concerned that the cited sources are clearly more interested in the backlash he got for those comments than in granting him a forum, but whoever quoted them on English Wikipedia neglected to mention that or provide any context at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

See Pegida UK (the less notable UK offshoot of Pegida) & English Defence League for context. The initial edit (which was when this was breaking - he received much more lambasting later - and in the midst of adding quite a bit of material to the article) did mention the criticism of his statement a bit more (was later edited out). My opinion is this should be in - but updated to reflect both his later (televised and not just twitter) stmts and the harsh criticism of these comments - and maybe not as a verbatim quote. But we'll see the opinions of others.Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That sounds more reasonable, but it's still a weight issue. Wikipedia should cover controversial statements that have more to do with their staters than the real-world events that inspired them in the articles on the individuals that made them, not the articles on the real-world events, which should not have room for them after noting, for instance, the reaction of the President of Ireland. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that Tommy Robinson's reaction should absolutely be re-instated. I don't know who decides who is or isn't "notable", and removing his statement sounds like it is motivated more by a distaste for him than a genuine concern for lack of notability. The guy appeared on Good Morning Britain and got brow-beated in a car-crash interview over that tweet, what more do you want? Tommy Robinson is the UK's most prominent anti-Islam commentator. The "organisation" section is now lop-sided - every organisation is a Muslim organisation. Also, I want to make the point that "several local politicians" - whoever they are - are not an organisation. RustlingLeaves (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The UK and London governments are not "Muslim organisations". If you can find any mainstream views of non-Muslims that differ significantly from those cited, fire ahead. Citing one anti-Muslim activist's ... "questionable" response to the attack is not good. If you want to smear all non-Muslims (including me -- I grew up in Ireland in the 1990s and now live in Japan, so I don't even have all that many Muslim friends) by associating them with this vitriol and saying that the mere non-factual fact of his being "the only non-Muslim" we cited makes his view notable as the view of non-Muslim, kindly do it elsewhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Since when would quoting Tommy Robinson mean "smearing non-Muslims"? Stop straw-manning me. I'm not sure we're even in the same argument. I never said the UK and London Government were Muslim organisations (the mayor is a Muslim, of course). The UK and London governments aren't listed under "organisations". I was explicitly talking about the "organisations" section. Every organisation in the "organisation" section is now a Muslim organisation, with the possible exception of, and I quote "several local politicians", who shouldn't be there because whoever they are, they're not an organisation. RustlingLeaves (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Since when would quoting Tommy Robinson mean "smearing non-Muslims"? Stop straw-manning me. I'm not straw-manning you. You explicitly defended citing him as a representative of the non-Muslim community The "organisation" section is now lop-sided - every organisation is a Muslim organisation. implies there is some WEIGHT or NPOV problem with "only citing the views of Muslim organizations", when in fact said organizations better represent the views of the majority of non-Muslims better than "Pegida UK") I never said the UK and London Government were Muslim organisations (the mayor is a Muslim, of course). The UK and London governments aren't listed under "organisations". Well, I interpreted the reference to "several local politicians" as implying they were representing their administrative bodies. (BTW, if you really want to know "whoever they are" you can read the sources. You don't appear to have done so.) Anyway, what would you say to simply removing the "organisations" heading? Strictly speaking, neither Pegida UK, no RF, nor MCB made those statements anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I defended citing him as a representative of the anti-Muslim community, not the non-Muslim community. You accused me of including him with intent to "smear non-Muslims", and I did not do that. The initial statement - which I did not add - clearly said he was the leader of Pegida UK (it initially said "former EDL", I only tweaked it to Pegida UK). Whether it's a "smear" would depend on one's opinion of Tommy Robinson, wouldn't it. "Smear" is not objective. Nowhere did I suggest we state or imply that he "represented the non-Muslim community". So the Muslim Council of Britain represent non-Muslims nowadays, I'll bear that in mind. Of course there's a WEIGHT and NPOV issue with only citing Muslims. No, I didn't check the sources to see who the "several local politicians" were, because the point is I shouldn't need to. "Several local politicians" are not an "organisation". Yes, I think we should maybe just scrap the entire section, since there's obviously a bias. People are saying Tommy Robinson isn't notable enough, and yet it's okay to quote the Ramadhan Foundation. I think Tommy Robinson has a much higher profile than the Ramadhan Foundation. RustlingLeaves (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"Muslim" vs. "anti-Muslim" is a false dichotomy. You complained that the current version cited only Muslim groups. But the alternative to "Muslim" is "non-Muslim", not "anti-Muslim". The "anti-Muslim community" is already well-represented in the article, because it is about an anti-Muslim attack. Pointing out that anti-Muslim bigots celebrated the incident is ... well, it is actually perhaps worth noting, as is the fact that it was compared to the "anti-Muslim community",'s response to another incident in the US at roughly the same time ([8]), but not in the way you seem to be suggesting. And if you don't like mentioning the Ramadhan Foundation by name, then revert my edit and go back to saying "some organisations", but you might have to get the consent of Continentaleurope (talk · contribs), who had tagged the previous wording and no doubt would dispute your reverting back to it. Either way, the Telegraph saw fit in their article on the incident to cite RF and not Robinson. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I think it's remarkable that you're obviously interested in the subject enough to be editing a wikipedia page on a mosque attack, but you've never heard of Tommy Robinson, who founded the EDL and lead it up and down England from 2009 - 2013, constantly in the papers. I don't know how to quantify his notability, but he is the first name British people think of when they think of far-right / anti-Islam sentiment. I also don't know how to quantify whether his is a "minority" view. Possibly there are more ISIS-supporters in the UK than Robinson supporters, but I imagine ISIS-supporters are a minority too, and we have them. His comments weren't "hateful trolling" - he meant it as real commentary, and appeared on several mainstream tv channels to defend his comments. RustlingLeaves (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If you read a few sections up, you'll see how I came across this article. I spent a total of two days in England (London) during the time period you specify, and that was five years ago -- it's entirely possible I have heard of Robinson but have forgotten. I'm sure the same is true for a lot of people who saw his name in the papers in 2009(!). And please do not compare people who don't think it's a good thing that innocent civilians were viciously attacked to "ISIS-supporters". That's pretty damned offensive. ISIS's reaction to the incident is inherently notable, and we are not functioning as a megaphone for ISIS as we were for Robinson. Now could you stop comparing apples and oranges? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Since wikipedia is against censorship, we should always name and specify which organizations and politicians. I do not see this particular incident as escalating islamophobia but people who have direct interests such as muslim organizations and local politicians do. I would say islamophobia when a group is involved. I do not however exclude that it was a consequence of previous incident which is discussed in article..London Bridge. We either mention according to whom or we do not mention it at all. Since reliable sources mention it we should include what and who said it. I see that a number of editors are connected to the subject or for a reason want to promote islamic victimization and as well make it misleading. We still condemn the attack, and meanwhile should not present bias and exaggerations or ambiguity.Continentaleurope (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are a couple of problems with the above post (not least that you conflate WP:WEASEL with WP:NOTCENSORED) and most of your comment seems to have little to do with the topic of this discussion. I assume by a number of editors (ironic that you don't name said editors) you are referring to me and Slatersteven (talk · contribs), but I am neither "connected to the subject" (?) nor do I "want to promote islamic victimization and as well make it misleading" (!?). I just want the article to reflect what is in reliable sources, not misrepresent what is in them (as the Robinson passage did) or give undue weight to extreme fringe views (again as the Robinson passage did). You have to ask yourself -- when the majority of experienced Wikipedians without a specific "dog" in the "fight" and who rarely edit in this topic area are one side of a content dispute, and the majority of editors on the other side are new accounts, SPAs, and people who misquote Wikipedia policy, which side is likely to be right on the policy on English Wikipedia? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson wasn't just in the news in 2009. He's been in the news since 2009. And I don't understand who you thought I compared to ISIS supporters, my point was that ISIS is presumably a minority view but is included, so it would be a double standard to exclude Tommy Robinson for being a minority view. Also, the article quoted a single tweet that was reported in the media and got him on Good Morning Britain with Piers Morgan. If you object to a direct quote, we could paraphrase like we did for ISIS and the other Muslim groups. I don't know in what sense you think I'm comparing apples and oranges. I understand it's apples and oranges in the sense that Tommy Robinson hasn't killed lots of people like ISIS has. I only drew the comparison to illustrate that both are presumably minority views. RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well as someone from England I can tell you that I still have to look up the mans name to find out who is is (a case of I know that name, what for?), far right politics in Britain means either (in the old says) Nick Griffin and now Farrage (not that I agree with that but there you are). In fact it is still (and we can now add the DUP) the BNP who are seen as Britains main far right political movement, not the EDL or an even more fringe group Robinson heads now.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, we can probably exchange our personal awarenesses, but it's all subjective. I would say Nick Griffin has totally disappeared from public consciousness since he was ousted from the BNP. The UK's main identitarian issue is now Islam. It's only the fringe of the fringe that still worries about blacks or non-Muslim Asians. It's Tommy Robinson who people are quoting and getting upset about, because he singularly concerns himself with Islam. His videos get tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands of hits on Youtube, I think Facebook is in the millions. He puts up new videos on a daily basis, after his comments on the Finsbury attack he was interviewed by Good Morning Britain, Sky News, Talk Radio, he headlined the Times, and probably lots more. RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Odd then that until this he has not not had that much coverage (except for criminal cases), hell was he the go to for quotes about the London Bridge attack or the one in Westminster (how about Manchester?), is is opinions sought out as the voice of "islamaphobia" in the UK? What he is is a trouble maker who gets noticed for standing in the street and shouting abuse, he is not a major commentator or political figure.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think him being a "troublemaker" is valid grounds for excluding his high-profile reaction to the subject of this article. That his views cause trouble makes him more notable, not less. I bet more people have heard of Tommy Robinson than the Ramadan Foundation, whose reaction is included. RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I will note he was obliquely referenced to by May in her statements that the govt would crack down on all forms of extremism - including Islamophobia. I don't think his reaction to Westminster or London Bridge (unless linked to a subsequent anti-Muslim attack) is particularly notable. However speaking in a manner that could be construed as possibly justifying an anti-Muslim attack after it occurred - is significant. We (and the public at large) generally give weight to those who are tied to violent action. e.g. during the Troubles - you would see fringe group quotations if they were linked to inciting (or beyond inciting) violence.Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I will note that May does not say his name, and thus it is not a reference to him, unless he is (source please) Islamophobia in the Uk). What he is not is the go to for opinion about Islam or terrorism, what he is is someone who gets publicity when he says something vile. That is the limit of his notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of Tommy Robinson is, or should be, irrelevant. We're not here to shield people from opinions they might not like. He's certainly a troublemaker in that his views cause trouble, but whether he's vile is beside the point. His reaction has been far more notable than the Ramadhan Foundation's reaction. Who are they. RustlingLeaves (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I said obliquely. Regarding whether he is "Islamophobia in the Uk", see - [9] - 118 google-scholar hits (e.g. journal papers, conference papars, etc.) which name him and Islamophobia in one context - so this has been attributed by many. He does a little bit more than just talk - there were demonstrations and an organization - though much of this is talk.Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This does not demonstrate he is the leading light of British Islamophobia. Nick Griffin gets 362 he he has not been active for years (farrage gets 282, by the way).Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What happens if you restrict the google scholar search to the last few years? RustlingLeaves (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As you did not do that it is irrelevant, that is a strawman argument. I have responded by doing a search using the same pentameters you used.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not making a straw-man argument, I'm just saying what happens if you restrict it to the last few years, since it might be digging up items from years back when Nick Griffin was more prominent. Anyway, at the end of the day, academia is not society. It is my perception that Tommy Robinson is the most high-profile anti-Islam activist in the UK, but I don't know how we prove or quantify that. RustlingLeaves (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That was RustlingLeaves, not me. Since 2013 the score is Farage 178, Griffin 131, and Robinson 71. He's definitely hanging in there with the "top scorers" - and the others haven't made a notable stmt this time as far as I've seen (or if they have - it wasn't as widely covered in RS).Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Katie Hopkins is at 14, by the same metric, for reference. Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Almost half of Griffins hits (and he is no longer politically active), sop not this does not prove he is the leading light (Robinson) of British Islamophobia, if anything Farrage is (who of course did not say anything really dumb, thus is less newsworthy over this one incident).Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem with these sorts of metrics is that "old chaps" who were cited as relevant in past journal papers - keep on being mentioned in new ones (e.g. in the introduction - Smith et al noted that Y's Islamophobic activities in the 2000s were.... - for a paper written in 2020). Even if you disappear somewhere - once your name starts bouncing around in the journals (and in the news) - it will keep on bouncing a decade afterwards. In any event - he isn't an obscure figure in the regard of Islamophobia attribution.15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And the same can be said of Mr Robbinson, his influence was historical when he was head of the EDL. The point I was making, this google search proves nothing about importance today.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Just for kicks, this is google-trends of the 3 - google trends 5 years google trends YTD. Griffin is dead in the water for the past 5 years. Farage has quite a few hits - but they are mostly Brexit and Trump related - not Islamic or anti-Islamic terror.Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Mr Robbinson is not an organisation, he is a private citizen.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Pegida UK is an organisation, of which Tommy Robinson is the leader. But we could have an "activists" section. I'm not sure what the definition of a politician is, I suppose if you wear a suit and ask people to vote for you. Maybe we should just scrap the whole section. Do we really need a list of Muslim organisations saying it represents rising Islamophobia? RustlingLeaves (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not? They represent the Muslim community. Their view is far more relevant then a random rant by Robbinson, that is only notable because people took him to task over it. I note that I (and no one else) added this vital material to Mr Robbinsons own article, that alone should be an indicator of it's significance.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson's high-profile statement doesn't need to be significant to his article to be be significant to the Finsbury Park Attack article. And your statement is biased. We could just as easily describe all this stuff about Islamophobia as "random rants by the Muslim Council". Tommy Robinson's statement was far from "random", and "rant" means nothing. RustlingLeaves (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

When Muslims commit terrorist attacks, the articles include reactions by non-violent Muslims. So when right-wingers commit terrorist attacks, why don't we do the same thing. RustlingLeaves (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@RustlingLeaves: It would be really nice if you'd stop lumping all "Muslims" together like that. The context in which you are posting implies that by "non-violent Muslims" you mean the tiny minority of Muslims who applaud violence against innocent civilians, as that is what Robinson's remarks have been widely interpreted as. If by "non-violent Muslims" you mean "Muslims who condemn the violent actions in question" (i.e., the majority of Muslims), the closest equivalent to them would not be Robinson: it would be the non-Muslims like May whose reactions are already discussed in this and the accompanying article that will soon be merged into this article. Anyway, did you mean that tiny minority of "non-violent Muslims" who applaud terrorism? Can you name an article where we cite their opinions? Don't say "Well, in such-and-such article we cite ISIS's reaction" -- ISIS is a major military player in a large part of the Middle East at the moment and a large number of states have actively declared war on them; this makes their opinions inherently noteworthy and not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And please refrain from comparing, even implicitly, "non-violent Muslims" to extremist haters who condone violence. This is grossly inappropriate. And I'm not saying that because I'm Muslim. I'm not Muslim, nor do I even have (to my knowledge) any Muslim close friends (I recall hanging out with some Turks back when I was a student in a Japanese language school, whom I assume were Muslim, but it never came up). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We have quotes from noted members of the Muslim community and community leaders, not fringe players who are rent a mouths. BY the way, Mr Robbinson has a number of convictions for violence, so no he is not non violent (in fact he continues to be a football hooligan).Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

When I said Tommy Robinson was "non-violent", I assumed it was obvious I meant "non-violent in the context of his political activism", which is the only reason wikipedia knows who he is and the only reason we are discussing him. That he was in a football fight between Luton and Newport in 2010 is beside the point. I note that according to his wikipedia page, his only conviction for violence in the context of his political activism was against a neo-Nazi! RustlingLeaves (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That Mr. Robinson may be violent, only increases his significance. We generally give credence to those who threaten violence. That aside - those not in favor mentioning Robinson's statements - are not citing any significant POLICY reason - it because boils down to CENSOR due to IDONTLIKE. These are comments that were widely covered by RS all over the spectrum (The vast majority, I would note, condemning Mr. Robinson). They have severe potential implications in terms of this escalating into a true tit-for-tat scenario. Mr. Robinson's statements have a measurable impact beyond just wide coverage, as can be seens in google-trends - [10] - where he's clearly above (on the June 18-24 datum) Sadiq Khan - whose meaningless boiler plate condemnation we include (meaningless - as the statement is as expected - and adds no information). IDONTLIKE - is not a reason to remove statements, nor is personal opinions on the degree of violence or non-violence amongst Muslims.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The policy we have been citing since the beginning is WP:WEIGHT. NOTCENSORED and IDONTLIKEIT is a very common straw-man argument used by those without a good understanding of policy (or perhaps a desire to be deliberately antagonistic) against editors who do have good policy-based rationales. You and RustlingLeaves, and perhaps a few others, really need to stop using it or you will likely be either TBANned or blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT's opening - Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. In this case, Robinson's statements have received significant prominence in RS. He's been a headline, byline, and in the article in several media outlets (on a 1 week old event - that's the sources we have. No books. No journals. Yet). e.g.: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] - and this is a far from complete list. These comments, unlike others, actually have lasting impact (as much as we can call such in an event 1 week old - coverage extends to the past 48 hours (a few days after the event - unlike other stmts) - [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]). We should give these comments (and the criticism of these comments) - the same weight given in the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And I'll note that in terms of raw GHITs (yes - this is problematical, but easier to assess then going over hundreds of RS (and non-RS) pieces covering Robinson and the attack) - "Tommy Robinson"+"Finsbury park" while quite a bit below "Theressa May"+"Finsbury park" is on par with "Jeremy Corbyn"+"Finsbury park" and above the other figures quoted.Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

In terms of WP views (yes - a circular source - but relevant in terms of encyclopedic query) - [29] - Robinson surpasses most other attack related terms - despite not being on the main page (both the attack and the mosque got a boost from being "In the news" on the main wiki page (still there as of 25th June)).Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is what is being reported in mainly peoples reaction to his comment, they are not reporting his view as notable, but other peoples reaction. This is why including it here is giving it too much weight. No one gave a damn in the media about his views on this, until people called him out over it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree that what drove the coverage of his comments (initially twitter, but more significantly TV on Good Morning Britain) - was outrage and condemnation of Robinson. However these reached a level where this is arguably the most covered response in RS (and if not the most - not far off) to the attack. We could perhaps cover the controversy and condemnation and not the statements themselves. A few days after the event - this is still generating news items (while other comments, not so much so).Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Except this is about him, not the attack. This page is not about him, it is about the attack. proper place for this (and as I have said before odd that I had to add it there) is the page about him. This adds nothing to our understading of the attack, it6's motivati9on, or the aftermath. All it does it enables us to understand Mr Robbinsons mentality (a desires to be the j most loathed man in Britain it appears, from his own writings) and the fact he has achieved this laudable goal.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

If lots of people noted his comments, then his comments were notable. That's what notable is. RustlingLeaves (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I have no issue with including a controversy about him being in his page. The issue is why should a controversy about him be here. Lots of people saw what he said and took issue with out, until he acted like a twat no one gave a damn about his opinion of this (or other) terror attack. Thus this news story is not about the Finsbury park attack, but what a twat Mr Robbinson is. Including it is thus undue weight.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

While I might share your opinion regarding Robinson, it is WP:RS who have been giving his actions coverage and weight - in reporting on the Finsbury attack. On the web editions of major British newspapers, this was on the main-page inside of the Finsbury block on top - e.g. Telegraph - [30] had this item up there on the 19th - "'Inciting hatred'Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson condemned over Finsbury Park mosque comments" (besides being mentioned in the the live reporting). And Telegraph wasn't alone with this. We're supposed to follow the weight given in RS to particular aspect. I'll note that there are ramifications for such statements (and the statements of the van-hire's son) - if this pushes the UK into a tit-for-tat scenario of Islamist and counter-Islamist terror attacks - this could escalate quite a bit - which is why such comments are noted and followed.Icewhiz (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

One last point, I think that this has run it's course now, and there is no consensus for inclusion. All we are doing is running round in circles. I think therefore this can be closed. All there is left now (for those who want inclusion) is an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I see more support here for inclusion than non-inclusion, but I agree RFC is the best course given the nature of the comments - so opened RFC below.Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wanstead Attack

Sourced reference to the 7 June Wanstead attack has been deleted, on the grounds that it was "an underreported local incident". It was a Jihadi attack in London in June. They're all "local" in that they happened in localities. I don't see why Wanstead is local but Southwark isn't. A group of women wearing black stabbed a bystander while shouting about Allah and quoting the Qu'ran. That's virtually identical to the other London attacks except no vehicular attack first. RustlingLeaves (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This incident seems to have received very little press coverage. Indeed, I hadn't heard about it until just now. But, according to this, it was being treated as a hate crime rather than a terror attack. This is Paul (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The distinction between a "hate crime" by someone shouting "this is for Allah" (which was actually reported beyond the local London area - some international mentions) and "terrorism" is rather minor and liable to change. I think this is marginally relevant to the article, as it occurred in London in relative proximity to the attack. BBC reported this - [31]. As did Brietbart in the US - [32]. DailyCaller (US) - picked up on reporting on the allegedly dubious hate crime classification - [33]. I've seen multiple other references to this - also non-English. It might not have gotten this coverage if it wasn't after London Bridge - but it was - and in between London Bridge and Finsbury.Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

General response to Icewhiz's comment and clearly not applicable to this incident, but the technical distinction between "terrorism" and "hate crime" is not only significant and likely to remain so, but is self-evident in the terms themselves. "Terrorism" describes an act with a particular intended effect, while "hate crime" describes an act motivated by a particular psychological state. There is, of course, a degree of overlap in a lot of cases (lynchings committed against the African-American community throughout the first half of the twentieth century could generally be described by either term or both), but it's easy to think of hate crimes that are not meant specifically to inflict terror on those left alive (racially-motivated murders where the bodies are hidden in the hope of evading detection but with clear disregard for whether the actions will inflict terror, for example). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Brietbart and DailyCaller are nor reliable sources or barometers of what does or does not constitute a minor local crime in London. We wouldn't look to the London Evening Standard for a viable comment on some minor crime in New York City. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This was on BBC's main page that day. I wasn't suggesting we use Brietbart nor DailyCaller - just stating that this incident has received attention outside of the UK. Coverage didn't end in London or the UK.Icewhiz (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And the RS are saying "Counter-terrorism police have been informed but are not treating it as a terrorist incident.", so including it here is trying to make a link the authorities are not making.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Some people are of the opinion that because Wanstead was designated a mere "hate crime" and didn't get the promotion to "terrorist attack", that means it doesn't count. Police may not have designated it a "terrorist attack", but it was an "Islamist attack", right? So therefore part of the pattern of Islamist attacks in London in recent months. If the definition of a "hate crime" is an attack motivated by hatred, then why was the Finsbury Park attack called a terrorist attack and not a hate crime. There's no evidence he intended to make Muslims afraid per se, only that he hated them. RustlingLeaves (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Was it, what do RS say, Islamist or "carried out by a Muslim?Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Comes down to your definition of "Islamist". I think if a Muslim commits a violent attack motivated by Islam, then they have become an Islamist. The Wanstead attack wasn't just any attack by a Muslim, we're not talking about a Pakistani who stole a handbag. The attackers explicitly invoked Islam during the attack, eg "Allah will get you!" and Qu'ran quotes, leading one to reasonably conclude it was motivated by extreme prejudice against non-Muslims, ie Islamism/Jihadism. RustlingLeaves (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No it comes down to what RS call it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

They don't call it anything. We just get told police are treating it as a hate crime, and obviously the perpetrators are Muslims, although I don't think the media explicitly says that. My point is that it's a recent-stabbing-in-London-motivated-by-Islamic-extremism, and therefore similar to the others and therefore part of that pattern. I don't understand the pre-occupation with the nomenclature "terrorist attack" which seems to be largely about who's upset. If we're listing the recent-stabbings-in-London-motivated-by-Islamic-extremism, then why not this one. RustlingLeaves (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No they are Asian, not "obviously Muslim", even if they are that means nothing. We need proof that what is claimed they said is true (and "Allah will get you" is not in the Koran). As yo why we are hung up about nomenclature, [Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons].Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Asian women dressed all in black shouting "Allah will get you" and quoting the Qu'ran. I don't know how much clearer they can be about their religious affiliation. Unless you're suggesting it's a false flag. What would "prove" the statements occurred? If the witnesses said they heard that, then it's the same as the London attackers saying "this is for Allah", I don't think we have any proof of that besides witness statements. Yes, I know "Allah will get you" isn't in the Qu'ran, I didn't say it was. They said "Allah will get you" and "chanted the Qu'ran". RustlingLeaves (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

One witness (the victim) claiming something is not enough, she could be lying. Since then no corroboration. I mean it's not as if people have pretend to me something they are not or lied about being the victim of a crime in the past is it? By the way, what did they say that is a quote form the Koran?Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Wanstead witnesses could be lying. The Finsbury witnesses could be lying. All witnesses could be lying. You seem to be suggesting that wikipedia only discuss events that were caught on camera. I don't know what they said that was a quote from the Qu'ran. I only know that multiple reliable sources reported that witnesses said they were quoting the Qu'ran. I am not in personal contact with the witnesses RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a moot point. It doesn't matter if she was lying (which we do not know or have reason to believe) in regards to the state of mind of the public in general, and the suspect here in particular. Should we delve into historical precedents of ethnic attacks due to blatantly false libel? What matters, in terms of motivation, is what was said to have happen not what happened objectively.Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we can only include material from RS, There is nothing about this case that makes it clear it is part of some islamist campaign, nor have any RS made that claim. If RS do not make the link we cannot.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It probably comes down to if the attacker heard about this, and how he interpreted it (and not how RS reported it). There have been (elsewhere) inter-ethnic revenge attacks over inter-ethnic inadvertent traffic accidents and even romantic relations. But this ventures into WP:CRYSTALBALL. Seeing that the suspect is alive, one would expect we'll have a charge sheet not too far off from now, making this discussion perhaps moot.Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually no, because unless RS report it we cannot say what he says. It does not matter what he says, what matters is what RS say about it. As to the charge, he has to be arrested frost, I think you mean arrest warrant (and this is being treated as a hater crime, which is a cover all that may mean racism, sexism, Islamism, anti-child care or whatever (As well as possible mental health issues).Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I am of-course referring to WP:RS coverage of his motivation - whether as a result of coverage of the police investigation, the prosecution, or otherwise.Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well lets hope they get the sex and number of attackers right first shall we?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

RustlingLeaves, on the contrary, we do not know that the Wanstead attack was a "recent-stabbing-in-London-motivated-by-Islamic-extremism" at all. If it had been, we would have expected to see some sort of follow-up or repetition, but there has been nothing. That suggests a very different motive, but just what that was we don't yet know. I would note, however, that non-Muslims have used Muslim attire as disguises before, so whatever the Wanstead assailants were seen wearing proves little. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument that there hasn't been follow-up or repetition. The Southwark attackers dressed in black said "this is for Allah". The Wanstead attackers dressed in black said "Allah will you get you". I'm not suggesting the Wanstead attackers and the Southwark/Westminster attackers knew each other, they probably didn't. But nor did the Southwark, Westminster and Manchester know each other. RustlingLeaves (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

And this had all the hallmarks (beyond the allegation of saying "Allah" and wearing black (I note just wearing black, not Muslim address) of a random street attack, not a mass terror attack on a tourist center or even venue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

So beyond it not looking like a random street attack, it looks like a random street attack. RustlingLeaves (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Lets see, someone was punched and kicked to the ground and then received a wound so serious they were able to walk (what about) 100 yards and go to their place of work (a cut to her hand). Hell there are more serious incidents then then every Saturday night in any large town.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

When I referred to "follow-up or repetition" I mean that the Wanstead attack - i.e. where three veiled women attacking a single woman - has not happened again. If the alleged attackers were motivated by Islamist ideology, it seems unlikely that they would have called it a day at that, and would have resurfaced in some other way. I can think of a few other possible explanations for the attack that have nothing to with Islam as a whole, let alone with extremist ideology, but would rather wait to see how the case develops (I doubt the police have just forgotten about it). Nick Cooper (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems everyone else has, nothing for (what?) two weeks.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC inclusion of Tommy Robinson's comments

Should we include Tommy Robinson's statements via twitter [34] , his subsequent statements on Good Morning Britian [35][36], and the criticism of said comments?Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Also see extended discussion above: Talk:2017_Finsbury_Park_attack#Coverage_of_Mr._Robinson.27s_statements_and_other_far-right_leaders.

Survey

• Support. Covered significantly in RS, perhaps the most widely covered comment in relation to the attack. Meets SIGCOV. Per WP:WEIGHT we should represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources - this viewpoint (and counter-viewpoint condemnation) has received extremely prominent coverage in RS items covering the attack.Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• oppose Mr Yaxleys views were not notable (and certainly not significant, he is the leader of a Fringe of a fringe group), what was notable was the subsequent controversy that has nothing to do with this attack, and everything to do with My Yaxley. Thus giving this controversy any coverage is (to my mind) a violation of undue (For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.).Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Tommy Robinson's comments are high-profile, they are notable both in the sense that lots of people noted them AND that they are different from the other reactions. The Muslim Council and Ramadhan Foundation and "several local Labour politicians" are individually named as saying the exact same thing. Except the "local Labour politicians", who obviously weren't even notable enough to be named. If people who aren't even notable enough to be named can get their literally identical comments in, then notability can't be what this is about. RustlingLeaves (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose One source above is ITV's own web-site, other than that, the coverage is very thin. This is not a significant aspect of this event. Were Ofcom to uphold any complaint, it might justify inclusion on Robinson's or Good Morning Britain's page, but other than that this is Robinson WP:Coatracking. Pincrete (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's always challenging to know what exactly is "relevant" under a "Reactions" subsection. The fact is, that there are probably dozens of individuals who comments might meet SIGCOV and WP:WEIGHT. So the question is, do we cover them all, or do we discriminate? I usually fall on the side of discrimination. Comments from major public officials, organizations or nation states should be included. Starting to include comments from notable members of the political fringe, risks making the subsection become a bloated mess. NickCT (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Note - regarding the claim that this is a "Fringe of a fringe group", beyond RS coverage to the contrary, polling data shows us this not such a fringe notion. For instance - [37] (source: [38]) - a YouGov poll indicated that the majority of UK voters in 2015 indicated Islam in incompatible with UK society. These polling numbers are not limited to the UK, see for instance a similar poll in Germany - [39]. In Scotland, survey numbers on schools - [40] - indicate anti-Muslim violence. 47% support for immigration ban from Muslim majority nations - [41]. Pew also found significant indication of unfavorable opinions of Muslims in the UK (and elsewhere) in a recent survey - [42].Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on earlier comments, I think Slatersteven is broadly categorising Tommy Robinson as "far-right" rather than specifically anti-Islam, and then saying he is a fringe within the "far-right" because in his estimation Nick Griffin is the main far-right figure. But maybe that's not the category he's in. I mean, if "far-right" is racial nationalists, they mostly hate Tommy Robinson for being non-racist, a Zionist, etc. But semantics aside, if we just say he's far right because that's what the media call him, then in my estimation he's far more prominent than Nick Griffin now. Is Nick Griffin even still in politics? Haven't heard anything about him since he was ousted from the BNP back in . . . 2011? Something like that. RustlingLeaves (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And this is a strawman, no one has said thew views of Mr Yaxley about Islam in general are a Fringe, only that the group he heads is. Nore has what people think about Islam any relevance to what they think about his views about this attack.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Well - the support for MAB (Mohammed Kozbar - Finsbury Park's mosque general secretary and VP of Muslim Association of Britain - which according multiple RS sources is a UK front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood) - might be lower (how many of the 4.8% Muslims in the UK are MAB?). (as may be the support for various other Muslim orgs mentioned). Without Robinson, the article lacks the views of those who responded to the survey as incompatible/ban/unfavorable. Is there a better voice that represents these sentiments in RS?Icewhiz (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Err these polls were did not ask "do you support Tommy Robbinson".Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven You said Tommy Robinson was a fringe of a fringe. So what are the two fringes? He's not a fringe within Pegida UK, he's the leader. If you're saying Pegida UK is a fringe within Islamophobia, then that's saying Islamophobia is a fringe. RustlingLeaves (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And those polls do not support Islamophobia, they support one aspect of it. So no saying that Mr Yaxley represents a fringe (Pegida UK) of an extreme fringe ( the farthest reaches of Islamophobia). I*t might be worth noting that in the last election not only was Mr Yaxley notable by his absence, but so was any policy that might be seen as influenced by his extremist branch of Islamophobia.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Note - @Pincrete: - The coverage of this is immense. I placed ITV for the full interview (primary) - but it wouldn't be a source in the article. This was on the front page (or web page) of several major UK newspapers - e.g. Telegraph - [43], A very large amount (hard to assess - raw hit count of 366K, obviously less, but still very large) of google news hits on +"Finsbury Park"+"Tommy Robinson"- [44]. Examples of some of the coverage - [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] - and this is a far from complete list. These comments, unlike others, actually have lasting impact (as much as we can call such in an event 1 week old - coverage extends to the past 72 hours (a few days after the event - unlike other stmts) - [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]). Soft metrics such as google-trends or Wikipedia page-views (you can see links in the discussion above are also up). I kept the survey question neutral - but the coverage is immense - I don't think that's doubted by most opposers here - there is SIGCOV, the question is more a matter of UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The coverage of Donald Trump's spat with Khan was even more widespread after London Bridge, and Trump and Khan are both significant figures, unlike Robinson, but that spat is not on the London bridge page. Are we going to give every peripheral figure an invite to troll? There was also criticism of the D Mail's headline on the day, both are transient AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

In this case Robinson was referring directly the attack (and not to the response to the attack), and was covered in relation to the attack. The Khan/Trump spat is debatable for inclusion in London Bridge (and I believe that if Wikipedians weren't weary of Trump popping on every issue (i.e. - some other previous president with similar remarks) this would have gained more traction to go in there (this did bounce in and out - and I'm not sure this was really resolved in the talk - it may go back in at some point there - it's debatable). We hashed the UNDUE aspect ad nauseam in the discussion above with no real consensus - so won't rehash again - just wanted to point out that in terms of weight of sources - this received major coverage, including front-page coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup from two individuals, (Robinson and Piers Morgan), who both habitually court controversy. Pincrete (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

tarawih prayers, which are performed by Sunni Muslims during the month of Ramadan

There are several references in the text to the type of service/type of Muslims, I was not able to find this confirmed by sources (but some are pay-walled) . That this event took place as people were going home from the mosque during Ramadan is almost universally reported, but not the references to 'tarawih', nor 'Sunni's'. Pincrete (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Independent says: Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation Muslim organisation, said the incident came as members of both mosques left Tarawih prayers performed for the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. And NYT says: On social media, witnesses said they believed that the victims had been performing Tarawih, the evening prayers said by Sunni Muslims at night in the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.. But I noticed that the Tarawih thing is mentioned twice, and at the other place Tarawih wasn't mentioned by the cited source. TompaDompa (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking (and I stress that), when it comes to uncontroversial glosses of terms only preipherally related to the topic, we don't need to cite sources to specifically support the definition we give. If you really wanted, you could add a WP:COMMENT with the URL of a separate source that confirms it. citing a separate source for the definition of "tarawih prwyers" inline is problematic, as it gives the (false) impression of WP:SYNTH. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was mentioned in NYT from the day/day after- which at some point was reffed in the article (someone may have removed this) - they were hanging out around the mosque between night prayers. However this is really not controversial information (nor such that would be reported after initial incident reports) - and can easily checked by looking at prayer schedules during Ramadan.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The question is, how relevant is it to this article what specific prayers they were doing? The article tells us about tarawih twice. It is enough to know that they had been praying. RustlingLeaves (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This is something that is done on Ramadan, but not on other months. In normal times, the last prayer is Isha prayer - which is after the sun sets. The time of day, and the month of Ramadan, are such that in this area a large proportion of devout Muslims could be expected to be out and about - while others not so much so.Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The point is they were run over leaving a mosque. I don't think we need to explain the religious specifics of why they were praying at that time, and certainly not twice. RustlingLeaves (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If it wasn't Ramadan, you wouldn't expect Muslims to be leaving a mosque at the hour this occurred.Icewhiz (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If the reader is interested, they can look into it. In any case, it's explained twice. So at least one can be trimmed. RustlingLeaves (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I reffed your citation needed on this. Note there is a variant spelling for this used in many sources (and one of the refs) - taraweeh. Transliteration of Arabic to English isn't always a consistent business.Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Had the casualty also come from the prayers in Finsbury Park? The article gives the impression he was there coincidentally. RustlingLeaves (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

We no longer have a brief explanation of tarawih in this article, we just say "it happened when they were performing tarawih", and the word tarawih is linked. If this was a print encyclopedia, we'd probably have briefly explained "late-night prayers". I know we link to the tarawih page, but within the sentence, shouldn't we still briefly say what tarawih is? RustlingLeaves (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that's warranted - put this in - every press item I've read that mentioned tarawih/taraweeh stated this was night time Ramadan prayers, something that wouldn't be obvious to the casual non-Muslim reader.Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)