Talk:Grenfell Tower fire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Emergency number

Met Police an emergency number for anyone concerned about friends or family: 0800 0961 233 (overseas: +44 207 158 0197). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I've unhatted this for now in accordance with WP:IAR. There is no harm in having this here for the next 24 hours or so, as people may come here for info. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

In that case put it at the top of the page in red font. No point having an emergency number that's halfway down an ever-lengthening page, and does not, in fact, stand out at all, as would be expected for that purpose. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk)

I wonder if it would make sense to have an infobox item for developing events, which contains the relevant emergency number?--Roland 14:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

A {{Hatnote}} template would be better; but I fear there would be too much opposition to any such thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, this can now be hatted. Cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 19:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Leave it until tomorrow morning. Hatting needs to be done in such a way that the header remains visible. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath?

Can we call it that if it's still on going? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

is it true? emergency communication

There is now perhaps error: qoute if they are able to reach them via phone or social media—to tell them they must try to self-evacuate. If someone was sleeping ... do it mean the city office decided to not use of sirens and loudspeakers for emergency communication ? 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

and this is perhaps a sourced lie :firefighters were still battling the fire and trying to spray areas where people were seen trapped inside lie since in all the videos is clear visible the water cant reach over the top of building; so spraying by water were perhaps only possible where the water can reach. Do we discount direct video evidence and need to push what was put in MSM ? 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

the water at max was sprayed up to 1/2 height of the building.

• I wrote this. The first one is what the police said. The video is around of that moment. They said "if you're in touch with them via phone or Twitter or whatever" bc some people who were trapped were tweeting. I don't understand the second one. That is what they were doing and it was discussed by the journalists. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations to all contributing editors who have created a fine article in a very short time. --Ef80 (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks to all the other contributors. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I only wish it hadn't been necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Feel free to revert, but I think listing sources can be done further down the page (not needed at top). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Storeys, The Time fire started ?

The Telegraph writes the fire started at different time and they say, that building has 27 storeys. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/everything-know-grenfell-tower-blaze/ (195.14.165.61 (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)) Here they say the tower has 24 floors. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/grenfell-tower-fire-massive-blaze-engulfs-block-flats-near-white1/ (195.14.165.61 (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC))

This link seems to indicate that the lobby/bottom floor took up about 3 stories worth of area, so it's possible the discrepency comes from whether this area is counted as one or three floors. The very top floor also appears to not be inhabited, so if these floors are all counted the count would be 27, but if they weren't it'd be 24. http://www.studioe.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1279-01.jpg (98.0.48.36 (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC))

Twitter and Facebook

I added a section on fake news being circulated on Twitter, sourced by a newspaper article. It was deleted with a comment to the effect that Twitter isn't a reliable source. I've reinstated it (with additions and another source), but am making this pre-emptive comment in case it's deleted again: Twitter isn't the source for the information in the new section (although it would be a reliable source for a statement such as "a tweet claiming firefighters took 2 hours to arrive was circulated"). It's sourced from newspaper articles, which themselves cite several tweets. It's relevant, notable, and sourced that this fake news was around. Also, for people who might have seen such tweets and checked Wikipedia as less unreliable (hopefully!), it's useful as well as informative, for example if you've seen a tweet perhaps asking for donations, and are looking to respond. Pol098 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I've found both to be useful for finding sources to expand the article with. Forums can also be useful for finding reliable sources, although they themselves are not useable as a source. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Architect

Is anyone able to find out who the architect was please?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussed above in Council housing section. Mjroots (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Grenfell namesake

The tower is presumably called after Grenfell Road. (I guess Grenfell Walk was originally part of Grenfell Road but pedestrianised when the estate was developed.) Grenfell Road was called St Clement's Road until some time between 1900 and 1912. Dunno which of the Grenfell family it was named after. jnestorius^(talk) 13:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

First one I thought of was Sir Wilfred Grenfell - he was properly famous at the time for his medical missionary work in Labrador. However the fact that it leads into Sirdar Rd makes me think it's about Francis Grenfell, 1st Baron Grenfell who was Sirdar of the Egyptian Army and who retired in 1908.Le Deluge (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Grenfell Tower

Pinging some people - @Canuck85, Mjroots, and Pigsonthewing:; What do you think about restoring the page Grenfell Tower? It was a stub in progress and someone just created redirect to this page. However, I think Grenfell Tower section is getting too big, and it will keep growing as we get more details about all the things that went on over the years. Thoughts? —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Undecided at the moment. Was a redirect when I nominated this article at ITNC. May be better for now to keep things confined to this article, which has lots of eyes upon it. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable apart from this event. Let's wait and see what the section contains once the immediate emergency is over. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you please create Lancaster West Estate and add a subsection about the tower? The estate should have an article anyway, unless Wikipedians are snobs. I added a red link but it was removed. I would create it if I wasn't at work. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That iwas a great idea! Thanks Zigzig20s (talk · contribs)! I think there will be a lot of things that come out in terms of the building that aren't necessarily about the fire, but about stuff that happened before, and I'm sure that will include problems with other structures managed by the same people. I think the Glenfell Tower section has been trimmed down so I will try to restore the content at the new article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Photo with title "The burned plastic cladding is visible on the outside of the building."

It was apparently an aluminum/plastic composite. No doubt its exact composition will come out in the final report. At this point however, it is much more correct and neutral to say simply "the burned cladding".104.163.153.14 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed. WWGB (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the exterior cladding mostly fell off (or maybe burnt away). What you can see on the later pictures are the charred remains of the insulation material, which was fixed to the walls below the cladding. The cladding itself helped the fire by creating a chimney effect, and you can see the fire below it glow through the seams on some pictures. But it probably did not add enough flammable material to make much of a difference by that. According to this guardian article, a large number of UK high rises seem to use flammable exterior insulation. Apparently this is in accordance to regulations, which are severely out of date and in many parts completely ineffective with regards to fire protection. None of the documentation I've found mentions the material of the insulation actually installed (only that of the visible materials). On this picture from skyscrapercity.com, the insulation looks like polystyrene, which would indeed have been a disaster waiting to happen. --Latebird (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Campaigner Daffarn was rescued

Edward Daffarn, 55, is one of the campaigners from Grenfell Action Group, which published a series of blog posts warning of fire safety concerns with Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), the private business that has the contract with the local authority to run its social housing. --87.159.126.112 (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Buzzfeed a reliable source? Would expect this to be picked up by major news outlets. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Brexit

I added the Brexit category to the article, which was later removed.

Copied from user talk:Xwejnusgozo
I added Category:Brexit because the fire is likely to lead to a delay in the Tory/DUP alliance being formed, and thus a delay in the opening of the Brexit negotiations. Please would you undo your edit? Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that it's enough to justify the addition of Category:Brexit. The article is about the fire, not its implications on Brexit. After the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, campaigning for the general election was suspended, but the page on the attack is not in Category:United Kingdom general election, 2017. However, if you feel that the Brexit category should still be added, go ahead and undo my edit and other users who are more familiar with the subject can decide whether or not to keep it. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I'm now opening a discussion as to whether or not the category Brexit should be added to the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Brexit. Categories are meant to be defining to the subject. No-one is looking at this article and thinking - "oh yes, Brexit". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

No relation to Brexit other than this very tenuous one. — fox 20:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose the logic for it being related to Brexit is super tenuous. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, consensus against. I won't re-add it. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Knauf Insulation

Similar to Witt Group, the news article Knauf published at www.knaufinsulation.co.uk/news/news-residential/10m-tower-renovation-london advertising their connection to the project has also disappeared. (Google Cached Copy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.99.169 (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Cause

Why is the report of a fridge explosion on the 4th floor not given in the page ? As it was reported by alleged neighbour of the affected flat on live TV. It's as accurate info as many other aspects of the page and can surely be included as 'being reported' or as an 'unconfirmed report' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.0.15 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@79.64.0.15: - it is there, under "Cause", first paragraph. Mjroots (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Help needed: Simple English version of the article?

Hello all,

I know this is perhaps the wrong page to ask for help, but I'll be bold and do it anyway. I have started a page at the Simple English Wikipedia about this, and there are only very few contributors to the page there (simple:Grenfell Tower fire), as there are only very few contributors at simple. I don't want to get into a political discussion about what is good or bad about SEWP, all I want to say: Simple English is much like the English used here, the article there is likely out of date (last major edit by myself, this morning). If you feel like wanting to contribute or update the aticle there, please do so. --Eptalon (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Marryann Adams's critically important witness statement

Neighbour Maryann Adam, 41, said no smoke or fire alarm was sounding in the building when Behailu was forced to evacuate his flat. He knocked on the door, and he said there was a fire in his flat. It was exactly 12.50am because I was sleeping and it woke me up, she says. The fire was small in the kitchen. I could see it because the flat door was open. There was no alarm.

Read more: Reaper7 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

References

References

For the fourth time today, I've restored a reference that was removed in a previous edit. When removing references, please be careful to check that the reference isn't used elsewhere in the article as such removal causes reference errors. Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yet again, an editor has removed a cite and broke the references. I've reverted. IMHO, the removal should be discussed, and if it is to be removed, it should be done properly in a way that does not leave reference errors. Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I was just copying it to preserve it and had an edit conflict (with you). What makes you think I would have left it broken - you were too hasty! -- de Facto (talk). 19:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Demolition

Re:

An application to demolish the building was lodged with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea's Building Control department on 22 May 2014.

I doubt this is true; it was more likely an application to demolish a small part of the building, as pert of the refurbishment. Accordingly, I've marked it as "{{Dubious}}". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be an application for demolition work connected with the refurbishment, not one to demolish the tower block itself. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see this thread, but removed the text. It appears to be OR using a primary source which may, or may not, be relevant in any way.Pincrete (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Text has been reinstated and added to. I contend that AS PHRASED, it is still both OR and extremely unclear (most readers are not going to understand 'proper procedures' with regard to UK planning regs). The addition (criticism) should perhaps be the basis of the para, not the primary sources, which prove little and are incomprehensible to most of us. Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree re primary sources (the first one, in any case, doesn't refer to cladding). The Telegraph article seems relevant though needs clearer presentation; presumably the explanatory sentence about the building regulations notice is also sourced from the Telegraph article (behind a pay wall), if not it needs a cite. Davidships (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree, present text is OR and doesn't present the (Telegraph) criticisms clearly. Unfortunately I cannot access the T'graph. Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources

I question the use of primary sources as to which firms did what/got paid what and which have amended their website(s) today. What is the relevance? If anyone's work was poor quality, that will come out in the inquiry and if any company faces SPECIFIC criticism in secondary sources NOW, that seems valid, otherwise it is implicitly blaming EVERYONE who could have been at fault, which helps no one IMO and clarifies nothing. Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC) ps at least one company which supposedly has taken down its web-content, has replaced it with a condolence message and restored all prior tech info. Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Witt Group

Another organisation connected with the refurbishment that has taken down its web page (Internet Archive copy). Witt Group were involved in the ventilation system installed to remove smoke in case of a fire. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's back, ironically the 'Wayback' shows a 404 message. Pincrete (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Date template

Will whoever keeps removing {{Start date}} from the infobox please stop? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Metropolitan Police Commander Stuart Cundy

I don't see a page to link to for Metropolitan Police Commander Stuart Cundy. Is he noteworthy enough for a page? David Crayford (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably not; there are 24 officers currently holding the rank of Commander in the Met. Davidships (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

How many more buildings in London have the same cladding as Grenfell Tower?

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/15/how-many-more-buildings-in-london-have-the-same-cladding-as-grenfell-tower-6711394/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.118.156 (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Article expanded from this source, which I came across independently late last night. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Height of tower

I see no reference to the height of the building, not even in the key information box. Given it is a high-rise I feel this is highly relevant information, given sources were saying people were jumping from the building and attempting to gain attention from the upper floors on the night of the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.237.191 (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Stated on other language articles that it's 67.3 metres (221 ft), but nothing that is referenced. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Found a reference, 67.30 metres (220 ft 10 in). Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in the broader picture section about nearby firestations having been shut?

Kensington was one of them I gather closed by the previous London Mayor — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardLane (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I added a bit about the fire station closures by BoJo, but it got removed. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles to create

Perhaps someone could create an article about the North Kensington Fire Station on Ladbroke Grove? I think it might also make sense to create an article about the Kensington Leisure Centre, a huge gym near the tower currently used by firefighters I think.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Also the Westway Sports Centre, where the Queen visited the victims.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede references

As noted by the awarder of our barnstar, this is a really good quality article for one that is covering a rapidly developing current event. There are currently eleven references in the lede. Per WP:CITELEAD, can we please cull them? What is stated in the lede should be repeated in the article, and suitably referenced there. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede culled of references. If anyone spots anything in the lede that is not referenced in the article, please flag it up here. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

That was a really daft idea given that the article is still in constant flux and other editors might want to check those references. Andreas JN466 10:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jayen466: it was entirely within WP:MOS. There is no need for the lede to contain any information which is not in the main body of the article. All information in the main body of the article should be fully referenced, something which the vast majority of editors have been really good at, even if not all of them are capable of using {{cite web}}. A bare url for a reference is acceptable if that is all an editor is capable of posting, because other editors can check the linked webpage, and fully cite it. No references were deleted at all. Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, just think. You have several dozen editors dipping in here right now. It's fairly chaotic, and the results of such churn are unpredictable – and more predictable if stuff is referenced. For example, the Telegraph reference on the inadequacy of the "stay put" advice in circumstances like this, where fire is spreading along the outside of the building, was separated from the specific content in the lead it backed up (I've repeated that content now in that subsection so the point can't as easily be deleted from the lead as unsourced).

CITELEAD actually says, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

Just relax. This is not time to get excited about subtleties in MOS interpretation. The article will remain chaotic for a while yet. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 11:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Cladding standards and other building standards

The reliable sources I've read have predictably oversimplified the issues surrounding the fire resistance of the cladding systems, ignoring the overall performance in fire conditions of the entire mounting/insulation/drainage plane/skin assembly in favor of a focus on the outermost skin. We're going to have to wait for a while to see more measured discussions in professional journals on this subject that will become useful references. I recommend caution in presenting specifics concerning the fire-conditions characteristics of the new skin. For what it's worth, the US standard that the newspapers have mentioned as rendering the cladding "illegal" in the US is NFPA 285, which governs the performance of wall systems containing combustibles, and which mainly applies to buildings more than 50 feet tall.

In coming months I also would expect to see professional journal reports on the use of single stairs in tall buildings of this kind - explicitly prohibited in the US since 1960 or so by the Life Safety Code/NFPA 101 and model building codes, and on sprinkler retrofit requirements. We should be on the lookout for these kinds of sources and be careful about interpretations of building standards that don't originate in professional literature.

As discussed in the Life Safety Code/NFPA 101 article, model codes are reference standards enforced by statutes, not laws in themselves, and I would avoid using terms like "illegal," preferring "prohibited" or similar terminology. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Not allowed ? Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

That's good to-the-point terminology. Acroterion (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I've seen articles in newspapers that conflate replacement of interior firestopping at piping - an important issue of its own - with the cladding, which would not in any circumstances contain piping. I've also seen a mention of gas piping added in the stairwell. Being not entirely familiar with UK practice I'm not sure what credibility that might have. In my experience stairwells are not allowed to contain anything but stairs and the strict minimum of systems for lighting and environmental control, solely for the stairs, along with a source of firefighting water. Gas piping may have been added in shafts and the writer may have confused that with the stairs - it's hard to tell. There have also been mentions of a stairwell ventilation system, which would pressurize the stairwell to keep it clear of smoke, a usual measure in high-rise residential occupancies, but nothing concerning its performance. Acroterion (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Council housing

Quick question: Is Grenfell Tower - or was it built as - council housing? I think it'd be worth mentioning in the opening paragraph as a description of the tenancy of the building, or at least in the background section. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It was built a part of the Lancaster West Estate. Not sure whether it counts as a WP:RS for facts, but this image on Geograph states that it was designed by Terry Farrell and Nicholas Grimshaw. This info should be sourceable by those with and interest in architects. I'll take a look at The Times archives and see what I can find. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It clearly was council housing when it was built. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It remains council housing. AusLondonder (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Only at arms-length. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The Times proved fruitless. Will ask an architect friend if he can come up with some sources. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The original architects were Clifford Weardon and Associates. Source: Baumeister (magazine), 1970, no. 12, p. 1452-1454. This blog is apparently not RS, but many more details are given there: http://www.grasart.com/blog/lancaster-west-estate-an-ideal-for-living (Farrell and Grimshaw probably not involved) Ghughesarch (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The architects for the recent refurbishment was Studio E Architects. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/grenfell-tower-residents-had-predicted-massive-fire/10020757.article Ghughesarch (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Source found for original architects. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic, religious and social background of victims

I think this should be covered (but by someone much more British than myself) - in a manner that is concise (but as concise as "working-class housing complex"). It is clear a large number of victims was Muslim, immigrant, or Black. Instead of having vandals insert this information ([1]) in an inaccurate and inflammatory fashion, this should be stated in clearer terms. This is widely covered in RS (including how Ramadan, perhaps, reduced the amount of casualties as more people were awake).Icewhiz (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. --Andreas JN466 11:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done [2][3] --Andreas JN466 11:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The second edit seems sound, a general comment on demography. First seems both undue and to misrepresent the sources, which praise many local groups inc. Muslim residents. Pincrete (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This is only about first responders (the wider community response after the fire is covered in its own section further below). --Andreas JN466 12:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Quotefarm

Can we slim down the quotes please? And let's keep the article free of condolence quotes with little flags beside them. --John (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem with either. There is only one main quote directly presented in such a way to stand out. Not aware that there has been any WP:MOSFLAG violation either. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

We're at 21 quotes. I think two or three would be fine. --John (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Given the lack of an actual issue here your comment would seem rather POINTy to me, John. AusLondonder (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Your lack of clue and bad faith are noted. Thanks. --John (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

A lot of people have said things about the fire, so it is natural that they are quoted. Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't quote me on that. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Also (and I'm sure John would agree with this), can we please find better sources than The Sun? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Now at 23. Please don't remove the article improvement tag. Please fix the problem instead. No tabloid sources either as this is very much a BLP. --John (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• I'm no fan of The Sun in general, but in this case I believe they were the first news outlet to have consulted the records on the cladding that was done as part of the refurbishments, and to have pointed out that cladding of this sort had led to rapidly spreading fires on multiple prior occasions, points which were subsequently picked up by other news outlets (e.g. news.com.au, which explicitly quotes them, and BBC Newsnight, which showed video of the same French building that was shown in The Sun article). No source is always reliable or always unreliable, and The Sun is quite capable of good journalism on an issue like this. Rather than quoting only the articles that copied them, I think it's right to give credit where credit is due. Andreas JN466 17:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Normally I don't like all that many quotes in an article but I think it is important that the actual words used by government officials, by tenant groups, by architects, by onlookers, be set out within the timeline of this event so readers can understand what happened and what did not happen.

For instance...why is it important...

...to know that people remained in their flats? because they were told to do so by the people running the building more than once and the specific language used - that fire units would be there quickly, that the doors would withstand a fire for 30 minutes - is important.

...that Dany Cotton is quoted? Because she is the Fire Commissioner for the entire city of London.

...that Sadiq Khan is quoted? Because he's the Mayor of the City.

and so on. I took a look at WP:QUOTEFARM and this is what it says:

Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit, but quotes should not dominate the article.

Overuse happens when:

• a quotation is used without pertinence: it is presented visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere
• quotes are used to explain a point that can also be paraphrased
• the quotes dominate the article or section

I don't think the quotes dominate the article, I think the actual words used by government officials or tenant rights groups etc are important to the event's context, and I think that the quoted material I've seen is absolutely pertinent. Shearonink (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

PS - WP:QUOTEFARM is a guidance essay and not an official policy or guideline. It seems to me that how many quotes to include in an article or to delete from an article is decided according to editorial consensus on an individual basis per article. Shearonink (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

quotes are used to explain a point that can also be paraphrased is what we're talking about. If there are specific quotes that you think cannot be paraphrased, this is the place to say that and explain why. --John (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion I think, in the case of most of the quotes presently in this article, that the actual words used in documents or on media (TV, online, etc) by involved persons or by offices or companies are too important to be paraphrased. Shearonink (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I very much agree with Shearonink's remarks. Of course if we were writing the article from a viewpoint 20 years in the future (as we were doing for Piper Alpha disaster) we wouldn't have all these quotes. But that is not the situation, we don't know the resolution of this, and we are reduced to documenting a series of conflicting claims. The bast way to do this is to say (accurately) what the claims are and to let our readers judge why the people making the claims are worth listening to. On a subsidiary note I find the way we note our objections to article content (by placing an excessively large set of instructions at the top of the article) to be objectionable, even offensive. Thincat (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Your opinions are very interesting. But we simply can't have this many quotations in an article. This is not how we work. If the quotes cannot be paraphrased and trimmed, then we need to discuss them here on a case-by-case basis, focusing on why they need to be quoted in full. Article improvement tags aren't pretty, but then neither is having an article a large part of which was plagiarised from nonfree works using ctrl-C ctrl-V. Now that's objectionable. Not offensive but not permissible in our free encyclopedia either. I understand that a developing article like this is often in its early stages built by people who are too lazy or too ignorant of our style to do it properly, but standing up for keeping it this way won't wash. --John (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Original research using photographs

Some of the article is veering into original research. In this version of the article, there is the following paragraph:

One feature of the design of the block was concrete ribs running vertically up the building, one at each corner and two or three on each face. As part of the refurbishment, these also were clad with aluminimum rainscreen panels over PIR insulation[25]. As can be seen at the bottom of the left-hand rib in the referenced photograph where one rainscreen panel is missing, this left a void between the insulation and the rib. Some photographs of the fire show intense flames running vertically up these ribs,[26] possibly in a chimney effect.

The two references are bare URLs to photographs. This isn't acceptable referencing. @RobertSimons: who added this content in these edits: [4], [5], [6], [7]). Reliable sources are needed, not speculation from looking at photographs (regardless of whether the speculation is later shown to be correct). I've now removed the paragraph. Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Picture from 2009?

Is this picture really from 2009? File:Grenfell Tower, London in 2009.jpg. I reverted this edit by Neohagrid (as the refurbishment happened in 2015-16), but may have been wrong to do so. I have been looking at some pictures, and am no longer sure this image is from 2009. Can we trust the dating of the image, which is from geograph? There are pictures of the tower that are clearly before refurbishment, but I can't find any that have a high enough resolution to be sure they are clearly taken after the refurbishment. The best one I could find is at the top of this blog (well worth reading, used once as a reference in the article). It might be worth contacting the author of that blog to see if they have photos they are willing to release for use. Carcharoth (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes - The building is also the same on Streetview [8]. –Davey2010^Talk 15:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking at some more photos, the building after refurbishment was clearly much bluer. Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Given that cladding is being looked into as a potential cause of the spread of the fire, it would be highly desirable to try to get an image of the building post-refurb and pre-fire. In my opinion a poor quality image would be sufficient, as this might prompt a better one to be sourced. I know the time frame isn't (all) that long between refurb and fire, however given the location the money shot is surely out there. Might take a Twitter request or similar, as appears to have been the way we obtained the image of the burning building? Or a request to Grenfell Action Group? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Zoom in a long way on File:Grenfell Tower, London in 2009.jpg and look at the roof parapet. From reading some of the planning documents, I'm fairly certain the round holes are as-built, covered up in the refurb. I.e. it looks pre-refurb to me. Murph9000 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Carcharoth: Here is a Google Street view from April 2016, after refurbishment: [9]. Here is a the same perspective as photographed in July 2014: [10]. Note the perforations at the top of the building. Any pictures that have these are from before the refurbishment. --Andreas JN466 16:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There are high-resolution images of the tower post-refurbishment on the website of Studio E, the architects responsible for the refurbishment, e.g. [11]. This photo is remarkable for showing the constructional detail of the rainscreen panel and PIR insulation at the bottom of the left rib, where some of the cladding is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertSimons (talk • contribs) 16:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. It seems it is definitely a pre-refurb picture. Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Khadija Saye

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This edit removed content about a photographer, Khadija Saye, who is missing after the fire. While she is probably not independently notable, she does seem to have been a public figure to a certain degree, and accordingly I think it's appropriate to mention her here. What do others think?  Sandstein  16:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

As said above, I would say no. If she is not notable enough for an independent article on Wikipedia (eg: Paul Jeffreys) then I would say you are adding speculative original research which may upset people. Best leave it out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Saye being missing after the fire is not original research, it's abundantly reported in reliable sources, including international media, e.g. [12].  Sandstein  16:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

And, incidentally, right now somebody is being interviewed on the BBC about her.  Sandstein  16:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just checked BBC News and it says "Six victims of the Grenfell Tower blaze have so far been provisionally identified", so I doubt anyone has a definitive source that suggests anyone can write any long-term information for a global encyclopedia at this time. For goodness sake, what is the rush? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that she could be mentioned as "a local artist" or similar, just not by name. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally I don't think she should be named or mentioned at all - If we mention her then we may aswell have the whole victim list back, IMHO we should have all or none at all but that's my 2c, –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

THis lady is one of the three victims whose names have been released: "London fire: The victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy". BBC News. 16 June 2017. Retrieved 16 June 2017. —Phil | Talk 18:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Celotex

Celotex are now called Celotex Saint Gobain and claim to be "The leading UK PIR thermal insulation provider for the building and construction market". It's difficult to link them in the article in any way as the company has no article itself yet. But they have posted thoughtful comments on the front page of their website. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Social media photographs of partially uncovered body

A 43-year-old man from nearby posted photos of a bodybag in the lobby area of the block and then is said to have partially uncovered the body within and has posted photographs of this on social media (verified.) He has since been arrested by the Metropolitan Police and they have confirmed this to the media. Is this something worth adding? Gxrneyme (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No, just morbid sensationalism. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The perpetrator has been jailed. This may now be notable enough to include, subject to consensus, of course. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Naming of victims

It is likely that none of the victims are Wikinotable people. Names of victims will come out in the coming days. Can we have agreement that none of the victims are named in the article, unless they turn out to be a person notable enough to sustain an article independent of the fact that they are a victim. Mjroots (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

There may be reasons (certainly in the future if a lot gets written about this, which looks very possible given there will be a full public inquiry) for naming people who died or were injured or who were otherwise associated with this event. Most of them won't need to be named for the purposes of this article. I would suggest just taking it on a case-by-case basis, rather than trying to impose a blanket restriction. The full casualty list, in any case, won't be known for some weeks - though a list of the missing may be produced. Carcharoth (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Even if a news source later prints all the victims' names, I think WP:BLP would still apply (as I assume all have relatives or friends who have been profoundly hurt by the news) and we should absolutely leave them out. The one exception I might give is if a relative of the victim goes on to be a significant campaigner against dangerous buildings, but that won't be for months or years yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, victims are generally named in lists in similar articles. See, for example, 2016 Oakland warehouse fire and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (and many other similar articles). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

However, I also noticed that victims are not named or listed in the article for The Station nightclub fire. I assume that is because the number of victims was so high, in that incident (i.e., 100 deaths). But, in that article, they do have an "external link" that lists the 100 victim names. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no policy regarding names, recent terrorist events in UK have chosen to name NO ONE. Personally I find naming 'mawkish' and intrusive, with little value to the reader. Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There have been debates about this topic. (I think one actually occurred at the article for the 2016 Oakland warehouse fire.) Some editors feel that simply giving a number (of dead victims) is "sufficient" for a Wikipedia article. Other editors feel that it is "disrespectful" and that it "misses the point" to simply reduce all of the dead victims (i.e., human beings who have names) to some mere statistical data value. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, the discussion was a lot longer than I had remembered it being. It is here: Talk:2016 Oakland warehouse fire#Listing names of victims. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

About a redirect

I noticed that Grenfell Tower redirects to Grenfell Tower fire. I really think these should be separate pages, as the location is separate from the event. Highresheadphones (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Grenfell Tower a notable topic? I would not think so. Other than this fire, that is. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the tower is notable only for the fire. see WP:ONEEVENT MartinezMD (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand ... if there are other notable things about the building that can be properly sourced, no one should be dissuaded by this exchange from starting an entry. Might be more interesting than you anticipate. Lots of buildings - including 60s/70s style apartmeent blocks in western countries with long-standing housing shortages - get wiki entries for a wide range of reasons: most of them didn't burn down. There is no correlation between being of interest to you (or indeed to me) and notability. Success Charles01 (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

lol. you are correct. the fire appears to be the only notable thing about the building. No objections if there turns out to be other factors. MartinezMD (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It was not a listed building. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Some categories, such as "brutalist architecture" and "residential skyscrapers", might be more appropriate for the redirect page (Grenfell Tower), though, right? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added some cats to the redirect page. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Grenfell Action Group blog

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.118.156 (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

And? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

On which floor did the fire start?

The article has a contradiction about the floor on which the fire started. Early on, it says the second floor; later, it is stated that it was the fourth floor. Which is correct? Also, are we referring to the fourth floor of flats, or to the fourth floor of the building, which had some mixed-use floors close to the ground? It would be useful if the floor number were also explained in a way that can be understood globally, as in American buildings the first floor is the ground floor, but in Britain the first floor is above the ground floor and the fourth floor is the US fifth floor. Roches (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

As this article is written using British English, it should be understood that British flooring conventions are in use. Most reports state fourth floor. I'll add a note re floor naming conventions for those not familiar with the British system. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A diagram posted on skyscrapercity.com implies that the floors of flats may have been numbered 1 to 20, i.e. the mezzanine levels may not have been separately identified. Thus any quote referencing a floor doesn't definitely identify the actual floor. 76.191.134.183 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary correction

Turns out, that the Plasco Building was built in 1962, so I deemed the year of construction to be within a similar period. -Mardus /talk 11:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• And Grenfell Tower was designed in 1967. -Mardus /talk

but completed in 1974! according to the Telegraph JRPG (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Grenfell Action Group

I'm not clear why the 'Background' section has separate subsections for 'Safety concerns' and 'Grenfell Action Group', as they seem to overlap significantly. Also, couldn't some of the content in the latter subsection be moved to, and/or expanded in, the 'Criticism' section's 'Grenfell Action Group warnings' subsection? JezGrove (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Chronology of May's visits

There is a mistake in the chronology relating to Theresa May's visits. She was at more than one location on 16 June. She visited the injured in a hospital, and then later visited survivors at a hall, and it was this later visit where a crowd gathered (as news of her visit spread) and started to heckle her as she left. The article currently conflates these two events. The rolling live coverage is often better for confirming timelines and correct chronology than the news articles.

• May's visit to Kensington and Chelsea Hospital
• May's visit to St Clement's Church

It is even clearer here: "A large police presence held back angry crowds outside a Kensington church where Theresa May was meeting victims of the Grenfell Tower disaster ... Dozens of demonstrators surged towards the entrance of St Clement's church and there were scuffles outside as organisers appealed for calm. Earlier on Friday, the prime minister spent almost an hour speaking to patients and staff at London's Chelsea and Westminster Hospital.". The timing of the hospital visit was "just before midday" according to The Sun, and lasted "around an hour". May then went back to Downing Street. At some point, she went back to Kensington (to a meeting at St Clements). Before that, or around the same time, there was a protest at Kensington Town Hall (from around 15:00). From here, "A police statement said: "At around 16:35hrs on Friday, 16 June, a number of individuals entered the public area of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Town Hall to protest." I think the visit by May to St Clements was around that time as well, or just after. Pictures and details here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it is more correct now, after these edits. Carcharoth (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

No harm in adding rough (or exact) timings to provide clarity. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Great Work Everyone!

I can't give all of you a barnstar, but I can say thank you for yur diligence and teamwork to make such a great article in a short amount of time. Keep doing what you do best! McStyx 16:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@McStyx: There is the Teamwork Barnstar you know. Usual prcedure is to put it on the article talk page, and those editors involved may then copy it over into their user space if they so wish. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots done McStyx 16:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thanks to your teamwork and diligence, Wikipedia has another informational article for people to read, Great Work! McStyx 16:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Not only has this article been written with high level of quality, Wikipedians have diligently added mentions of the fire to diverse other articles where this article is relevant. such as Ronan Point and Sandwich panel. It's been a great example of a community working together. Roches (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well done to everyone. I am pleased to have made a very small contribution myself. MPS1992 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Very impressed at the way the article has evolved. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Amount of detail and summarising

There is a lot going on here, and a lot being reported. Ideally, this article would summarise rather than give a large amount of detail. If detail is being added to the article, we need to take care to be accurate. This is a highly charged and volatile situation. Let's aim to keep the article dispassionate and neutral, and avoid minute-by-minute reporting that can lead to errors (see above). We should concentrate on using reliable sources that are giving an overview of what has happened. It may take time for these to be published, but these sources are the ones that should be used for the content and to guide the development of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

An example of a good summary source is London fire: A visual guide to what happened at Grenfell Tower. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Similar accidents section

I removed the following, which while understandable does not strike me as sufficiently related to warrant a see-also entry. My view is that while there are some parallels, if comparisons are to be made it should be done so in the main body of the article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

[start of removed text]

=== Similar accidents === * 2014 [[Sinking of MV Sewol]]—ship passengers were instructed to stay where they were, which increased the number of deaths. Ship renovations, permitted under the [[Government of South Korea]]'s deregulation policies, had resulted in its center of gravity being moved upward, making it more unstable. The first response from [[Park Geun-hye]], the President, came seven hours later the accident. [end of removed text] StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was considering doing the same thing. Thincat (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. As far as I can see, in the Sinking of MV Sewol the ship simply toppled over and capsized. There was no fire. The only point of similarity might be that passengers were told to "stay where they were". Simply not relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth a passing mention re the staying in place, but nothing more than that, and only if a RS comments on it first. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed – I don't dispute the parallels in terms of the advice given and the politics. There may be an appropriate way to incorporate a mention in prose. But to include it in a stand-alone location gives it prominence which isn't justified. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Reactions

I don't think we need to use a subeheading for the reaction of every major public figure, as all it does is create a whole bunch of one or two line subesctions, and actually makes the article look quite stilted and untidy. A good example is mention of the "Friday protests" in the Prime Minister section, which is a subject not covered until much later. The section should be split into something like politician and others, which I'm going to do just now. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It's also important that this section not become an attack piece against the Prime Minister and remain balanced, no matter how any of us feels about her response. This is Paul (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It's also important to restore the chronology. I've corrected some of it, but can't keep up, and have to leave now. May's visits have been badly jumbled up. Initial comments were made on 14 June, she made a private visit to the tower on 15 June and other visits on 16 June. -- de Facto (talk). 23:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It was fine as chronologically ordered. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I've returned it to chrono order, with subheadings. I've no strong feeling re subheadings, but it might just be better to keep them. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to subhead it by date as there's more than one event occurring on each day. What concerned me before was that we had, for example, one line of text under a heading for Sadiq Khan, two for the Queen, and so on, all of which made it look a bit awkward. This is Paul (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

SWAT involvement?

• I am in England. On television news today I saw a wall-sized whiteboard near the Grenfell Tower fire site for people to write thanks and appeals etc on. One of those messages thanked SWAT. Who are these SWAT? Page SWAT says that police riotsquad-type units called SWAT operate in the USA only. Is it possible for such units in an emergency to get involved in fire rescuing? I heard of riotshields being used to defend against big pieces of flying debris such as burning pieces of the plastic cladding flying about in the fire-draught. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they are referring to this story in Metro: Riot police protect firefighters.... Shearonink (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Is a brief mention of this already in the article? I think it is worth including very briefly, even just based on the Metro source. MPS1992 (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever added this to the article. MPS1992 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Corbyn's letter to May

Jeremy Corbyn has written a letter to Theresa May re the public inquiry, rehousing the homeless and allowing relatives of victims who live abroad to travel to the UK to attend funerals. Would this be better covered under the investigations section? Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

As long as the announcement May herself made, in which she mentioned that the £5 million fund would, among other things, cover funeral expenses, is also included, and its made clear that Corbyn's letter came afterwards, not before. 80.5.30.32 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Accusations the number of fatalities were downplayed in the first two days

This section has been removed: [13]

---

The government and media were accused of downplaying the death toll initially by commenters including singer Lily Allen and rapper Akala. Allen told Channel 4's Jon Snow, "Seventeen? I'm sorry but I'm hearing from people that the figure is much closer to 150, and that many of those people are children." Allen added that these were numbers she'd been given off the record by policemen and firemen.

---

The material in question is well sourced. Lily Allen's comments in particular were widely reported, and were followed the next day by a substantial upward revision of figures publicised by police. In my view, Allen's criticism was notable enough to remain mentioned in the article. It is also the only place in the article that mentions that many of the casualties were children.

What do you think? --Andreas JN466 15:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Restore

1. Andreas JN466 15:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Lily Allen is a very well-known figure, especially in the London area. And it sounds as if, far from being "uninformed", she was well informed, or at least better informed than Channel 4 News, albeit unofficially. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
3. I think the situation was notable enough to include, although at this point the best strategy might be to wait and see if the accusations resurface with time (and are again widely reported). Speed74 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

   FWIW, article in Metro from this afternoon referring to the controversy: http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/17/why-the-grenfell-tower-fire-death-toll-is-rising-slowly-6715879/ (note also the explanation of the chimney effect in the video at the bottom, focusing on cavities between the cladding panels and the insulation foam; in other words, the chimney effect is not within the sandwich panel). --Andreas JN466 20:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

4. --87.156.224.25 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Do not restore

1. Ms Allen is not an expert on major fires, building construction or disaster relief. She is a pop singer. Her opinions have no more relevance than any other man or woman in the street. WP:NOTNOTABLE. WWGB (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

   Allen has herself been a television presenter. She is also an outspoken supporter of the Labour Party and has appeared at many political events. Not every "man or woman in the street" gets interviewed by Channel 4's Jon Snow. You are arguing that the only opinions that should be reported in this article are those of experts on major fires, building construction or disaster relief? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

2. The figures she was giving out seem (thankfully) to be well wide of the mark. However, it is reported that she did visit the victims so I would not object to that fact being mentioned. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Unconfirmed hearsay on casualty numbers should not be used. -- de Facto (talk). 16:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
4. They weren't downplayed. It is absolutely normal for any UK government to give basic -and probably self evident -facts when faced with a major disaster involving loss of life. Typical of this was during the Falkland's war when HMS Coventry's situation was described as "serious". In fact they knew the ship had capsized. What would be the objective of saying more when nothing more could be done? JRPG (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

   If you asked those folk at the Town Hall yesterday, I think they might have said it was something to do with "the truth"? But I see your point. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

5. The police/fire service, etc are the authority on the numbers of deaths, not some Z-list singer. They'll only report the FACTS they have at the time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments

It is worth noting that in Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing there's a paragraph about Rufus Hound, who posted several tweets accusing the Conservative Party of committing the attack for electoral gain. Both are controversial statements, though Allen's comments have received more media coverage than those made by Hound on that particular topic. But I really don't know if including such entries is that helpful. Perhaps under Reactions we could have a section for public figures, but bear in mind the article is already 110KB long. This is Paul (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This is Paul, I see your point in principle. But this doesn't seem a very apt comparison. Allen's comments caused the BBC to justify and explain its reporting around casualty figures, and may indeed have changed the police's and the BBC's approach in this specific case, as both police and the BBC then proceeded to give figures for people missing presumed dead, rather than restricting themselves to numbers of actual bodies found. Given present difficulties in the building, the latter approach can't but result (and did indeed result) in an underrepresentation of the number of lives lost. --Andreas JN466 16:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Did she influence the way the figures were being reported, or was it just the case that more information became available after her comments were made, consequently allowing for those figures to be adjusted? Authorities (and the BBC for that matter) tend to be cautious about issuing statistics like this until the information is established beyond reasonable doubt. However, if this theory turns out to be fact, and could be reliably sourced then there's an argument for including it. This is Paul (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

There was a shift in approach: at first, the authorities only reported the number of bodies physically found. Then they admitted that the final number of dead would be far higher than the counts provided to date. Maybe this was because by then they had a better overview of the number of people missing. Maybe it was because the press asked questions. Perhaps it was because community spokespeople and celebrities complained about the unrealistically low casualty figures being publicised in the media. Quite possibly, all of these factors, the passage of time, the availability of more information, the press's questions and public pressure put on them by Allen and others, played a role, but it's hard to single any one of them out. All we know is that all of those things happened, and were widely reported. Andreas JN466 19:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Its worth noting that at the protest Akala took the microphone and condemned the Socialist Workers Party trying to abuse the protest for their own ends. At that point all the people holding SWP placards abruptly put them down. 80.5.30.32 (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Missing people

What is the source for the number of missing people as 41? I thought that the Met police has refused to release any number. 110.23.126.30 (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Good spot. I've removed it as there does not appear to be a source in the article for it, and I've been unable to find one to back up that figure. I could well be removing a genuine figure, but given the sensitivity of the situation and importance of accuracy I think it right to lean on the safe side here. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Cool thanks. I thought I was missing something.130.102.82.120 (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Counting the various individuals listed as missing in media souces, the figure is in excess of 50. I've seen one source state that the figure could be as high as 100. Agree that until official sources (police, fire brigade, council etc) give a number, then such speculation should be kept out of the article. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Wise to cautious. Cdr Cundy said yesterday "For those of us that have been down there it’s pretty emotional, so I hope it is not triple figures, but I can’t be drawn on the numbers" - which to me implies that they fear that it will indeed exceed 100.

This and this are appalling headlines from RS! Davidships (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a particularly odd fact for official sources to refuse to release this far in. Can we include anything reliably sourced about the fact that authorities have refused to release the number? Tim AFS (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, even the police haven't got accurate numbers at the moment with all those repeated calls for the same missing people. Plus the fact that there's confusion about who had gone into hospital and how had not (apparently not even hospitals have been keeping lists: See Jessica Urbano). Things are still quite confused right now with so many possible dead and injured.110.23.126.30 (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It might never be known as 1. Unlike company premises, there is no register for who was in the building and 2. Some bodies are effectively cremated beyond recovery. David Crayford (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Seriously people, stop changing the missing number to 46. The reported missing people can be amongst those who are in hospital (because apparently they don't keep lists and so relatives can't find them) or not even in the building itself because the panicked relatives just know that they live "in the area" and not even certain about the actual address. One can still be missing and turned out to be alive despite no one is expected to be alive in the building. And it can include some of the dead (given that not all of the dead found has been identified) but not all of the dead. 58.111.146.237 (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should list the missing as 76, because 46 is not mentioned anywhere in the media, and could therefore count as original research. Speed74 (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The number of missing should be listed as unknown as 600 people are estimated to reside in the tower and only 100 are known to be in hospital. Losses could range up to 500 persons, but the fire brigade has not been in the upper levels.--Patbahn (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

14–15 June 2017

"14–15 June 2017" fire. This seems wrong. I clearly remember TV coverage on 16 June that said there were still fires, and there was that hose crane that was still dousing down the building. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Be wary of the TV news media repeating footage, particularly "B roll" footage, in an ongoing story. The LFB press office is probably the most accurate source for that detail (but obviously a primary source): http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/LatestIncidentsContainer_grenfell-tower-fire-update-15-june-2017.asp It indicates that they consider the main fire to be out on the 15th, but also talks about "pockets of fire" remaining after that and on the 16th. With such a tremendously intense and huge fire, the concrete will absorb a massive amount of thermal energy and take potentially days before it cools to completely safe levels (i.e. before the fire re-ignition risk drops down to minimal levels). So, it really depends just what you are talking about; the primary fire and emergency was essentially over on the 15th, but the insignificant "pockets of fire" and post-fire management of the structure remained. For the purpose of our coverage of the incident, I believe 14th–15th is essentially the correct thing to report, but there would also be no harm in additional explanation (perhaps as a footnote) that the secondary phase of managing the incident does include "pockets of fire". Murph9000 (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

As there were still fires burning on 16 June, 14-16 June is more accurate. Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Photo shows how the fire jumps from a flat through the cladding

Even if this photo doesn't show the starting point of the fire, it helps understanding how the transformation happened - a fire inside the building (1000°C) working through aluminium cladding (melting point 660°C) remaining in a heavy insulation fire (~1000°C). To be honest, the fire of the flat shown on the photo was obviously the result of the burning cladding (bottom right at photo). This photo would illustrate the text of that article I think. Is it possible to use this photo for illustration in Wikipedia? Are people from London reading here, who can photograph the same spot shown on the photo and load it to Wikimedia? Do I ask for this at the wrong page? Thank you. -- Temdor (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

To reply only to your question about whether we can use this photo. No, because it is "all rights reserved"[14] and, as you have said, we might be able to get a free photo. The photographer could be asked to give a suitable licence. Thincat (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

NPoV

"Warnings ignored at all levels" fails the NPoV test, and is not suitable for use as a heading. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

yes, and the "Greenfell action group" cited under "causes" is not a reliable source either.104.163.153.14 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a WP:PRIMARY source, and as such can be 'used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source,' i.e. their website, for what they espoused. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Why does "Warnings ignored at all levels" fail the NPoV test?? Warnings were demonstrably made at company, local authority, London-wide, and national level; they were demonstrably not acted upon. All this is sourced. I originally entered this heading; what is my "POV" assumed to be (over and above simple statement of the facts)? Putting all these disparate failures in a section headed "Grenfell Action Group warnings" is totally misleading. As it happens, I've broken the section into headed subsections, and that seems to have stayed; but otherwise what heading would be appropriate for a single merged section? Pol098 (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Everything in the section headed "Grenfell Action Group warnings" is about warnings issued by the Grenfell Action Group. You list four levels; that is not all levels. We don't know everyone who saw those warnings, let alone who did not ignore them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

What levels are there in addition to company, local authority, London, and national? You could give a pedantic answer, but "all levels" isn't misleading given this range. The section headed "Grenfell Action Group warnings" originally contained non-GAG London and national levels (until I worked on it), it's untrue that it was only about warnings issued by the group (I listed the others in my previous comment). This is the article at the time.

"We don't know everyone who saw those warnings, let alone who did not ignore them." So what? The warnings were issued, and no action was taken (i.e., ignored). Ihe fire safety review was recommended (a warning) but not acted on. Finally, how is "Warnings ignored at all levels" POV? Pol098 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The article at present seems POV and unencyclopedic. An activist group has their pronouncements treated as gospel truth, and the management are portrayed as mustache-twirling villains out of a 19th century melodrama. At this point the article should be quoting reliable secondary sources rather than acting as a soapbox for the tenant group. When inquiries have determined the origin, reviewed the progress of the fire and the quality of fire-fighting, and contributary causes, then an objective account can be presented, Edison (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

To the extent that reliable sources report tenant group complaints, a brief summary of such complaints belongs in the article. Long manifestos sourced to the tenant group are inappropriate. If government officials say they are looking into issues such as the flammability of the cladding, the functioning of alarm systems, the appropriateness of instructions to shelter in place, junk like old mattresses in the hallways, and the adequacy of emergency egress passages (ONE EXIT?) these should be mentioned. We should not be posting conclusions at this point, just summarizing issues which can be reliably sourced. Edison (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest if there is a keen desire to refer to 'warnings being ignored' then it should be as a quote - sourced, presumably from the action group - rather than as a statement of fact. It is not something that can be stated factually, as to do so would require access to all internal documents of all relevant parts of government that needed to be warned and/or should have had some input into any decisions about safety. As an example, it would only take evidence of a minute sent from one bureaucrat to another, mentioning the potential risk, to make a statement about warnings being ignored non-factual. Ambiguosity (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Video that could be included in external links

A number of TV and newspaper reports on the Grenfell Tower fire (among them Newsnight) have included this video of the Mermoz Tower fire in France: [15] It illustrates graphically how quickly such fires spread. Worth adding as an external link? Andreas JN466 12:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it in the public domain?Ambiguosity (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It does not have to be PD or free-licensed to link to it as an EL. It just needs to be a legitimate public copy of it, i.e. on YouTube (or other video hosting site) with permission of the copyright holder. In the case of the above link, it looks like a personal video taken by someone watching from a nearby building. If that is their own YouTube account, it would be ok to link to it in copyright terms, but not if someone has re-published it without permission. Murph9000 (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)