Jump to content

Talk:Grenfell Tower fire/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Kensington Aldridge Academy

I'm just thinking that it may be appropriate to add the fact that the KAA school (next door to the tower) has been closed since the fire, and students moved to different schools. This is more impactful, as exams are currently ongoing. Liamwli (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Seem reasonable to me. Short-term impact section would seem to be the best place. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done Liamwli (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

See also section

Ronan Point? It was not a fire, although it was a tower block disaster with fatalities in London. Can see that it is includeable should there be a major inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire, which is probably going to happen. Whilst we're on the subject, can we agree that The Towering Inferno is NOT to be added to this section? Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. A terrible tragedy has occured. Adding a photo of Steve McQueen would compound the tragedy. ;) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 08:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Possible candidate for inclusion MS Scandinavian Star, a ship fire where plastics played a major role. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
"Plastic" is too generic to justify a link. In the ship it is stated to have been melamine panelling (which, perhaps surprisingly, is described as fire-resistant), and in this tragedy reported below as polyethylene.Davidships (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
re MS Scandinavian Star, -don't include -fire on ships are quite different as heat can transfer efficiently along the metal hull causing fire to break out in areas some distance away.
Lakanal House fire, and a second vote for Ronan Point, which was caused by an explosion, but had a major impact on how high rise residential is viewed in the UK. current see also links to building regs and fire escape would surely be better worked into the article.Lacunae (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree Lakanal House fire is essential. In 1976 I read an Open University book on UK public enquiries which said publication was usually delayed until -often years later -the authors could say "all recommendations have been implemented." I fear that's what happened here, hence the relevance. JRPG (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Include -I've been interested in Ronan point for many years -having been in a student tower block in Cardiff when it happened & I read all the details at the time. It profoundly changed UK building regulations and quality control -just as this disaster will. It is a reference study for building stability and if the building isn't stable a fire can't be fought.JRPG (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
And here's professional proof that Ronan point is relevant JRPG (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
King's Cross fire may also be eventually relevant in this section as led to significant changes in regulations.Lacunae (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
King's Cross is also a major fire in the history of London, so it may be relevant just because of that. What I disagree with is the inclusion of two warships which suffered fires in their aluminum superstructures. So far we have no evidence that burning aluminum played a role -- burning aluminum requires great heat but results in intense, fast-burning fires that release much energy. On the warships, circumstances particular to warships led to the fires. Roches (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed - re ships see my note above. JRPG (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I added Ronan Point (and made the subsections uk and elsewhere )I agre It was not a fire,(but an explosion) and i think because it was a tower block disaster with fatalities in London. I found it good to add.
By the way where was Ronan Point exactly as far as I know the street it was on (clever street? , canning town) doesn't seem to exist anymore and also is there a plaque or so where it was (please answer these questions at the Ronan Point page. I think i live quite close to it but was only made aware of this disaster 2 years ago. WillemienH (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
If you take a wide view of it, it's a very relevant link. Both possibly involving design and construction issues. Both incidents should have only impacted a single flat or those immediately surrounding the origin. Both from the big push into building council tower blocks. The differences are the scale of the disaster and Grenfell Tower was actually a significantly better structure that was later apparently compromised by a bad refurb. Ronan Point had a long term impact on the safety of tower blocks, Grenfell will very likely have the same. Murph9000 (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Origin of name

I am presuming the tower was named after Joyce Grenfell, but can't find any confirmation online. Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenKeeping (talk • contribs) 09:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This blog suggests: "I suspect that this Grenfell Tower was probably named after one of Joyce's cousins-by-marriage, the politico-banking-poetry-military Grenfells, as in the bankers Morgan Grenfell and the late Lord Desborough". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
There are two elements to the name. First the name of the roads (which is where the name Grenfell first appears, back in 1908), and then the name of the tower block when it was designed and built in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I will look in The Times to see if that can shed light. In passing, that blog does miss several important points in pushing a particular point-of-view. It misses the sense of community that some sources attribute to Grenfell Tower and its residents (some will have been there a long time). What is also missing from that blog is the story of the private rental flats. It is clear that some of the flats (I think the ones on the upper floors) were privately owned and rented out. Forum discussions can throw up some obscure points (the amount about this on social media is immense, of course). I Googled yesterday and found both a Mumsnet discussion (thousands of messages) and a discussion with a very different tone here (hardly unexpected from a forum discussing house property prices). Anyway, there is (or rather was) a property advertised on RightMove, see here. That was on the 21st floor (see the floorplan).

2 bedroom flat to rent, Grenfell Tower, London, W11, £395 pw| £1,712 pcm

The notice now says:

This property has been removed by the agent. It may be let or temporarily removed from the market.

Nice pictures inside. :-( Gives a different perspective on this awful tragedy. For the article, the point to make is that the tower was not 100% social housing (though it was likely mostly social housing). It is not that important in the grand scheme of things, but gives a clearer picture of who lived there. Carcharoth (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I was offering that blog source purely for it's guess about the origin of the name, certainly nothing more. If the Borough follows local government conventions, I suspect that its new housing, like the names of any new roads, are likely to be named after it's planning officers or other local dignitaries. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
As a former planning officer - that is, a paid local government employee - I assure you that no-one has ever, or would ever, regard officers as "dignitaries". You may be referring to elected local councillors who are responsible for planning matters, and for employing the officers. I've known several who would like themselves to be considered as "dignitaries". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've heard them called quite a variety of other names. And I'd agree that "dignitaries" is not top of that list.... (even in Italy). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
See also the earlier discussion here. Carcharoth (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. User:Le Deluge makes quite a fair guess there, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The Right to Buy explains why this block and many like it mixed privately-owned and social housing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that the Grenfell Tower article says this: "The road itself was named after Field Marshal Lord Grenfell,[1] a senior Army commander of the 19th and early 20th century." So maybe this could to be added somewhere to this article, perhaps as a footnote, whether or not Grenfell Tower gets deleted? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News". www.pressreader.com.

Westway Sports Centre

The image of the Westway Sports Centre, abive may be useful - is Grenfell one of the towers shown? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Grenfell Tower is the one in the middle. -- Temdor (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Inline REFs make it impossible to edit the article

An urgent appeal: use the REFLIST to assemble the REFs as I had begun in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grenfell_Tower_fire&oldid=785807166 and which was quickly destroyed by somebody not thinking about their actions. The text is not visible between all the inline REFs. This is a main cause for bad quality of an article. --L.Willms (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Inline refs do not make it impossible to edit the article. The system is in use on the vast majority of articles. You should not impose your favoured method of referencing on an established article. I was thinking about my actions, which were 1) to make the reference fit the existing format, and 2) to remove an error caused by an unnecessary parameter being used. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@L.Willms: It is not acceptable for you to accuse editors, who happen to disagree with your preferred style, of "not thinking about their actions". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
" You should not impose your favoured method of referencing on an established article." -- well, why then support undoing something sensible, as was done by "Mjroots"?
This pest of inline REFs should really be avoided. This is the cause of too many errors and double work in articles. It make the actual text invisible by the REF description, and it is made worse by writing REF not in capital letters, so that beginning and end of an inline REF vanish. I added the reference to the technical description of the cladding material with Polyethylen, but run away from the mess which is created by the non-thinking people who create such a mess. Besides that the original article on Grenfell Tower should not have been kidnapped for an article on the fire. This fire required a new article. See you never again! --L.Willms (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@L.Willms: I didn't express support or the contrary; I simply told you that your failure to assume good faith is unacceptable. You again refer to fellow editors as "non-thinking people". If you persist in this unacceptable behaviour, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Update

  1. Council leader claims sprinklers were not fitted as residents did not want the disruption
  2. British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association has put the cost of installing a sprinkler system at £200,000.
  3. How many people were in the building during the fire has not been established. Up to 600 people lived in the building's 120 apartments.
  4. Details of the building work on Grenfell Tower suggest fireproof cladding which could have prevented the deadly blaze would have cost just £5,000 extra.
  5. According to Mail Online, using a fire proof version would have cost £24 per square metre instead of the £22 panels that were used.
  6. The entire tower underwent a two year-long refurbishment in 2016 and cost £8.6 million to complete.
  7. Theresa May heckled as she unveils £5m cash fund and dozens of demonstrators scuffle with police.
  8. Grenfell Tower protesters storm Kensington town hall.
  9. Theresa May was too scared to meet the Grenfell survivors-Polly Toynbee.
  10. Sun journalist 'impersonated Grenfell Tower victim's friend at hospital'.
  11. Omnis Exteriors asked to supply cladding £2 cheaper a square metre than fire-resistant type, police investigation finds.
  12. Home Secatery visets the fire site, vitims and firefighters on the 16th.
  13. PM announces £5m for victims as part of aid package.
  14. At least 30 dead, say Met police.
  15. Protests underway in Downing Street and Kensington.
  16. Sun reporter ‘impersonated victim’s friend’.
sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

79.77.209.59 (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I note they are mainly from the guardian, links on Yahoo, or "Socialist Alternative". Do you not think that's a little one-sided? For example

  1. "The demonstrators show every sign of being led by professional political agitators" [1] (Catholic Herald).
  2. "Volunteer says angry scenes not 'true reflection' of response" [2] (12:43pm today, BBC)
  3. "Council officers evacuated from relief effort after protest" [3] (17:30pm yesterday, BBC)

which put a very different light on your suggested updates. 80.5.30.32 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and with regard to your number 4 (fire-proof cladding costing a mere £5000), the BBC interviewed the supplier (Omnis) who made clear that the more expensive cladding (the fire-proof one costing £5000 extra) is a very new product, and the BBC interviewer remarked (in the BBC comment) that its not clear whether the expensive cladding was even available in 2015. In other words, you're complaining that they didn't spend £5000 on something that didn't actually exist at the time; what are you/your sources suggesting they should have done? Invent a time machine?. 80.5.30.32 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

To my mind this appears to be an attempt to construct a conspiracy theory. Here is not the place for those, go and write a blog or something. This is Paul (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
How exactly is reporting the BBC reporter's comment "constructing a conspiracy theory" ?
The full BBC comment is "UK-based company Omnis supplied the panels used for cladding in Grenfell Tower. They have told the BBC's Jim Reed that they were asked to supply one of the cheaper, more flammable versions available then. The company can supply more expensive, fire-retardant versions of the panels now - a type called Reynobond FR - but it is not clear if they were available at the time."
That's followed by 3 twitter posts by the same reporter Jim Reed, the third of which says "Some confusion over whether the more expensive, fire-retardant, versions of those panels were even available in 2015. Certainly very new."
Entry for 17:07, on 16th June 2017, here : [4] (that's about 6 or 7 clicks of "show more updates" at the present time.
So how exactly is reporting those comments here, to you and others, "constructing a conspiracy theory" ? 80.5.30.32 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to the highlighting of quotes such as "The demonstrators show every sign of being led by professional political agitators", which seem to add more weight to minority views, and would appear not to reflect mainstream opinion. Your posts here and on other threads appear to suggest you have some kind of axe to grind. If that is the case then I suggest you don't do it here. And, just in case you haven't read your talk page, comments like this one are really not appropriate here. This is Paul (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Its the headline of the article, not a mere highlighted quote. The front page of Saturday's Daily Telegraph, for example, says "Militants hijack inferno protest". Anyone who went to a UK newsagent or supermarket yesterday would have seen that, but here's a twitter link [5] if you didn't get the chance. Quoting the front page of a national broadsheet newspaper is not "constructing a conspiracy theory". 80.5.30.32 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. One of the victims - who managed to survive - called LBC and complained that the protesters "actually stopped him from getting help" [6]
That should probably be in the article, since the word of the actual victims, on a national radio station, is fairly significant. Notwithstanding your apparent unwillingness to include remarks from the BBC, or the national press. 80.5.30.32 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
That LBC quote should only be in the article if the rest of the media picks it up, likewise for any other theory about what's being going on. You seem hellbent on giving the issue undue weight, when in truth all kinds of theories are being thrown around at the moment. Others have claimed that the death toll is in fact much higher and the police/government, etc, are attempting to cover this up. That's also being reported by certain media, with some wanting to add it here, and I'd say exactly the same thing to them as I've said to you. This is Paul (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
That Telegraph/Catholic Herald stuff is also speculation, and not something we should indulge in. This is Paul (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Height display

At the time the tower was built, feet and inches were the unit of measurement in use. That is the reason I arranged the template to display ftin converted to m. Feet and inches are still commonplace units of measurement in the UK. Yet the metricationists keep changing the template to display m converted to ftin. Let's establish concensus for the display format. Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

ftin / m
  1. Mjroots (talk)
  2. Martinevans123 (talk)
m / ftin
  1. I like imperial units, but metric has been the standard in the UK for ages. Is there not any wiki-wide consensus for this? Speed74 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
True even cubits have now become metres, followed by feet. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I tend to use the system in use by the country concerned at the time. In the UK today, it is very much a mix, but in 1974, Imperial units were predominant. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I am british and i agree we still commonly use metric units for example measuring peoples height in feet. However for buildings we always use metres never feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.99.87 (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Exploding refrigerator?

Not asking for original research here, but how would a refrigerator "explode" and cause a fire? I'm not clear on this point in the article. Could we clarify that? Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The same Telegraph front page (cited above) have suggestion "N Korea hackers". Perhaps to smoke Rodman visit there today. 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably an electrical fire in a faulty compressor motor; fridges have the additional disadvantage of being highly flammable. See e.g. [7] for advice. Prioryman (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Fridges may well be highly inflammable, but do they explode?125.236.202.112 (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The electrical motors in the fridge can "explode" (any motor can explode), a faulty motor could experience a rapid unscheduled violent dissassembly that could ignite the fridge, and through [throw] chunks of compressor around the room -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The MGM Grand fire was started by a refrigerated display case. The refrigerator's vibrations and some other factors combined to result in an electrical conduit being damaged, exposing live wires which then short-circuited. Probably not the same cause as here, but any electrical appliance can start a fire if conditions are right. Roches (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I was listening to BBC Radio 5 Live at around 2am the night the fire started and the station ran continous reporting of the fire soon after the first reports came in. Witnesses were phoning in to describe what they saw and then a man phoned in and gave his story of events and said that he lived on the fourth floor of Grenfell Tower and his fridge had 'exploded' and it was he that had called the emergency services. He went on to describe how he alerted his neighbours and escaped. I later in the morning saw on BBC TV on the Victoria Derbyshire programme a man being interviewed who said he was the man's neighbour and confirmed the story and said he could see into the burning flat as the door was open. The Sun newspaper have tracked the first man, Mini-cab driver Behailu Kebede, and states he "was woken by a loud bang as a suspected electrical fault blew up the fridge-freezer in his fourth-floor flat". The Mirror newspaper ran the same story. Although the fridge brand was not mentioned it seems that Beko fridge freezers have a history of this as the Daily Record reported in 2013 (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/faulty-fridge-set-familys-home-1548559) that "up to half a million produced with a fault which poses a serious fire risk" and the victim in the article stated "their fridge “exploded” and burst into flames" and the article also stated "London Fire Brigade said in 2011 that faulty Beko fridge freezers had caused 20 fires and one death in the UK capital since 2008." The Guardian newspaper reported in 2011 that a Beko fridge freezer started a tower block fire (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jul/05/beko-fridge-freezer-fire-warning). Type "beko fire explosion" into GoogleUK - it's not good reading. Andrew ranfurly (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Firefighting aircraft dispatched?

as pictured is able to deliver waterfall of tons of water every few minutes. There are known open waters near London only downing on street and tower.current — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not something that is done in the UK. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
They are not used for such types of fire and are impractical in such situations DerElektriker (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Certainly are used and designed for surface fires. Look on YT. Fire started on elevation surface . Maybe they used it and was invisible. There are now only credible but blog sources. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Firefighting helicopter was not dispatched? The ladders are too short. --Cheol (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The process of lowering a helicopter to get close enough would have fanned the flames and stirred up smoke, causing even more damage and destruction. 89.243.52.161 (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Some editors seems to have very strange ideas about the equipment available to British firefighters.... Nick Cooper (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't they have a bucket, Helicopter bucket? --Cheol (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Who do you think "they" are? Nick Cooper (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Helicopter use in Wooshin Golden Suites fire
@Ryuch: Interestingly, such a helicopter was apparently used in the Wooshin Golden Suites fire (see image). (That article was only created by an editor the other day and needs work.) --Andreas JN466 13:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe useful as a source: London fire: How are fires fought in high-rise blocks? 2001:44B8:184:AC01:E005:ED12:BB92:45FD (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Which, of course, says absolutely nothing about aircraft. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Some cities (Los Angeles) are supposed to have the ability for heli-evac for highrises. Other cities with tall highrises have specialized ladder trucks and crane hoselines to reach upper storeys (Hong Kong). Brush fire bucket helicopters have also been used to fight urban fires before. And agricultural spray planes to lay down water mists. Does Britain have major forest fires? (And thus aerial firefighting equipment) -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The UK - not even London - does not have the density of high-rise buildings that would justify expenditure on such resources that would almost never be used (e.g. as far as I know, no fire service in the UK has its own helicopter/s). It would be like buying thousands of snowplows just for the half-dozen days once every two or three years when they might be useful. No, Britain does not really have, "major forest fires." Nick Cooper (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nick Cooper: Well, the Thames is nearby, and there are potentially more than enough helicopters in London you could attach a helicopter bucket to. At any rate, they managed to do that in South Korea. --Andreas JN466 13:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Stop talking such utter bollocks. Helicopters are not and never have been used in urban firefighting in the UK in the way you geniuses thousands of miles away think they "should" be. It didn't happen, and it was never going to or could happen. Just accept that. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Who's talking bollocks? You're several orders of magnitude out, both in terms of my assumed distance from Kensington, and the assumed cost of a helicopter bucket. But anyway, maybe we can agree that this talk page was intended for more useful conversations. ;) Cheers, --Andreas JN466 21:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the general tone of this conversation but from my limited experience of flight trials, RN prefer to fly helicopters over a river rather than risk civilian casualties. We all know they performed sterling work rescuing the crew of the Sir Galahad but I think there would be a significant risk of crashing if helicopters manoeuvred low over a burning building. JRPG (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, you started talking about South Korea, so I assumed you were at least not in the UK. I also never said anything about cost, but rather the self-evident fact that UK urban firefighting does not - and never has - used this type of equipment. Complaining that it wasn't used in this instance is therefore utterly pointless. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

SWAT message

In relation to riot police attending the fire scene to use their shields to deflect falling debris, in the article we have: "(This prompted a message "GOD BLESS YOU, SWAT" on a public whiteboard at the scene.)" cited to unspecified BBC TV news footage. I removed it as speculation, but Anthony Appleyard reinstated it with the edit summary: "I saw the SWAT message on BBC television news". "SWAT" is not a common term in the UK, riot police are usually called "riot police". Anthony Appleyard, did the BBC footage you saw confirm that the message was related to the actions of the riot police? -- de Facto (talk). 21:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm that the message was posted as claimed. Mjroots (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I reinstated the information as "(Someone put a message "GOD BLESS YOU, SWAT" on a public whiteboard at the scene.)". Someone there may have known about the USA SWAT, and used the name here. It is an example of someone using an Americanism to refer to something British. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mjroots and Anthony Appleyard: but did the commentary link the message to the riot police, or is that just speculation? -- de Facto (talk). 22:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the sourcing is too weak – we'd need a bit more than the whiteboard appearing in footage. (Did the presenter specifically comment on it?) I would say unless there is press coverage of that message it does not belong in the article. Andreas JN466 22:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There was television news coverage :: the BBC TV 1 news showed a riotsquad man guarding a firefighter and soon afterwards showed the sign. The article now says "... the cladding. (Someone put ...", adjacent with no connection stated; each reader is free to see a connection or not. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Duplication of subject

The article has a section for Grenville Action Group, and another for Grenville Action Group warnings. Kablammo (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Australia

I've done what I can with what I can see. Editors with online subscriptions to The Australian or The Times, or a hard copy of The Times may be able to expand on Australia's reaction. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

In South Australia an audit of apartments with flammable cladding has started. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/south-australia-to-audit-adelaide-buildings-for-flammable-cladding Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Casualty estimates - should be in infobox

When a plane flies into a side of the mountain or ocean, everyone who is assumed to be aboard is presumed dead - despite bodies not being recovered. And we put that into the infobox quite immediately.

This is a similar situation. Everyone left in the tower is presumed dead. There is a good chance they will not be able to recover many bodies (see cremation as to why). There is a good chance that 6 months from now - even after they clear the tower (which may take quite some time) - that there will still be quite a few people as missing and presumed dead - and there is a good chance that there will be people who are just missing (e.g. temporary night visitors to the towers) without a clear link, and that some dead might not even be declared missing.

Should we wait? I don't think so. I don't think, from the coverage and the nature of the event, that the final number will every be 100% clear.

The correct thing to do - is to stick the more accurate estimate there is - into the infobox. Sadly, the amount of casualties here is what makes this a notable event - and this should be stated clearly.Icewhiz (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

As I stated above, any estimate for the number of missing needs to be in a statement by an official source, and directly referenced to that official source, not media. Otherwise we stray into the realms or WP:OR. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Numbers of 100 or higher have been spread in the media; so far as I know, the last police figure was 60, and the BBC say "76 missing". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Stating media estimates, is not OR. I am sure we can find reputable well-sourced estimates here. Even the official statements are giving upper ranges now (may exceed X, might be triple figures, etc.) - why not place in Infobox?Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Because it's not information, it's hypothesis, perhaps? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed death toll now 30, says BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-london-40239008 Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
30+ is what belongs in the infobox right now. Reliable sources with upper estimates or extrapolations of what the police are saying are only appropriate in the body of the article, where appropriate context can be given to what those numbers mean. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with 'wait and see' approach. Even authorities acknowledge that figure may or probably will go up, what's the point of speculating/guessing by how much? Pincrete (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The authorities aren't say may or probably will - they are saying will (just saw the latest briefing). They haven't searched the whole tower - they can't get to every place. Even after they search - they might not be able to get to an absolutely exact tally. The amount of missing people is a hard number we can place there. The notability of this incident - is due to the amount of casualties (which is why it is on 24/7 on the British news, head-lines for a few days on all major outlets, international coverage). The infobox is first (and often only) thing people look at where they are taking a brief look at an article - and the amount of casualties in a disaster is really the most interesting statistic.Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I know this building and the area, it serves no one to speculate just how bad this could be. Pincrete (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
It is known how many people are on board a plane which crashes because they all have to be checked in at the start of the flight and there is no way for them to leave before the anticipated arrival: is there a corresponding system for checking people in and out of this block of flats which can provide an accurate number of occupants at the time of the disaster? —Phil | Talk 13:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
That may be technically feasible for blocks of flats/ apartments which have a concierge. But this arrangement is rare in UK and was almost certainly not present here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Clearly there is more uncertainity regarding building occupants, though with time yoh do have missing person reports (and possibly cell phone info). It is not impossible for flight counts to be wrong (deadheads, stowaways, last minute ejection) and it is possible to leave safely mid flight, e.g. D. B. Cooper. However what is relevant is that in this case we actually have estimates from RS, which is much more notable than a "confirmed bodies so far, expected to rise significantly" tally.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
There is also the fact there are those "missing" who might actually have been taken to hospital since hospitals haven't been taking lists and the family can't find them. Also, on the Guardian there was a family reported as missing just because they lived around the area and couldn't be contacted and their relatives don't know their address. Everyone's still at a panic at the moment since from what it sounds like it's a mess on the ground.110.23.126.30 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
There is continuing confusion over numbers today. The police have said that "at least 58" are "missing and presumed dead", while the BBC reports that there are "around 70" missing, saying: "The BBC, using its reporters on the ground, contact from relatives of victims and other media sources, understands there could be around 70 people missing." What is not clear, unless the BBC clarifies its report, is whether or not the figure of 70 includes the figure of 30 who were previously confirmed dead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the 58 missing includes the 30 bodies, just the unidentified bodies (which are most of them, but not all). In addition there may be missing people who may not be confirmed to have been in the tower (eg guests). The 58 missing, presumed dead, would only include those with a very high degree of certainty and not probables and possibles. The UK media really is doing a shoddy job covering this. What is currently in the infobox is biased downwards.Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to blame the UK media for the poor estimation of casualties - there has been very poor communication from authorities, who from a distance almost seem to be talking down the numbers until the story is off the front page. Ambiguosity (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that the UK media has been sticking to confirmed casualty reports (even when told explicitly "expected to rise significantly") - instead of publishing reasonable estimates - which is shoddy reporting, which I'd place more on the media than authorities (who in this case, were clear in what they were stating (recovered bodies)). The media reports, in this regard, have not been much more than a copy-paste of the police release. As a bystander (non-UK) who is versed both in media and in police - this is really more on the media. The police is perhaps overly cautious in publishing confirmed only (initially - for a few days), but you'd expect the media to report more clearly on the amount of non-confirmed, including maintaining an independent tally.Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, I am not sure that the media has any other source for its numbers. How else would they get those figures of numbers missing etc.? They may be able to get an extremely rough idea by looking at posters of 'missing', but that is likely to lead to under-counting in some cases and duplication in others. I think they are stuck with what they are being told.Ambiguosity (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If all the media is doing is parroting the police statement - then this isn't investigative journalism, but rather a regime mouthpiece such as Pravda, and even a pretty poor Pravda (Pravda would, on occasion, do original work if aligned with the regime's aims). How do you build up a tally? You speak to sources. In the police. In the fire department. In the hospitals. In the building mgmt. Friends and neighbors. I can promise you the police and fire brigade had a rough estimate in the day after the fire (including the assumption that everyone, who didn't escape, on the top floors perished). They might not have been willing to state this publicly, but that doesn't mean you can't get it off the record or from a leak from someone lower down. I'll go even further and state that the media probably had this information - but they chose to replicate the official statement. Anyway - we're digressing into a journalism discussion..... I do think that we should have put in a missing and presumed dead (or probably dead) in the Wikipedia article sooner - even with the shoddy reporting. The 60-100 number was pretty clear 1-2 days after (even to me, out of the UK) - the current number seems to be in that vicinity (79) - and it might rise (you still probably have missing but not reported, and missing and not known with certainty to be in the tower (e.g. night visitors).Icewhiz (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
There were some media that put together lists of the missing, but that is as difficult for them as it is for the authorities. It is really difficult to be sure of the numbers. The police casualty line had around 6000 calls logged at one point. Many of those would be duplicate calls about the same family or the same person. Give it time, and more details will be reported. One recent example is here, showing which floor the missing are from. That clearly shows that there are probably casualties on every floor from the 14th upwards, with less below that. Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Cladding

Just a note that the Daily Telegraph claims it is "zinc rainscreen cladding".[9] But this seems wrong as the installer says it is "ACM cassette rainscreen".[10] which I think is short for "Aluminium Composite Material". FYI one brand of ACM Installation Note states "fire resistance ratings vary depending on the type of composite material selected. It is important to determine the proper class of material required for your project."[11] Rwendland (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

ko:우신골든스위트 화재 사고 is also a fire which cladding was an issue. --Cheol (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ryuch: Unfortunately, there is no equivalent English language article. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe someone (Cheol?) could translate it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Wooshin Golden Suite Fire is created by me. --Cheol (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"zinc rainscreen cladding" is from the planning application [12]:

4.10 External Appearance and Public Realm

The scheme proposes the re-clad of the building with zinc over-cladding with a new window system. For the new window system and heating to work efficiently the whole building is required to be over clad. The zinc panels proposed to the

majority of the building are a light grey/silver colour.

The spec was changed at some point, & what was fitted is this; http://www.kingspanbenchmark.com/Products/Engineered-Facade-Systems/Facade-Options/Metallic-Facades/ACM https://www.alucobondusa.com/products.html

It has a polyethylene core

--EdgeRichard (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@EdgeRichard: - we need to wait for a RS to report that, otherwise we are straying into the realms of WP:OR. Mjroots (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking at photos, it appears that they have attached insulation board (something like Kingspan) to the walls, then covered that with the cladding panels. Photo here. Danrok (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The plastic [was] bubbling and "exploding" [13] --87.159.126.112 (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Some more information on the cladding here: London fire: Grenfell Tower cladding 'linked to other fires' The article suggests that the cladding used was Reynobond with a polyethylene core, rather than the alternative cladding with a mineral core. Danrok (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Insulation behind cladding; the cladding was reportedly ACM, which is a thin (c.5mm) aluminium faced material. Behind this was much thicker insulation board. According to planning file [14]this was 150mm thick Celotex FR5000. This is a polyisocyanurate (PIR) foam board, and as such is combustible. Again according to the sectional drawing on the planning file, there was an air gap between the rainscreen and the PIR board. According to [15] Celotex confirmed that it supplied its RS5000 insulation for the £8.6 million renovation of the London tower block. It seems likely that the PIR board and air gap would have been much more serious causes of fire spread than the ACM cladding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.223.253 (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Link to manufacturer's description of Reynbond: http://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/en/product_category.asp?cat_id=1843
I have put that in a footnote to the mentioning of Reynobond in the article. --L.Willms (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
In the article the cladding has been identifed as Celotex RS5000. Yesterday (14-06-2017) Channel 4 News broadcast an item in which it was claimed that the cladding was in fact a product known as Reynobond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:BC00:8A00:DC16:E8FF:F645:F746 (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The Guardian is now reporting that the cladding was Reynobond. See https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/experts-warned-government-against-cladding-material-used-on-grenfell 2A00:23C5:BC00:8A00:DC16:E8FF:F645:F746 (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Insulation and (rain proof) cladding are two different things, not to be confused. The Reynobond with its Polyethylene core was -- in my opinion -- responsible for the very fast spreading of the fire up to the roof. Polyethylene melts and the liquid burns. --L.Willms (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Guardian also has this which may be useful but i'll leave this to someone who knows the subject. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/manufacturer-of-cladding-on-grenfell-tower-identified-as-omnis-exteriors Mramoeba (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The use of polyisocyanurate insulation foam could have posed additional hazards, as the smoke from its combustion is quite toxic, forming hydrogen cyanide and other dangerous gases. See http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/1536/1/Stec%20and%20Hull_Fire_Toxicity_of_Insulation_Materials_EnergyBuildings_2011.pdf for more. Not worth adding to the article at this point, in my opinion. Roches (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
It is worth adding to the article. The combustion of polyisocyanurate insulation produces a thick, black smoke whose toxicity is at least double that of other flammable insulating products. As the investigation develops, it may well be seen that the toxic, black smoke played a role in disorienting, disabling and likely killing many of the victims and may also have adversely affected the health of some survivors. If so, it will probably also be learned that some defect in design or installation exposed the polyisocyanurate insulation to heat or flame when it ought to have been protected. The focus of discussion seems to be on the plastic core of the Reynobond sandwich panels, but it will probably be realized eventually that the polyisocyanurate insulation was both a major part of the combustible "load" and that the fire had to burn through the polyisocyanurate in order to reach the Reynobond, and had to have had sufficient intensity to cross the air gseparation (of perhaps 50 mm, 2 inch width) which is part of any rain screen system. In any event, simply mentioning the toxicity of the products of combustion of polyisocyanurate is pertinent and very appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasbhiggins (talk • contribs) 18:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It's worth noting that polyisocyanurate fire toxicity is very well understood. They produce large amounts of carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and other toxic products especially when the fire becomes large and oxygen starved like in a building fire. https://firesciencereviews.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40038-016-0012-3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.240.129 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Something not mentioned but worthy of thought is the chimney effect. whereby the air space behind the panels extends vertically possibly for many floors.

Wooden homes used to be built using what's termed the Balloon_framing method that has lumber studs extending from the foundation to the eaves. Firestops consisting of horizontal lumber pieces in each stud space prevented the chimney effect, or at least retarded it. I can imagine extending a vertical space for many stories would create a very dramatic draft in case of fire.

The chimney effect isn't mentioned however the use of wooden battens is mentioned but not whether the battens were installed vertically or horizontally. (Typically for horizontal insulation panels, the battens are installed vertically) That would make a huge difference and could well explain the engulfment of the whole building within a 1/2 hour. Ikester (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The London Evening Standard mentions it as a possibility, so if we can get something from that and a few other sources then I agree it's worth a mention. We shouldn't speculate on it ourselves though. This is Paul (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be already mentioned in the "Cladding" section:
"Experts said the cladding essentially worked like a chimney in spreading the fire.[1]"
Thanks for noting anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Griffin, Andrew (14 June 2017). "The fatal mistake made in the Grenfell Tower fire". The Independent. Archived from the original on 14 June 2017. Retrieved 16 June 2017. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
There are several mentions in these comments about polyethylene being the prime suspect propellant; but this article in The Sun claims it was polyurethane - while there have been reports that there was a 'good' version of cladding and a 'cheap knockoff' (citation unavailable - it was a radio commentator). If the fire was driven by polyethylene, then the Wikipedia page for that particular plastic may need an update. It states that "Polyethylene burns slowly with a blue flame having a yellow tip and gives off an odour of paraffin (similar to candle flame). The material continues burning on removal of the flame source and produces a drip." That is not what occurred in the case of Grenfell Tower, which seems better described by the manner in which polyurethane burns.
Having said this, I suspect we may need to wait until the inquest to confirm exactly what material was used in the cladding as fitted (as opposed to the plans); should this be reflected in the current article or should it be left as is based upon the building's technical drawings?
(EDIT - deleted my suggestion about something that I now see has already made it into the article.) Ambiguosity (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
According to an AP story printed in the CBC the cladding may have been illegal: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/london-grenfell-tower-highrise-apartment-fire-1.4166318
Excerpt:

Two government ministers — Treasury Chief Philip Hammond and Trade Minister Greg Hands — said Sunday the cladding used on the building's exterior seems to be banned by British regulations."My understanding is that the cladding that was reported wasn't in accordance with U.K. building regulations," Hands told Sky News. "We need to find out precisely what cladding was used and how it was attached." He said the government is carrying out an "urgent inspection" of other tower blocks in Britain to assess safety. He said there are roughly 2,500 similar apartment towers throughout Britain.

'When the truth comes out about this tragedy, we may find that there is blood on the hands of a number of organizations.'- Labour Party MP David Lammy

Mballen (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Interior photos

The Metropolitan Police have released photographs of the interior of Grenfell Tower. Would these fall under the Open Government licence? Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The Met photos and videos are available on their own website. -- de Facto (talk). 21:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Which completely fails to mention any licencing. Mjroots (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I've previously asked the met to open licence pictures and they told me that they would only consider requests on a case-by-case basis. When I subsequently submitetd such a request, they sent me a rate card . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Also the 'hover cards' on http://news.met.police.uk/latest_media say "© All rights reserved". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

number of stairs and lifts/elevators

We really ought to mention the fact that the building had a single staircase. According to the floor plans[16] it has two elevators and one staircase. (is it OR to cite the floor plans?) I can't find a source that explicitly counts the lifts/elevators or if they were used[17] more than once but the single staircase is usually mentioned with regards to the difficulty/impossibility of evacuation.[18]

I'd add it to the infobox but Template:Infobox building has an elevator_count and no staircase_count, can someone who can edit protected templates add it as a parameter? Skullers (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Quite an oversight. I've added some related content. [19] --Andreas JN466 00:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Brutalism

Brutalism has been described in the article at various times as common, fashionable and most recently back to the particularly ludicrous popular. People who understand the meaning of popular will appreciate that this would require The People, preferably a substantial majority of them, to say that they liked it, in a good ref from a reliable source. In the absence of this, can we please avoid making claims about what we believe people's attitude to have been towards an architectural style if we can't prove it? As of right now it just says it was built in that style and does not make this claim; if people want to read up on the style in more depth, clicky click and follow the link. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I happen to like some of the Brutalist architecture, but some of it is a real blot on the landscape. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks 15:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Flickr images

There are a number of CC-BY-2.0 Flickr images available: [20] --Andreas JN466 18:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Imported. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Day of Rage" and involvement of Movement for Justice by Any Means Necessary

I think that the "Day of Rage" protests should be included within the article, especially considering the controversy over the involvement of the radical leftist Movement for Justice by Any Means Necessary group – who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. GringisMan (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes we should mention the protests. However, we should err on the side of caution when it comes to citing any particular groups or individuals as being behind the activity. I Googled Day of Rage Grenfell, and while the protests are reported by several media outlets, I could only find one newspaper headline specifically mentioning a particular group. Let's be careful of lending these stories undue weight, and creating potentially false impressions. This is Paul (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks like these tree-hugger sandal-wearing muesli-munching pseudo-anarchists are targeting the Queens' Speech, more than this, before getting in their eco-friendly gwhiz to Glastonbury. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Refrigerator

Per WP:ENGVAR, the word is fridge. Nobody in the UK calls it a "refrigerator". Can we please use British English in the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Shearonink (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. --Andreas JN466 18:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. "Fridge" is a widely used but colloquial (or informal) term in British English. The correct word for an encyclopedia article written in British English is "refrigerator". Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Typing "Fridge" into Oxforddictionaries.com seems to suggest it as an alternative word for refrigerator, and an abbreviation of Frigidaire. This is Paul (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Looking through the various references - article titles and articles in both mainstream reliable sources and tabloids - a Google search of British sources seems to indicate the most common term is "fridge". Shearonink (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I once used the word refrigerator at Wikipedia, but it had a very cool reception. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Still waiting for Google Ngram viewer to be updated beyond 2008, but even back then "fridge" was dominant in written British English. Speed74 (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that what is "dominant in written British English" is the correct criterion. Much published writing is informal in nature, whether it's reporting speech, fiction, press commentary, etc. etc. This is an encyclopedia, which requires a more formal style of writing. We should not use words defined as "informal" unless we are reporting speech verbatim. See WP:TONE - "Articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone." Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
So far it looks like the editorial consensus is for keeping the word "fridge"...maybe it's time for a RFC on the issue - whether or not to use the word "fridge" (instead of the word "refrigerator") in this article. Shearonink (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
... or just raise it for discussion at WT:MOS. I haven't reverted anyone, and won't... but, in terms of style I think it's wrong. In speech, it may be true that "nobody in the UK calls it a 'refrigerator'", but that is not the point when we are writing an encyclopedia article. Even our own article describes the word fridge as "colloquial". However, if (as I've seen in some reports) the appliance was a fridge-freezer (for example here) we should use that term - no-one would use the term refrigerator-freezer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
This point doesn't matter hugely (there are more important aspects of the article that need more attention than this), but many people will have a fridge-freezer in their kitchen, but still call it a "fridge" for convenience when referring to it. Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
If WP:RS sources, like BBC, Daily Telegraph, Guradian, Huff Po and Independent all call it a "fridge", I really don't see why we can't. Yes, Ghmyrtle is right about "formal tone", but I think it's also fair to follow reliable sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Compromise: Refrigerator in the first instance and abbreviated thereafter. I do call it by both terms and fridge looks too informal for an encyclopedia. Compare with Veg and Vegetables. David Crayford (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Time for a new article?

One thought I have is that it may be time for us to start an "Aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire" or "Reactions to the Grenfell Tower Fire" article, since the ramifications of what happened are likely to be long lasting, and this article currently stands at 140KB. What do people think? Would you support this proposal? This is Paul (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

There was going to be a judge led public inqury, so I would back a split, the public inquiry is probably also going to need it's own article, as they tend to produce extensive reports, media coverage. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
140kb isn't that much. Agree that a separate page for the public enquiry will probably be warranted. Not sure about splitting off the reactions section at this point in time. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Judge appointment due in a few days. Perhaps wait for this? David Crayford (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
FT mentions judge expected appointment here: https://www.ft.com/content/f14b6688-54d7-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f?mhq5j=e1 David Crayford (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional photos

I travel past the tower on my way to work. Went past it on Friday. I could take photos, but haven't taken any yet. It feels too soon, especially as they are still in the phase of recovering bodies from the building. It is a sensitive subject - there are reports (and complaints) in the media that people have been taking selfies at the site, which is understandably causing distress. I intend to go there at some point to pay my respects. I could at the same time take specific photos if asked. Which sort of photos would be best - distance shots and close-ups of parts of the building? Maybe also a face-on photo of each side of the building, which may not be easy given that many parts of the area will be cordoned off for some time to come. Having said that, I suspect that some Wikipedians or people who upload photos under a free license will have been taking photos over the weekend, and some of those will become available over the coming week as they get uploaded. Carcharoth (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

We could do with pictures of the things around the building - the churches, mosques and temples used to collect donated goods and as refuges, the wall of messages, fire engines and police cars, etc. Plus any placards posters campaigning for a better political response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Photographs of the Community Wall and messages thereon would also be useful, particularly the SWAT message mentioned below. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
We have an start article on the Lancaster West Estate which is almost devoid of photographs Geotagged Commons photos. I will put together a Lancaster West Estate Commons category where they can be uploaded. To write a estate article we need photos that demonstrate the layout- individual units, door, window and cladding details- play areas and anything that is humdrum as well as anything that is unusual. The rick is to get the lighting right- brutalism is really attractive in bright sunlight. Simple answer- yes please. ClemRutter (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Carcharoth (Or anyone.) Any chance of a photo of LFB Commissioner for Dany Cotton page? LFB website says their photos are not included in Open Government Licence. David Crayford (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

BBC Panorama report (19 June): fridge fire

Source: [21]

Quote: "Panorama has discovered that firefighters put out the first fire at Grenfell Tower. They were called to a fridge fire, and within minutes told residents the fire was out in the flat. The crew was leaving the building when firefighters outside spotted flames rising up the side of the building. The Fire Brigades Union say firefighters were left facing an unprecedented fire, and officers broke their own safety protocol to rescue people." --Andreas JN466 01:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The protocol in extreme situations is to wait for a structural surveyor's assessment before entering the building.[22] Thincat (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
So having stated that the first fire had been extinguished, did they comment on the source of the subsequent fire? -- de Facto (talk). 18:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Judging by the news reports, it was the same fire, which had unexpectedly spread from the kitchen to the cladding outside. There are related comments from a Fire Brigades Union official in the Telegraph: But Dave Green, national officer at the Fire Brigades Union, said the first firefighters at the scene might not have expected the outside of the building to be flammable. The union official said that 1970s buildings like Grenfell Tower were designed so each flat was a box that contained fire within itself, with a non-flammable concrete exterior. Mr Green said: "Clearly it was a hot night and if the (fire) was fairly close to an open window then potentially the flames could have got outside - if there were net curtains, something like that, it could have got up. "Then the cladding might well have been smouldering. As a firefighter you wouldn't have thought to look outside. We would assume that the outside of the building would not be compromised." I have seen no speculation whatsoever that any other fire source was involved, or that the flames on the outside of the building started anywhere else than the vicinity of that kitchen. --Andreas JN466 21:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. -- de Facto (talk). 22:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit review needed

I've reverted part of this edit by an IP. The bit I reverted was Paget-Brown's resistance to resignation. The Guardian does not say he offered to resign. Other parts of that edit may benefit from a check. Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that particular paragraph is under the right heading, but wasn't sure where else to put it. This is Paul (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It was actually reported that Paget-Brown had offered to resign, and the other council members rejected his offer. For example here. The Corbyn part of the edit was not sound, however; it misquoted Corbyn. --Andreas JN466 18:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jayen466: I don't have a problem with saying he offered to resign, but the offer was rejected. I have a problem with saying it when the reference backing up the text states no such thing when checked. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mjroots: I don't care much either way. I am not sure how important it is in the overall scheme of things. The article is very long already. You could argue that it belongs, because at present we are only saying he resisted calls to resign; so the fact that he offered to resign might be worth mentioning. At any rate, a source is available if someone wants to make the update. Or we could just delete the present mention that he resisted calls to resign. (The Corbyn quote was much the bigger issue with that IP edit.) --Andreas JN466 18:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
As leader of the council, it is relevant that there were calls for his resignation. Also relevant that he offered but said offer was not accepted. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On reflection, I removed the statement that he resisted calls for his resignation. If someone wants to reinsert it, then they should also add that he did at some point offer to resign, as reported in the source linked above. --Andreas JN466 18:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The story seems to be different depending on your choice of newspaper – they're split about 50–50, it seems, into two schools of thought: a) he refused to resign, and b) he offered to quit, but the council refused to accept his resignation. Perhaps we should leave it out until the actual picture emerges. This is Paul (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Nicholas Holgate resigned to Nicholas Paget-Brown on request of Sajid Javid. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/kensington-and-chelsea-chief-steps-down-after-pressure-from-sajid-javid David Crayford (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

fire safety concept of the Grenfell Tower - resumé necessary

an important resumé (separate section) is missing, in my opinion:
a compact description of the fire security concept of the tower, after its renovation.
What I could find scattered in the article and in various sources:

  • safety of the evacuation staircase: new T-30 doors were mounted instead of the old flat entrance doors. These doors are fire-resistant for 30 min. (if a fire is in one flat, they hinder it to come to the staircase, keeping it secure for evacuation)
  • fire alarm was installed (no details found about type). This alarm did not function/activated in the nigth of the fire (according to press statements).
  • a staircase forced ventilation was installed, according to fire security standards (according to press statements). This ventilation usually starts automatically in case of fire, securing the evacuation of people, as it pumps out the poisonous gases that might enter the staircase. It seems that it did not function either (but no clear mention about it found...)

Fire security of the original design (1970ies)

  • the staircase was conceived as a separate cell, separated from the hall of each storey, probably by fire blocking doors. This, together with the T-30 doors at the entrance of each flat, should have normally provided a good protection of the only evacuation way (the staircase).

see the drawing from this article: Telegraph: Grenfell tower floorplan shows120 flats packed in highrise --Horia mar (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

As I noted above, caution is indicated in interpreting newspaper accounts. You've raised many of the same points that I have (I too am an architect), but I would like to avoid very specific pronouncements until a clear consensus appears concerning the construction methodology, and to prefer journal articles in professional media, which will take a few months or longer to appear. One point - stair ventilation is usually stair pressurization - the point is to prevent smoke from entering the stairs by positive pressurization, not to exhaust the stair (which would draw in more smoke). Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
My probably imperfect understanding is that the new ventilation was on the basis of smoke only coming from any single floor.[23] Thincat (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Dear Acroterion, thank you for your reply! You are right, it would be probably a pressurised ventilation system (for the staircase). Anyway, at least in german countries there are two types (forced ventilation and pressurised ventilation), of which the forced ventilation is used only in smaller buildings (usually unter 30m). They use a slow air motion, so it does not suck smoke from the rest of the building, as you exactly pointed out. I mixed up the two when writing, I'm sorry. I do not know which of them was recently installed in Grenfell, as I don't remember the exact wording of the sources I read.
I agree with you, that the sources of the article are of course not quite reliable, in this moment. On the other hand, my observation regarding a necessary resume had another reason:
in cases of dramatic catastrophes like this one, people would like to read and to understand what happened. For example, if a plane crashes, there will be explanations in wikipedia too, about why it did, and they will be based, with the necessary cautious remarks and tone, on the developing research of the crash and will be extracted from newspapers, not from the final crash report, issued years later.
I think that it is not about writing here a kind of "professional study" about the tower problems and fire planning, but to serve to people reading it a very clear and structured article, consisting in parts that are "resumés" (easier to read) and parts that explain all the details and cite all the sources.
So, if we already have now sources for all the details that I put in my "resumé sketch" here above, why let them be scattered in a difficult to read article (a non-professional has difficulties to read a big detailed amount of informations here! and especially to make the logical connections between its parts!) and not organise them in two steps: 1) clear, short resumes, put in front of 2) the detailed text that is already available and full of wonderful information and sources? --Horia mar (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
From what I see, you're proposing what amounts to a section describing the building characteristics. That seems reasonable, but I would like for you to draft it in your userspace first so we can check it for formatting and style.
Since you're approaching this as someone familiar with German practice and I'm looking at it as someone who is familiar with North American practice, I'm hoping for someone conversant in UK practice to comment. Acroterion (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Demographics of tower residents

  • Vanity Fair: "(...) there were a high number of immigrants in Grenfell Tower."
  • New York mag: "Residents have accused building management and authorities of ignoring their chillingly specific complaints, perhaps because of a generalized disinterest in the building’s poor and largely Muslim population, or because of the pressures of gentrification from the neighborhood all around."
  • BBC: "10% of poorest areas in England" (from one of images)

Should these sources be used to include info about demographics of the now-burnt tower? If so, where? --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of this. In a multi-ethnic / multi-cultural city like London, pretty much any large residential building is bound to have a mix of residents, including 'immigrants' of various description. Highlighting that there were 'many muslims' (or whatever group you choose to focus on) seems to imply that this was somehow an incident affecting muslims especially, or even targeted at them. IMHO something like this would only become relevant if it comes to light that the fire was started by some anti-immigrant or anti-muslim arsons, or that the renovation project was done on the cheap because the building was known to house 'poor people', or something of that ilk. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The relevance is in the suggestion that the risk of fire was ignored because of the socio-economic status of the occupants. There has also been a suggestion that the insulation served a second purpose, in providing an improved view to residents of more affluent areas nearby (I think this may even be mentioned in the plans). Given that demographics have been discussed widely as a factor in the fire and thus the deaths, they are definitely relevant to this article. There is not something that can be stated as fact, but it is presumably something that can be referred to on the basis of what has been written in reliable sources (i.e. quoting those sources) - as a widely-voiced view. Ambiguosity (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I hear you, but then we at least need to be careful to distinguish between socio-economic issues such as low income status of many of the residents, and other factors like religion or ethnic origin. (And yes, I realise there are some correlations between the various factors, but these are not straightforward.) DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I do want to include the demographics info, but I see two conflicting opinions of Ambiguosity and DoubleGrazing on this. If RfC discussion is unnecessary, which sources should I use boldly, and what info is allowed? Therefore, I can boldly insert whatever info is allowed to be in. George Ho (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think DoubleGrazing and I are at cross-purposes. There are definitely some inter-tangled issues here, and there is plenty of emotion in the discussion of the fire. So while it may be easy to find a someone claiming that the disaster occurred "because" of socio-economic status, or race, or religion, or whatever, the questions are:

  • Is what they are saying accurate? We cannot judge that.
  • Are those claims part of the historical narrative? Quite possibly - but they then need to be wide-spread (i.e. reported in more than one place), and they need to be presented as opinions.

That is, if half-a-dozen papers are carrying quotes from witnesses/residents/public figures that "this happened because the local council does not care about the poor" (for instance), then the article might say "Several residents have suggested that the disaster occurred due to the local council's unwillingness to assist low income residents" - followed by references to the sources. Wikipedia does not have an opinion; it simply states what has occurred - and if what has occurred is commentary about socio-economic factors then that commentary is part of 'what has occurred' - if that commentary is sufficiently high-profile. There have been comments saying the fire was part of a conspiracy - I would suggest that they are not sufficiently high profile to make it into a Wikipedia article. The discussion of socio-economic factors, though, does seem to have been of a fairly high profile and as far as I am aware quite widely reported. I would be interested in hearing thoughts from DoubleGrazing, though - as care is needed in discussing 'commentary' rather than 'the event'. I am also not entirely sure that I have clearly stated my view of how this might be presented. Ambiguosity (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

We should be wary about putting too much store in what people think due to the prism of their own experience. We know that some of the flats were privately owned, and at least some were being rented privately at too high a rate for anyone on Housing Benefit. The primary reason for the cladding was weatherproofing and energy efficiency - costmetic appearance was just a "bonus." It should also be remembered that blocks have been extensively clad for the first two reasons, even in areas where the third would be moot. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grenfell_Tower_fire/Archive_2&oldid=1247199805"