Talk:Manchester Arena bombing/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Undoing page move

Reversed archival to invite discussion. —David Levy 15:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@David Levy: - Please don't make unilateral page views without discussing it here first. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Fuzheado: The matter was discussed in a subsection of the move proposal, wherein most editors commenting on the year's inclusion opined that it was superfluous and inconsistent with our naming conventions. Those expressing disagreement cited the following rationales (which I would have addressed, had the discussion remained open):

• "Oppose removing 2017 from the title since the attack occurred in 2017"

  (with no elaboration on why that particular detail – accurate as it may be – belongs in the title)

• "As there is discussion above about possibly removing 'Arena' and/or changing the word incident to bombing, 2017 distinguishes this week's event from 1996 Manchester bombing and 1992 Manchester bombing."

  (This was a valid concern, but "Arena" has not been removed from the title, rendering it moot.)

• "WP:CONCISE does not state any year conventions for names. The year helps with clarity, as there were prior incidents in Manchester. (albeit not in the arena) While it might seem ominous to be talking about future-proofing, that is logical another benefit."

  (Of greater relevance is MOS:PRECISION, which is part of the same longstanding policy. As explained therein, "usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." In this instance, "Manchester Arena bombing" fits these criteria. The other Manchester bombings were unrelated to Manchester Arena. Additionally, appending disambiguation to "future-proof" article titles has been suggested and rejected by the Wikipedia community on countless occasions. Preemptively titling the article "2017 Manchester Arena bombing" in case another occurs in a subsequent year, "May 2017 Manchester Arena bombing" in case another occurs this year or "22 May 2007 Manchester Arena bombing" in case one occurs later this month is inconsistent with our established practices.)

Exceptions arise, of course, but we adhere to guidelines and policies (especially the latter) by default, with deviations requiring consensus. As noted above, not only is there not consensus for an exception, I see a rough consensus against making one. —David Levy 03:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just repaired the remaining double redirects created when you reverted the move. —David Levy 03:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure who is talking to who here, but I never understand the wish to remove year from title if there is the slightest risk of it being a clarifier. 2017 definitely helps clarify IMO, can we not spare the bytes? Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It certainly isn't my intention to reduce clarity. With what other Manchester Arena bombing does "2017" prevent confusion? —David Levy 16:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that asks the wrong question, title clarity is not simply removing the possibility of obvious mix-ups, it is about clearly identifying the subject and distinguishing it from all the other things it could be about. 'Year' is often an efficient way of doing that. Are you so sure that in a year/10 year's time everybody is going to remember this incident sufficiently well to remember the correct name of the location and whether this was a 21st or 19th century event? I frequently waste time when using WP because titles are not specific enough. Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The page will almost certainly get moved to the title Manchester Arena bombing at some point. It will require a full requested move discussion, and it is probably best to wait a while before doing that. There is no particular urgency. Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Such moves usually are treated as routine housekeeping. The longer the article remains at the current title, the more people (including current and prospective editors) will assume that it reflects our naming conventions (thereby perpetuating the cycle). —David Levy 18:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope the inevitable vote on this will include the pro's and con's of the proposed move, particularly in bullet style so they can easily be discussed individually. Aside from the ones I wrote in the third point User:Fuzheado mentioned, it's also helpful in terms of finding a particular incident. When you're looking up a category and trying to remember "the one that happened last year" and only have to sift through a few with 2016, you're more likely to find the one of you're thinking of if the year is there. Also, an anvil needs to be dropped regarding the scope of the proposed removal: Five characters including the space. That is nothing. Phones on portrait might put it on a second line with lengthier incidents, but it's so minuscule when compared to the benefits that it's frankly justifiable to consider this repeated discussion trite. WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISION would be better invoked on less controversial proposals, like for obvious reasons we would not have it be 2017 Manchester Arena section 7 2nd floor bombing. (location made up for example) -- sarysa (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the ones I wrote in the third point User:Fuzheado mentioned,

To be clear, I copied the above bullet points (for the purpose of responding). To my knowledge, Fuzheado hasn't addressed the matter in any capacity (despite acting on the move request), except to revert my move and assert that I performed it unilaterally and in the absence of discussion (which I find confusing, given that he surely read the discussion before gauging the consensus determined therein).

it's also helpful in terms of finding a particular incident. When you're looking up a category and trying to remember "the one that happened last year" and only have to sift through a few with 2016, you're more likely to find the one of you're thinking of if the year is there.

That's why redirects exist. Unless a second bombing in or near the same arena occurs this year, "2017 Manchester Arena bombing" will continue leading to this article in perpetuity, irrespective of what title is used directly.

Also, an anvil needs to be dropped regarding the scope of the proposed removal: Five characters including the space. That is nothing.

That isn't the rationale at all. This is about adherence to our longstanding, consensus-backed naming conventions, which exist for a reason.

It's been suggested that "2017" functions as a "clarifier", but I believe that it accomplishes the opposite. It implies – incorrectly – that one or more other Manchester Arena bombings have occurred. Conversely, the year's omission conveys otherwise.

It's reasonable to disagree, but in the absence of consensus to "future-proof" our articles' titles or append information beyond that which is needed to unambiguously define their topical scope (hypothetical changes best discussed at the policy level, not on an arbitrary article's talk page), such deviations should reflect consensus that this is a special case. —David Levy 18:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That's why redirects exist.

Except I'm pretty sure it's against policy to have categories inside redirects.

That isn't the rationale at all. This is about adherence to our longstanding, consensus-backed naming conventions, which exist for a reason.

There are no "longstanding, consensus-backed naming conventions" when it comes to the year. It's not even mentioned on WP:CONCISE (at least as of two days ago) or WP:PRECISION and as you can see here and here, the consensus is very split.

It's been suggested that "2017" functions as a "clarifier", but I believe that it accomplishes the opposite. It implies – incorrectly – that one or more other Manchester Arena bombings have occurred. Conversely, the year's omission conveys otherwise.

Semi-valid, but it's both a "first timer's" concern -and- a product of our currently inconsistent naming standards. If all incident articles included the year, it would cease being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's reasonable to disagree, but in the absence of consensus to "future-proof" our articles' titles

I listed out several benefits coming from a stance of efficiency and ease of use. Cherry picking benefits that have a clear WP: to counter over and over is disingenuous.

append information beyond that which is needed to unambiguously define their topical scope (hypothetical changes best discussed at the policy level, not on an arbitrary article's talk page), such deviations should reflect consensus that this is a special case.

While this article is a special case given its relation to two very similar, not exact, but similar articles, it is clear that a site-wide RFC is needed to discuss the part of WP:PRECISION that you left out -- the numerous special naming conventions applied to topics for various reasons. Precision in this case is at odds with usability and clarity.

In any case, I'm not touching this anymore until an RFC is made. These long block replies over 5 characters are not the best use of either of our time. (though frankly, we should hold our arguments until a site-wide debate is started. this'll just repeat over and over again when some other n'er do well blows themself up) -- sarysa (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Except I'm pretty sure it's against policy to have categories inside redirects.

It isn't. (Please see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Alternative names for articles.) And if it were, that would mean choosing between assisting readers seeking "2017" and assisting those looking under "M".

There are no "longstanding, consensus-backed naming conventions" when it comes to the year. It's not even mentioned on WP:CONCISE (at least as of two days ago) or WP:PRECISION

Neither section is intended to address the many relevant contexts individually.

and as you can see here and here, the consensus is very split.

Most of those examples are cases in which disambiguation is required (because events otherwise fitting the descriptions occurred in different years). Others are errors that haven't been corrected yet. The encyclopedia is a work in progress, so it's almost always possible to find a given style in use somewhere (rightly or wrongly).

If all incident articles included the year, it would cease being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That would be a reasonable proposal.

I listed out several benefits coming from a stance of efficiency and ease of use.

You've expressed disagreement with the naming convention itself (and benefits that you believe an alternative approach would provide), not a special justification applicable to this article in particular. Circumstance-driven exceptions to policy can be made, but simply disagreeing with a policy isn't a such a situation. That's a reason to pursue revisions to the policy.

Cherry picking benefits that have a clear WP: to counter over and over is disingenuous.

Sorry; I don't know what you mean here. I will note, however, that I don't aspire to cherry-pick anything or mislead anyone. I've assumed good faith on your part, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy in return.

While this article is a special case given its relation to two very similar, not exact, but similar articles

That isn't extraordinary in the slightest. The inclusion of "Arena" distinguishes this event from others. Further disambiguation is redundant and potentially misleading.

it is clear that a site-wide RFC is needed to discuss the part of WP:PRECISION that you left out -- the numerous special naming conventions applied to topics for various reasons.

Is this the "cherry-picking" to which you referred? That would be relevant if such a guideline existed in this subject area.

Precision in this case is at odds with usability and clarity.

I disagree, for the reasons discussed. But again, it's perfectly reasonable to propose a policy change or the creation of a subject area-specific exception. —David Levy 21:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It is really just the two of you debating this. Others are (sensibly) concentrating on improving the article instead of arguing over the title. David has a point that if it is left too long people will think that the article is correct, but I think he should have faith that a sensible discussion at the right point (when those experienced with article naming conventions will weigh in) will have the right result. As a side point, there is an area of article naming where it is common to have the year in the article title, and that does cause understandable confusion. It is a convention to have the year in the name of event articles relating to earthquakes and similar natural disasters (e.g. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami - look through the earthquake pages for more examples). That is because natural disasters tend to occur regularly, and because forming names for some events is not easy, so they tend to take the form of <year><place><event>. Other random examples: Bridgeton flood of 1934 and 1934 flood in Poland. For events that are less common, it is more common to drop the year or not include it in the first place. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Carcharoth: I have no desire to "[argue] over the title". I wanted to simply carry out a mundane task (as I have on countless occasions), but Fuzheado reverted my move and created this section, which Xaosflux (who move-protected the article) advised me to unarchive. Having explained that I'd "invested vastly more time in the matter than is normally expected", I nonetheless complied. Now I'm being criticised for that.

Well, you're preaching to the choir. As I noted on Xaosflux's talk page, "if every instance [of this situation] required its own discussion, I'm not sure that I'd have time for much else at Wikipedia." I didn't intend to put this theory to the test, but here we are. —David Levy 16:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

My point (I support the move to Manchester Arena bombing) is simply that at this time (for various reasons) it will likely take too much effort and investment of time to effect the move. Time better spent elsewhere. I know from my own experience how frustrating move discussions can be when they go 'wrong'. But the answer is rarely to engage in more discussion, but usually to wait for a better moment to return to the discussion. The 'consensus' box at the top of this talk page (which I've only just noticed) gives links to the two most recent move discussions. It is a definite weakness of the Wikipedia model that a lot of discussion time is spent on article names in the early days when it may not be clear what name an article should be at. But that has always been the case, often frustratingly so. See also Manchester bombing where the earlier article names are pre-conditioning people to expect a year in the article name. Carcharoth (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Having been criticised for "[making] a unilateral page [move] without discussing it here first", I feel obligated to respond to relevant comments (lest I be accused of performing a drive-by move and dodging accountability therefor). —David Levy 18:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note The page move protection has expired and I won't be personally enforcing it anymore but any other admin may. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Always late to the party...

The current title is unwieldy; it needn't say that the bombing was at the arena if it includes the year - there haven't been any other Manchester bombings this year. Equally, it shouldn't include the date if it states the bombing is at the arena - there haven't been any bombings at the arena any time other than 2017.

I'd favour "2017 Manchester Bombing" to fit with 1992 Manchester bombing and 1996 Manchester bombing (and even with articles such as 2017 Westminster attack), but "Manchester Arena Bombing" would be a second choice; just not the clumsy "date and the site together" option unless it becomes necessary because, God forbid, there is second bombing in Manchester this year or a bombing at the arena in future years.Misha An interested observer of this and that 14:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Feud between Moss Side Bloods and Rusholme Crips blamed for violence linked to two murders

Concerns inside GMP that hard-fought-for peace in south Manchester is at serious risk. I think we should include it into the article!--Rævhuld (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that relates to this bombing – that article is a year old. Is there something I'm missing? TompaDompa (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Totally unrelated. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Claim of responsibility

I am not sure why this info was removed. Is it in the body of the page somewhere? My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Ianmacm to explain their edit. — Gestrid (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the aftermath section but undue weight for the lead because it is unverified. ISIL has claimed responsibility for many attacks where they probably knew nothing about it beforehand, eg the 2017 Westminster attack, where they described Khalid Masood as a “a soldier of the Islamic State” (one of their standard phrases) even though investigators believed that Masood was not a member of the organisation.[1] Just because they say these things, it doesn't mean that they are true. Truth, as we know, is the first casualty of war. I don't object to it being in the "Aftermath" section but it is problematic in the WP:LEAD, because it gives the claim far more credence than it actually deserves at the moment. These people are notorious self publicists.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Masood and the rest were linked to ISIS by only Amaq. This came from Nashir, which at least brands its messages with Islamic State marks. More apparently authoritative. Not to say that makes it leadworthy, but different from just another Amaq. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

We cannot keep adding just because ISIS claimed it did. Several attacks have been just inspired but do not have any real involvement of the group. Unless they are involved in actual, the info is of little importance. The lede only sums the notable facts. Though it can be said in the lede if they are inspired by it if it was their motive. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. My very best wishes (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

IMO, the ISIS claim of responsibility is lead-worthy (also noting that it is unconfirmed). I would fight 'tooth and nail' to ensure that the claim is not rendered as fact (ie not in infobox or categories), but it is unrealistic to pretend that the claim is not lead-worthy. The fact that ISIS may very well have known nothing about the event before it happened, or may at most have 'inspired' it is neither here nor there. The claim (properly qualified as such) is very significant.Pincrete (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It's also unrealistic to pretend it's ISIS claiming it's own responsibility, rather than placing responsibility on the crusaders for their transgressions. It's like they pass the buck, then newswriters just pass it right back to them. Wikipedia has no dog in this race; our agenda is simply to relay who blamed who. Might make sense to have the statement and the Western news take on it, side by side. Then everyone learns what they want to learn. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Creation of Wikipedia page for Salman Ramadan Abedi

Is it necessary as of now for a page to be created on perpetrator? I have already started making template and building the page. Any thoughts on if it is okay to do so? DeAllenWeten (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely no for the time being per WP:BLP1E. It would only end up rehashing the rather limited amount of what we know about him that is already in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, not needed - definitely BPL1E, and latest reports suggest he was only a "mule" - with a mastermind(s?) behind this. Of course what is missing in the current page is any mention that he was Muslim (has a Muslim name, Libyan descent, prayed at a mosque, relevant Islamic terror cats.... But no mention that he was Muslim) - which is relevant given Islamic Terror in general and that allegiance to ISIS or Al-Qaeda is faith based.Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted various edits which described him as "Muslim British" or similar. We don't describe people as "Christian British" or "Jewish British". Also, not all Irish Catholics went off and joined the IRA, so we do need to be careful about conflating religious beliefs, nationality and political causes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

@Ianmacm: In American parlance Muslim-American would be appropriate (as would any religion or ethnic association). I don't have a strong opinion (as you seem to have) of where Muslim should appear in the text (to comply to British English) - but it is quite obviously relevant and should appear somewhere. It is probably more relevant than his parents coming from Libya. Obviously not all (or most! or even a significant fraction!) of Muslims are ISIS/Al-Qaeda - but all of ISIS/Al-Qaeda members/supporters are Muslim (as are over 90% of contemporary suicide bombers). Might I suggest constructively that you place this factoid where you feel it is appropriate (doesn't have to be next to British)?Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that this is linked to Islamism, which according to some definitions is when Islam and political causes overlap. The problem is making this point without going down the usual "all Muslims are bad" route. The article should mention his religious beliefs, but only in the context of how they affected his actions, particularly if extremism was involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

At present we know he was Muslim (and there are various reports, possibly conflicting, of his mosque attendance and behavior). Getting down to the root motivations of a suicide attacker is often quite... unclear... And they often have complex life stories (e.g. the some of the Bataclan perps who were petty criminals that liked drugs, alcohol, and women - and then went off on an Islamist ISIS path)... I can see why "Muslim British" might not conform to UK style. But the fact that he is Muslim is well established - and probably generally relevant to him specifically. We don't have to make inferences beyond that (e.g. "All Muslims are bad") - just stick to the established well known facts. You'll probably get a bunch of other people (aside from myself) inserting this in - so you might as well put this in a manner your feel is stylistically and contextually correct - so that it is mentioned, without giving undue weight.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually of mixed opinion on this one. What you propose has precedent, but it's also too soon. (see Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, Omar Mateen, and Jared Lee Loughner) My recommendation would be to privately keep up an article, maybe in your sandbox, well sourced and in a similar fashion as those pages. If investigations turn up so much information about the man, and in particular nuances that separate him from other ISIL drones, that you can have at least 10 beefy paragraphs on the man, then WP:BOLD and prepare to fight weeks of contesting. -- sarysa (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No. There is no reason for him to have an article separate from this. What would you talk about in it? His favorite football team? Whether he prefers one lump or two? No, you'd talk about the bombing which is what this article is for.El cid, el campeador (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure who this reply is for (so many colons) but there are professions partially and completely dedicated to the study of criminal behavior, motives, childhood risk factors, etc. That's who those articles are for, not unlike the many minor species that have stubs on Wikipedia or individuals who participated in one Olympics 80 years ago. -- sarysa (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. As the wikipedia is not known to be running out of space, there is no reason to arbitrarily limit the number of articles. If someone wants to write one and there are good WP:RS to support it, they should. XavierItzm (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

No reason for article at present, my experience (inc Mateen), is that often this becomes a low level content-fork, where all the silliest speculation goes to, splitting the effort of editors here. There simply isn't enough info at present IMO. Pincrete (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

No reason at present, because you don't have sufficient WP:RS? XavierItzm (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No per WP:BLP1E. I would imagine it's unlikely such an article would ever be expanded beyond a few paragraphs. This is Paul (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not other motives mentioned

His sister clearly stated that he wanted revenge for American killing of civilians in airstrikes as well as the killing of his friend though his father refutes the latter (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/manchester-bomber-salman-abedi-took-twisted-revenge-love-islam/). But it isn't even mentioned even though it's from someone who closely knew him. Of course the high and might Christ lovers will only see others as "agressors" and "fanatics", and say "Islamic extremism", but not that their own acts are encouraging some to extremism. The acts of "Western" militaries have been used as a successful propaganda for long to recruit people. Biased lying Christians. 117.199.90.159 (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are the articles words: "Miss Abedi ... suggested the bombing of Syria ordered by President Trump in early April had been the final straw; the catalyst for Monday night’s carnage." Based on the wording, it seems to me like this is the sister's hypothesis for what prompted his attack, rather than Abedi's claimed motive. So, we probably cannot list this as a motive in the infobox given current info, but we should mention in the article that his sister believes the US missile strikes on Syria prompted his attack. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

And the killing of his friend which even shocked the whole Libyan expatriate community in Manchester. It is there in the article. Stop hiding it! 117.199.90.159 (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The thinking behind the deletion seems to be that if we don't mention ISIS' claims, we can't mention hers. That doesn't seem like it makes any sense, and even if it does, the ideal solution would mention both theories, not none. The idea that American actions inspire terror attacks is a touchy one, but it's often claimed. As long as we're attributing it to his sister, Wikipedia pushes no agenda. Restoring till a better reason comes around. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that ISIS claims had gone, that is ridiculous IMO, ISIS claims should be there as such, ie claims not facts. Agree that sister's comment should be briefly covered.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's quite likely that Abedi had listened to the routine extremist propaganda about how his bombing would help to avenge the deaths caused by Western bombing in Syria. However, it is rather second hand and speculative at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the ISIS claim of reponsibility AS CLAIM. There may well be sources sceptical as to whether they are involved, I leave it to others to find them. Pincrete (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've tweaked the lead to say they say he was their fighter. They don't claim to be responsible for what they say he did, at least not directly. Just told anyone anywhere to kill anyone in any way at any time, basically. If actively commanding a global network of minions were that easy, everyone would do it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

ISIS has already claimed responsibility. Terrorism is usually done in honour of islam. Neither the news or I take the sister seriously on it. I mean the family claimed in the Orlando shooting case, that the son might be gay and therefore killed so many people. But later on they found out that an imam called to kill homosexuals because that would be mercy. Sorry, but I am quite sure that this is just another attack done by the religion of peace.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The family did not claim Omar Mateen was gay, it was the media and local gays, his ex-wife confirmed that she thought during their marriage that he could have been gay and the father implied that Mateen hated gays. But why let facts spoil a good rant? Pincrete (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Normally we don't try to rationalize terrorist attacks. And, his sister was literally just speculating and had no evidence and didn't even claim that he had actually said he was doing it for that purpose. After all she "didn't know" about the attacks beforehand. How can she /know/ the motivation behind them? She can't, she is speculating. So that's why. Plus the statement makes her sound like a psychopath "whether he did find revenge is between him and god." Excuse me? And you also sound like a psychopath. El cid, el campeador (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Please tone down your comment. This isn't a place blaming any one for any biased narrative, nor defending anyone's acts. Her sister's statement cannot be considered as the definite truth. We only add what investigators or police find.

And you Rævhuld, this is not a place for pushing your personal POV on any attack or religion or person. Wiki rules clearly state that personal POV aren't allowed here. this isn't a social forum to discuss anything or attack anyone or make guesses based on what your political opinion is. The attack on Orlando occurred 3 years after an Orlando imam made a speech about killing homosexual people for mercy (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/13/farrokh-sekaleshfar-imam-speaking-orlando-said-gay/). This may or may have not had an impact on the shooter, regardless we don't base edits on guess-work of what might be the motive. And regardless, we add what is based on facts, not out of political opinions. This is a place for editing and contributing. You have already been warned and adviced by multiple users for your disruption. This is not a political blog. You can choose to contribute or be disruptive, in which case there are strict rules against it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

What actually motivates terrorists?

There is an interesting piece of recent research from Colombia in BBC News here. It suggests that what sets terrorists apart is their belief that even the most extreme actions are justified as long as they help the cause; some people might say that this is hardly a new observation. Most terrorists are not mentally ill or stupid (a common myth) but they are convinced that what they are doing is right. As for this edit where Andy Burnham said that Abedi "was not a Muslim", this isn't strictly correct as he did go to a mosque at some point. Burnham seems to be saying "not all Muslims are terrorists" which is obviously true, but radical/extremist Islam is a fringe version of the religion rather than a completely separate phenomenon.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Conviction that you're doing a good thing is a fine way to cope with the action, but it's not the motivation. Says most Colombian terrorists did it for money and religion was irrelevant. A Salafi suicide bomber more likely has it the other way around. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Niccolò Machiavelli never said "the end justifies the means" (another common myth) but the Colombian study suggests that this is what goes through the minds of terrorists when planning or justifying their actions. Some Islamic extremists want a Caliphate, where Islam is the only permitted religion. Others have become obsessed by the civil war in Syria and have found ways of dragging in people from other countries to fight it, including outside the borders of Syria. The Manchester bombing may be a combination of both, but since Abedi doesn't seem to have left behind any videos or social media posts explaining why he did it, there is room for debate about the motive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Surfing social media for videos is one way of getting answers. Arresting and interrogating a man's friends and family is another. It takes longer and journalists can't tweet along in real-time, but police will eventually share many interesting links they found, from real contacts at physical sites. Not so forthcoming as the unauthorized and unaccountable "law enforcement sources" in America, but not entirely stingy and secretive, either. Just temporarily cautious. Those reasons, too, will be considerably clearer later. In the meantime, there's always room for debate in the virtual world. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk is not a place for general discussion.

Burnham is an apologist for Islamic terrorism. I am involved in animal rights activism and take part in peaceful demonstration, boycotts etc, but then there is also the militant wing that send death threats and trash science labs etc. They undermine everything we do and hold back the cause. In terms of motivation though they are essentially no different to me: the only thing that differentiates them from me is their response, not their beliefs. I believe the exact same thing is going on in Islam. Peaceful Muslims condemn this behavior not because they disagree with the beliefs of these people but because they find their methods counter-productive. There are over 50 Muslim countries in the world and can anybody name one that has peaceful democratic values and a way of life entirely consistent with Western principles? Muslims living in Western countries want those countries to conform to Islamic values; the "war" within Islam is basically about methodology, not ideology. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Completely naive. Hey Betty Logan, do you even use Wikipedia while you are on it? "There are over 50 Muslim countries in the world and can anybody name one that has peaceful democratic values and a way of life entirely consistent with Western principles?" Now whether or not they might be copying and enslaving themselves to the West. Yes many of them have democratic principles like in the Balkans like Albania, Bosnia or Kosovo and even some others that still have it to some degree though they might be in actual dictatorships. Bangladesh has its problems with radicals trying to change its system and has blasphemy law that isn't much different from hate speech in India, instead of death like in Pakistan, it's only imprisonment. Of course it has problems like others, and isn't a photocopy of the "Western" countries but that doesn't mean you stereotype it or anyone else. 117.225.14.192 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC) As for what makes a terrorist, no it isn't that someone gets radicalised one day and starts wanting to kill the "infidel" non-Muslim some time late. Even terrorist propaganda uses multiple reasons, presenting non-Muslims as the enemy is just one part. ISIS often uses dead civilians in Western military action as propaganda. The March Mosul airstrike is a recent example. Military actions, historical narrative and a narrative of Western option play a large part in this game. And I'm not making any excuses. I've seen Muslims who are angry at the European and American countries for killing civilians in military action, though not radicalised but it can help. Then again there is also the historical side to it. Most prominently the Crusades though some Christians may want to call it a response to Muslim conquests and less prominently the Byzantine rule in Middle East which was partially tossed out by the early Muslims and later completely by Ottomans. This helps in presenting a picture that Christians have always been invaders. The narrative of opression whether it be some of the European governments banning some activities Muslims consider cultural also, as well as the hate spread by some politicians including left-wing and right-wing. There are many other things. It's not like they're all just impaired by some religious thought. It is a combination of these factors which generates sympathy for terrorists, leads them to believe they are correct and at the same time religious teachings of wars of early Muslims with the non-Muslim enemies are also used to describe the non-Muslims as enemies. 117.225.14.192 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC) 117.225.14.192|117.225.14.192, I've 'hatted' this as we are not here to discuss matters not directly related to the article subject, even if we feel provoked to do so. Pincrete (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox map relevence

Hello is it really relevent to have the option to show the UK, European Union and Show All, isn't the map of Manchester alone enough? with all the options it just makes the infobox look cluttered. 81.171.7.85 (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. However, some edits have suggested that some users may need a geography lesson about where Manchester is. What do other users think? People are expected to know where Orlando in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting is without a map.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• What about removing the map altogether? For many similar articles, the map coordinates and wikilinks are considered sufficient.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think the map is important, and I also think that assuming that non-UK Wikipedia readers know where Manchester is located inside the UK is stretching it. Whether a radio-box is needed for UK, EU, and world.... I think the EU could be cut (both for sake of brevity and due to Brexit) - but both are important information tidbits. Besides cutting out maybe one radio button - I wouldn't change it.Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

British

None of the three sources supporting the first two sentences in the section on the attacker mentions that he is "British" or a citizen or where his passport is from. Was he, in fact, a British citizen? Can we get a source added that explicitly states that, if it is true? Rmhermen (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Here for instance - [2] - "Salman Abedi, a 22-year-old British citizen born to Libyan parents, died in the attack, which targeted Grande's young fans as they left the indoor arena.". I don't think it is in doubt he held a British passport (there were also stories on his parents taking his passport from him, but then giving it to his so he could travel to Mecca). The sole possible question regarding citizenship, I believe, is possible loss of citizenship (or treason) by serving in the armed forces of ISIS (which could be seen as an enemy state) - however this hasn't brought up by the UK government, I believe, against any ISIS fighter returning (it is a whole can of worms - from the definition of treason, down to whether one sees ISIS as a state).Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It is WP:OR, but his birth record is here and would have given him British citizenship. Boris Johnson was born in New York, and had dual UK/US citizenship until 2016. There is no obvious reason why someone born in Manchester shouldn't have British citizenship. It is possible that Abedi was entitled to dual nationality because his parents were Libyan, but that's another matter. It is also worth pointing out that Abedi's British passport would have been gold dust to his extremist handlers, because it gave him wide ranging freedom to travel to various countries.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It is my understanding that being born in the UK is not sufficient to grant citizenship, unlike the U.S. If his parents were only refugees and not citizens (and I don't know their status either), then they couldn't pass that citizenship down to him. Rmhermen (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Another question is whether he had Libyan citizenship (as his parents probably did). For British citizen, Washington Post or Independent both also state this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There are various sources saying that he did have British nationality.[3] British nationality law can be a bit complicated, but Abedi looks like he would have met the requirements.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Title: bombing, incident or mass murder?

Should the title be bombing or would mass murder be more descriptive and accurate? A bombing might just involve property damage but when multiple persons are killed it becomes a mass murder, right? That would also allow a linking in the article to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder and underscore the significance of the act/event.

Instead of just changing the title I wanted to start the discussion here. I'm a new editor so I'm not sure the convention on discussion --> vote --> change, so feel free to educate me if there's a better way to do this.

Mreed911 (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The convention can be read at WP:RM#CM. In short: If you have a specific suggestion, feel free to start a Requested Move discussion ("RM").

If you don't have a specific suggestion, for instance if you have several suggestions and are unsure which would be the best or just feel that the current title is bad but don't know what might be a better title, simply starting a discussion as you did here is appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Incident" is way too vague. "Mass murder" also has this problem. 49 people were killed in a shooting in Orlando but they are both mass murders. Also, some mass murders are the work of ordinary criminals or people with mental health problems, while Salman Abedi knew perfectly well what he was doing and was convinced that his chosen deity would be so proud of it. The current title has a consensus but some people would like to drop the "2017" part, although I think it's OK to have this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Mreed911 I think the general view expressed on prev. discussions here was that renames are best postponed until things 'settle down', there should then be a clearer picture of how this event is most commonly and most clearly spoken about, which are more important considerations than 'underscoring the significance of the event'. Hope this helps. Pincrete (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Bombing is the most descriptive and accurate - and avoids POV. While just about everyone on the English Wikipedia (myself included) would agree this was a mass murder an Islamist jihadist (ISIS and the like) would see this as an act of war (as a retaliation or reprisal attack). Incident is vague (and it is normally used in a more complex military action, normally when there are POV issues and possibly disagreement on the actors/location/sequence of events). Therefore bombing should be preferred.Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

How to phrase the number of deaths

So this has been discussed at least three times before (here, here, and here), but back then it was mostly focused on the sourcing. No clear WP:CONSENSUS was established and it keeps getting changed back and forth, so I'm bringing it up here to settle it for good so the WP:Edit warring can stop.

Should the number of deaths be phrased as "22, excluding the attacker" (or some equivalent thereof) or "23, including the attacker" (or some equivalent thereof)? TompaDompa (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, and both can be used, though I'd suggest that the infobox should follow the article text. I suppose we'll have to reach some sort of consensus to prevent continual changing; I don't have a strong opinion. But "22" is not "the number of people killed", that's just incorrect. 22 concert-goers and parents seems reasonable. And 22 is not the number of victims—the injured are victims too. Pol098 (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Technically speaking, the parents are also concert-goers, since they were at the concert. But that's beside the point, I think.

No, some were in the area to pick up their children and had not attended.

I would say we should use "23, including the attacker" (or some equivalent), as that's what's most commonly used when speaking about shootings, bombings, etc.. Have you ever heard a news reporter say something like, "Twelve people were killed, not including the shooter." I haven't. — Gestrid (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

My preference is "23, including the attacker", also used at articles such as 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• The sources overwhelmingly use the figure of 22, not "23 including the attacker". Just check the 81 refs. Or google. If you google "manchester bombing 22" you get "22 people killed"; if you google "manchester bombing 23" you get "23 people still in critical care" or a date of 23 May. It's even more striking if you use "twenty-two" and "twenty-three". The article should say what is in the sources (per multiple discussions re Islam, ISIS etc. above), not what is in the Orlando article. 95.44.50.222 (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

"23, including the attacker" fits with the style used in similar articles (E.g. 2017 Westminster attack, September 11 attacks, November 2015 Paris attacks. The sources may headline the 22 victims killed, but they also make it clear that the attacker was killed as well; thus 23 deaths is not only accurate but does agree with the sources.Misha An interested observer of this and that 14:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree that "23, including the attacker" fits with the style used in similar articles and is simple. Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of what sources say "23 including the attacker" at least to me makes much more sense and I believe we use this everywhere ?... Anyway "22 inc attacker" makes more sense. –Davey2010^Talk 19:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC Regarding the Attacker's Religion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we list in the article that the attacker was Muslim? El cid, el campeador (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Include or Exclude

Survey

• Include but in a way as to not disrupt the flow of the article. (see discussion) -- sarysa (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include and in a non-disruptive article flow, as Sarysa notes above, but using a correct way to portray across nationality and religion (see my comment in the thread below). Wes Wolf ^Talk 20:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include nondisruptively, as the previous editors have mentioned. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include non-disruptively in the 'biog' section, though it would be more informative as a more complete description of his involvement with his religion or other causes than simply stating 'muslim', assuming this is known of course. Pincrete (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include. Highly relevant for motive and overall context in islamic terror.Icewhiz (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:NPOV or add "alleged". These people take the religion and bend it so far to the extreme that fellow Muslims denounce it as non-Islamic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That other Muslims denounce the way he practices his faith does not make him non-Muslim. For example, the Ku Klux Klan is considered Christian, but nearly all other Christians have denounced the vile way they practice their faith. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Include per WP:NPOV. He was a Muslim. When terrorism occurs and people explodes, that has often something to do with the religion of peace. Islam is clearly the motive behind the bombing. People know that not all Muslims explode and it's not the fault of all Muslims. But excluding reason and motive behind this terror attack is just not great.--Rævhuld (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include because he was an Islamic terrorist. WWGB (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include as it is SO pertinent and sourced, and obviously relevant. And surveys like this are extremely annoying, as this should not be even up for debate as it's not debatable at all that this man's being "Muslim" (otherwise Wikipedia will be an even bigger joke than it is to many people, for suppression of facts, per lefty agendas, etc) should be included in the article, as a point of fact, and point of relevance. Sources say so (even lefty "mainstream" ones), and this very attack was done IN THE NAME of the Muslim religion. Regardless of whether some people think that that's "not true Islam". (Another debate) Regards. 71.246.96.210 (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include but it should be clarified that he was a Sunni Muslim, Shias, Sufis and Ahmadis have nothing to do with these Eurpe wide terror attacks. Its not Islamic terrorism but fundamentalist Sunni one.
• Include but the article needs to make clear than being an Islamist extremist headbanger is not the same thing as being a mainstream Muslim. Various ongoing political conflicts in the Middle East are also a major factor in motivating this type of extremism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include as obviously relevant information. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include - Relevent and the sources state this so obviously we should state this too. –Davey2010^Talk 12:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• re: "in a way as to not disrupt the flow of the article", the way it is now, was a 22-year-old Libyan-British man from a Muslim household, is probably as good as it can ever be given that something else is tacked to "British", which is the standard Omar Mateen uses. The other possibility could be Muslim-British man of Libyan descent. (this flows better IMO, but I'm picking my battles) -- sarysa (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not to sure on "Muslim-British". Muslim is a religion, British is an nationality. Hyphening them together could make Muslim look like a nationality and/or British as a religion. I believe the common term is British-Muslim. Islam in the United Kingdom uses the term UK Muslim, and then we've got List of British Muslims. So with that in mind I would go for something along the lines of British Muslim man of Libyan descent. Wes Wolf ^Talk 20:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, my ignorance in all things British shines through. I'll take your word for it and support your suggestion. -- sarysa (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor Sarysa: It is not a case of "all things British shines through"; the same would apply for any nationality. French Muslim, Italian Muslim, American Muslim. For whatever reason, the nationality comes before the religion when it is being put into context. So if we are going to get picky, then it would be "all things English grammar shines through". Wes Wolf ^Talk 20:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Unaware of this discussion, I removed the 'Muslim-British'/'Libyan-Muslim ancestry', since Muslim is neither a nationality nor an 'ancestry' as others have pointed out.Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments after closure
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NB, just to point out that the Q. asked and answered here is about inclusion in the article, not inclusion in the lead. No view was asked or answered about inclusion in the lead.Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC) It was agreed to put it in the article and the lead is part of the article. I created this RfC to get a consensus so that people would stop deleting 'Muslim' out of the article because they felt like it, but now you are just looking for loopholes. How about instead you just admit that the consensus is against you and focus on another one of Wikipedia's millions of articles. Give it a rest.El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC) El cid, el campeador, before being wholly and needlessly offensive, you might bother to check that I 'voted' for inclusion and restored 'Muslim' in the body of the article. The reason for my post here is because people were edit-warring 'Muslim' in/out of the lead claiming this RfC gave them authority to do so. I hope you have the good grace to acknowledge that this RfC did not decide whether 'Muslim' should/should not be in the lead because it did not even ask that question, nor did anyone answer it. Before leaving another offensive post, try doing something useful like checking your facts, you'll make yourself look less stupid that way. Pincrete (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC) I'm a big kid who can take care of himself. Stop white-washing this article and I will have time to check my facts. El cid, el campeador (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 'White-washing'? Example please, you fell flat on your face about your previous accusation.Pincrete (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two new stories

This piece claims that the 'parents warned authorities' story actually came from US intell. (via CNN) the local police also claim to have not known about Abedi, other than for trivial reasons. This could of course be police 'passing the buck'.

This is even more significant, it basically says 'probably no network', Abedi sourced all the bomb components himself, police now believe. Also further releases. I don't have time at the moment (RL calls), but am posting here. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft for Ariana Grande's benefit concert and BBC television special: One Love Manchester

I created Draft:One Love Manchester, if any page watchers want to help expand the article about the upcoming benefit concert and television special. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Why create an article for a single concert? It would be better as a section in either the Dangerous Woman Tour article, or this article. Splintering it into its own article just forces people to click around more without adding anything helpful and encyclopedic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't see why this needs be merged with anything else. Is the Wikipedia running out of server space? Didn't think so. Please drop me a note when you publish, I'll be happy to have a look. XavierItzm (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles on one-off multi-performer concerts with this kind of publicity are not so unusual, and I think you could probably say it's not part of the Dangerous Woman Tour. Anyway, the article has now sprung up at One Love Manchester (music event) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with zzuuzz, articles of this nature are not so rare, and we have a category for benefit concerts. Besides it has already passed the level of media coverage that would require us to ask questions about its notability. Also it's being televised, as were events such as The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert. This is Paul (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Should the suicide bomber get an infobox?

Someone added an infobox for the murderer, which I removed, and then someone added it again. By convention we don't usually add infoboxes for perpetrators in these types of articles as it tends to memorialize them (see 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting for example). What does everyone else think?- MrX 11:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced at the moment. The main problem is that isn't saying anything that the text of the article doesn't already say, leading to redundancy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It especially leans towards editors wanting to populate the "motive" field, for which we have no confirmation from police. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It is also essentially redundant to the infobox immediately above it. Two boxes are not needed here. Bencherlite^Talk 12:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think a infobox is not necessary. We can cover his "biography" in the perpetrator section.--Skim

The infobox should be added back. It provides encyclopaedic information in a quick, digestible format for readers. XavierItzm (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's because the Orlando perp has his own page. The infobox is there. The fact that the template exists and is in use on 2700 pages is a testament to the fact Wikipedia is about the preservation of information above emotional considerations. -- sarysa (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Infoboxes are encyclopaedic whereas lack of infoboxes is unencyclopaedic. This is why infoboxes were created in the first place! To use sentimental reasons to whittle down an encyclopaedic work is quite childish. XavierItzm (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox is redundant duplication given the relative paucity of info. Pincrete (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not just sentimental. It sends a message to future murderers that they will go down in history. I find it immoral to provide incentive for acts like this. Boardhead (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

So, you see, here user Boardhead believes Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia, but instead, a vehicle for his "messages." XavierItzm (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You'll also be needing to remove articles on Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin and many others too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Man1000 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Only once this case is closed, can we evaluate whether he is deserving of a page, it seems that as Ian says, not enough information is present, a biography is all that is required, as what we know about him is little. Factsoverfeelings (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not about whether the terrorist gets a page or not. Here, I'll quote the thread title, to help you out: "Should the suicide bomber get an infobox?". You are welcome. XavierItzm (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I think an Info Box is useful. Yes, by definition, it is going to duplicate and repeat whatever information is already in the article. However, it is a quick read and a quick "snap shot" for people to get the information quickly, without having to sift through the narrative of the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

So, do we have a consensus that the infobox should be reinserted? XavierItzm (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

In a word, no. I see as many objectors as supporters. What is known about Abedi that does not fit in the opening sentence of 'Attacker' ?Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

So, you think infoboxes are to contain only non-duplicative material? I don't think infoboxes are what you think they are. As Joseph A. Spadaro said, inboxes are «a quick read and a quick "snap shot" for people to get the information quickly, without having to sift through the narrative of the article.» XavierItzm (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Being Joseph A. Spadaro, myself, I agree with what Joseph A. Spadaro said above. Yes, I think an Info Box is useful, despite the fact that it will -- by definition -- contain duplicate or "redundant" information. I don't see any harm in adding the box. Why exactly is this an "issue"? What is the harm in adding a box? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, we should review "What is the purpose of an Info Box?". It says -- with my "edits" for brevity and concision -- Keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. It also has an added benefit, of which I was completely unaware until just now, having just re-read the policy: namely, Using an infobox also makes the data within it available to third party re-users such as DBpedia in a granular, machine readable format, often using microformats. (Whatever all that technical-speak means.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Social and political effects

This seems a little off-topic here. There may be a place for it in the Reactions article since it would appear to be a reaction. Failing that then it's wholly an issue for the article about the general election. I won't remove it myself though until we have consensus on what to do. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. It also has problems with WP:10YT.----♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A shorter version has reappeared, which I still think is off-topic, mildly synthy and probably fails 10WT, if not 10DT! Pincrete (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed it for failing verification. TompaDompa (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This is still close to being removed for its fuzzy sourcing. It is notable that the bombing occurred smack in the middle of the campaigning of the United Kingdom general election, 2017, but it's unlikely that Abedi was too worried about this, because the date of Grande's concert was known months in advance, and may have been chosen as an ideal target for a suicide bomber long before Theresa May decided to call the snap election in April. It disrupted the election campaign for several days, but things are pretty much back to normal now.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no desire to start an WP:Edit war, but it seems obvious to me that it must at the very least be rephrased to accurately reflect what the source actually says – the text as of my writing this is a prime example of editorializing. I would still prefer it to be removed altogether, though. TompaDompa (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it is going to come up every day in one paper or another as to whether/how much/in what way this incident has affected the election. Short of some monumental blunder by any politician, I think this belongs on the election page for now. Pincrete (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the claims which are WP:OR-ish and WP:CRYSTAL at the moment. The 2004 Madrid train bombings occurred three days before the general election in Spain, and are notable because the Spanish government originally blamed ETA (separatist group) although it subsequently became clear that the attack was the work of Islamist extremists. Nobody seriously doubted that the Manchester Arena bombing was the work of an Islamist extremist, but it's too early to say whether it had any major impact on the 2017 General Election in the UK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Name written in Arabic

Why is Abedi's name rendered in Arabic? I thought policy was that we rendered 'foreign' names only when people were actually known by them in that form in the public sphere previously. Do we put Sadiq Khan in Urdu because his father was Pakistani? Perhaps we should render everyone with Irish antecedents in the Gaelic form of their name? Pincrete (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

In this case this is an ISIS fighter who spent part of his life in Libya and Syria (returning recently to the UK to carry out the attack) and whom wad can assume was covered concurrently in Arabic sources to English ones, possibly carrying information that was not in the English. This is quite different from Sadiq Khan, where we are only talking about ancestry. Use of Gaelic, a language being politically brought back to life, but of minor usage is a different matter. The ISIS communique taking responsibility was in Arabic. Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

ISIS releases English versions, too. American English, but English enough. Didn't name him, so doesn't much matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:ENGLISH: Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English.

However, Abedi's birth certificate (as can be seen here) shows that his name is originally in a Latin alphabet (specifically, the name is given as Salman Ramadan ABEDI), and thus WP:ENGLISH is not applicable here. TompaDompa (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

TompaDompa, my point precisely, he was British and known by his 'latinised' name. As a Muslim, he may very well have known Arabic and he had been to Libya (not Syria according to RS) but there is no reason to believe he has ever been known by his Arabic name ...... Do all Jewish people get their names rendered in Hebraic if they've been Bar Mitzvah'd and/or visited Israel? Pincrete (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a note here. Per WP:ENGLISH, I really don't think the title of this thread should be in Arabic. Not only is this the English Wikipedia, where we use English, but it also makes it difficult to search for the section, since I imagine not many of us have access to Arabic text keyboards. The title I've replaced it with is is how it appears when run through Google Translate. To me that suggests the Arabic text name used could be wrong anyway, though I must admit my Arabic isn't what it should be. This is Paul (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Agree We should use WP:ENGLISH. I don't speak Arabic. Many of us don't speak Arabic. Wikipedia should be in English!--Rævhuld (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

All of us speak and hear way more Arabic than many realize. Only the reading and writing is doomed to fail, if the last several centuries are any hint. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Incorporate some of reaction article into main one?

IMO the reaction article is way too long. It has more than twice the number bytes of the main article. --84.100.78.173 (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Some of the country quotes could certainly do with consolidating, and I'm not sure it's necessary to mention what every single leader said. But that's probably not for this page. This is Paul (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The whole reason Wikipedia built those pages is to keep that stuff away from these pages. If a town dump grows too big, nobody asks to bring the garbage back home. A sustainable wasteland comes from burning what can be burned and squashing the rest together. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Like the analogy, very true. Just to clarify though, I meant my comments probably weren't really for this page since they concern an aspect of the Reactions page. Consolidating the stuff is a discussion to be had there, I suspect. This is Paul (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't. The last thing that this article needs is an unencylopedic list of who said what after the tragedy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a legitimate discussion to be had about what should be included here and what to keep over there. The Queen and the Prime Minister (Theresa May) both visited the children's hospital and the injured being treated there. Currently the Queen's visit is tucked away in 'Political responses - Domestic' in the reactions article (since when was the Queen a politician?), and Theresa May's visit is not mentioned at all. The lead section of Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing is good - maybe the last paragraph over there should be included here? I agree that the long quote farm over there should be kept away from here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Royalty doesn't need to seek reelection, but does need to remain popular enough to stave off rebellion. It's easier, though still takes a fair amount of politicking. If we need a British response at all here, she seems rather responsible to Britain. Let her in, I say, but trade Tim Farron to the dustheap. He doesn't seem destined for much lasting notability. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

•  Disagree The reactions aren't important at all. We should only include the important reactions here.--Rævhuld (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Attacker's religion, again

(non-admin closure) The discussion about including his religion has already been taken. Most users agreed on including it.--Rævhuld (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Re this edit: yes, he was a Muslim (at least, he is known to have gone to a mosque at some stage) but "British Muslim" is a clumsy phrase because we don't normally talk about "British Christians", as this implies that religion and nationality are somehow linked. Salman Abedi was as British as a plate of fish and chips, but he abused the freedoms that he was given for reasons that are now depressingly familiar. There may still be some people who think that Abedi was not born or brought up in Britain because he was "an immigrant" of some description, but while his parents could be described in this way, he could not.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Could you perhaps suggest an alternative way of including it that you would find more acceptable? TompaDompa (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC) First and foremost, he was a British citizen. He was born and brought up in Manchester, there is no debate about this. Britain is a multicultural society, so people are free to choose what religion to have, or none at all. It's lazy wording to imply that religion and nationality are in any way linked; nationality is a matter of law, while religion is a matter of personal choice. Abedi is known to have worshipped at a mosque at some stage, but acts of extremist stupidity are also driven by affiliation to political causes, such as "avenging the Western bombing in Syria" or "stopping Western support for Israel". It is tendentious to imply that being a Muslim in itself would have provided a reason for what Abedi did, as Islamist extremism is associated with a range of political ideas. I'm not sure if the WP:LEAD is the best place for saying "he was a Muslim" for these reasons, which is why I preferred "British citizen" in the lead.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Since we had an entire RfC to include it, it will stay in until you can think of a better format for it. You can't just single-handedly decide that it's clumsy and take out any mentions of it. That's what the RfC was for, and the verdict was clear. El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC) And you took out British Muslim in the lead and in the attacker section. I don't know how I can assume good faith when you are going over everyone's head and making edits you know are against consensus. El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Just because he technically had a British passport does not a briton make in terms of nationality or ethnicity. He was born to non-British parents and moved back and forth between the UK, Libya, and Syria. His Britishness is vey mych an open question, this is not open and shut, some would claim he was not British. It is probably better to state "British citizen" and not an unqualified briton or british.Icewhiz (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC) There is consensus for saying that he was a Muslim, but "British Muslim" downplays and removes that fact that he was a British citizen. People can acquire citizenship though naturalisation, but Salman Abedi did not. He was as much a person born and bred in Manchester as Oasis (band). The Gallagher brothers come from an Irish Catholic background, but they are still British citizens from Manchester.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC) You are stating a perfectly acceptable mainstream POV, but would the EDL agree with you? UKIP? I changed it to "British citizen of the Muslim faith with Libyan ancesrty" which I believe is technically accurate with bringing in POV over Britishness or whether British Muslim is acceptable.Icewhiz (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Got reverted by Pincrete}. I will not edit war here, but all the Rfc decided was that Muslim stays, not exact wording. "British Muslim" is not accurate and brings in POV regarding Britishness.Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Hopefully the English Defence League wouldn't be allowed to edit the article outside Wikipedia guidelines. There is a long history of the far right implying that Muslims are somehow not "proper" British citizens, which isn't true. Incidentally, it's interesting that Tommy Robinson (activist)'s parents were Irish, to be sure.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC) nb edit conflict How is UK Muslim not accurate, it bears on membership of a social community as much as individual faith? How does it bear on Britishness? Ian Paisley was a NI Protestant, not a NI citizen of the protestant denomination, which frankly sounds euphemistic. Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC) .... ps practically all the UK mainstream media inc BBC and Gdn. refer to him as a 'Briton' and/or 'British Muslim'. Briton means someone borne in UK. Who gives a toss about what Nuttall or BDL or Farage say? Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Ian Paisley could be very tiresome, but he didn't commit violent acts. Those who did this in Northern Ireland had a range of political motives as well as religious beliefs. This is also true of Islamist extremists. Check out the rant speech given by Michael Adebolajo after the Murder of Lee Rigby. He didn't say "I did this because I was a Muslim", but launched into a predictable speech about why his actions were justified because of the Western bombing of the Middle East. This is as much a political motive as a religious one, and Abedi was probably thinking along similar lines when he did it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Well ianmacm has a problem with "British Muslim" from a liberal perspective of placing equivelance between Britishness and Muslimness. UKIP and others would probably have a problem with the stmt he was British. Saying "British citizen of the Muslim faith" avoids the POV questions, from both sides, and is technically accurate and clear... That some have felt a need to defend, in this thread, the Britishness of the attacker clearly shows this a POV issue.Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Please don't assume that I am writing from "a liberal perspective". The Magna Carta says " quod Anglicana ecclesia libera sit" which is taken as meaning that the Church and State are separate entities, something which is as relevant today as it ever was. Abedi had freedom of religious choice and abused it. Unfortunately, he had the same nationality as me.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Well - clearly the Act of Settlement 1701 was in force after the Magna Carta, and the King/Queen are still required to be Protestant (though since 2013 - Succession to the Crown Act 2013 they may marry Catholics). The king/queen are also still Supreme Governor of the Church of England - and all this came into force quite a bit after Magna Carta - so no, church and state are not separated in England (though they are on the other side of the pond)..... Back to the point, earlier in this thread you stated "Britain is a multicultural society" - which is clearly a political POV question (is it so today? should it be so?). You've also been arguing this point over and over again (and reverting British Muslim a few times I believe?) - which also exhibits why this is a POV issue.... I'm not British. I'm not emotionally/politically invested in the question of who is presumed British. But it does seem to that the UKIP camp, and perhaps a few others, wouldn't see Abedi as quite so British. I would wager most people, if they were to rate his "Britishness" on a scale of 1 to 10 wouldn't give him a 10. or a 9. The simple solution is to state "British citizen of the Muslim faith" - that way it is clear to what British refers too (and doesn't go into the question at all of "Britishness"), and also doesn't equate being British with Muslim (or conflate nationality and religion) - both are stated clearly as to what they refer to - and skirts the whole POV issue all together (and avoids POV-pushing that Britain is and should be multicultural immigration absorbing state).Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC) I would rate Abedi at 0/10 for British nationality skills for what he did in Manchester, but unfortunately he was British. This is why the far right questions the "Britishness" of Muslims, but my position is the same as Forrest Gump's: "Stupid is as stupid does".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "Islamist terrorist" is what he was. Doesn't matter what shades of lipstick the pig wears. It's rather obtuse to ignore this while fighting over Isamic or British. Both Muslims and Britons would prefer he be associated with radical Islamists than either Islamic or British culture. It is demeaning to ignore that the Imam denounced him and his cause. The sooner we get to "Islamist terrorist" the less insulting and more accurate our article will be. He was not a homegrown killer educated in a Manchester mosque, he was an Islamist terrorist radicalized in Libya and Syria. --DHeyward (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC) The RfC agreed we would list him as Muslim, move on. The Islamic religion does not need you to be their savior by choosing to violate consensus and continually argue the same point. This is getting old fast. The RfC served its purpose, but there are higher powers to appeal to if people want to look for loopholes and violate common sense agreements. Just put an end to this. It's such a minor difference that in a few months no one will think anything of it. British Muslim is not 'clumsy' it is what the Islam in the UK article calls British Muslims. El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)  Denied He was a Muslim and that was his motive. Feel free to include his Britishness. That wasn't his motive, but you can include it, if you want to.--Rævhuld (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Why still no motive in infobox?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is clear that Abedi acted according to Islamist beliefs. Many articles show this and can be seen just by googling. It's not like he blew himself up because he hates Ariana Grande songs. From being "very religious", to having ISIS connections such with ISIS recruiter in Britain Abdalraouf Abdallah, to being in Syria, the list goes on.

The authorities will declare a motive when they are satisfied. I think they know a little more of the matter than you. WWGB (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

At this stage, the motive is always what the media has speculated, or what armchair experts have decided that it is. Neither is suitable for the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It is rare that you will see "Islamic extremism" in an info box, no matter how clear it may be. I guess it's better safe than sorry, though. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC) For the record, 9/11 does not even have a motive stated. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

9/11 has an entire article on the motives. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Agree The motive should clearly be included to be WP:NEUTRAL.--Rævhuld (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motive

given that the London attack's motive has already been put in infobox, and the PM has confirmed the single ideological thread of these attacks, why still no motive here?Walsak (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I put May's comments into the article earlier today - but didn't update the motive box with a reference. Did now. The PM should be a good enough source for what security services allegedly found.Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you--Rævhuld (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the source you added is the greatest. It doesn't even mention the Manchester attack by name (unless I misread it). If you could find a source that actually mentions both the Manchester attack and Islamic extremism, I think that would be good enough.VR _talk 19:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The PM clearly references the last 3 attacks. She did not need to spell them out by name, as it was obvious to everyone that heard\read. Beyond this we also have sources (in the article) linking the attacker to a Libyan ISIS cell, however these are by unofficial stmts. May's stmt is clear and on record.Icewhiz (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)