Jump to content

Talk:Reactions to the Manchester Arena bombing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal to list countries in prose form

[edit]

I feel like this might be an unpopular request, but here goes...

I propose that the reactions from countries be written in prose form. Something like:

The attack was condemned by many countries, including Armenia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark...

Most countries have simply said some variant of "we condemn this attack and terrorism in general", and I don't think its encyclopedic to list the statement of every country. I know that it is common to list countries with their colorful flags and all. But that's not a great thing because it unnecessarily clutters the article and doesn't provide the reader with any new or interesting information.VR talk 01:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem with prose in this case is it would require an inaccurate compression of details. Obviously, details like Iran referencing an attack that happened a month ago would be preserved. Even then, minor details, like who the leader writes to or details that a particular spokesperson focuses on can be like a snapshot of diplomatic history. All the international nuance would be lost. -- sarysa (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I'm trying to get at is that such diplomatic "nuances" are not really notable. If they were notable, someone would've written an article about them. So in the absence of such coverage, its not really encyclopedic to list all the reactions. It starts to turn wikipedia into a WP:QUOTEFARM.VR talk 05:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The templates above this discussion oddly make my point. They are notable, but they're low priority notable; C-class, low importance, and what not. They may contain tidbits that only a historian could love 20 years from now, but in that regard they're no different than the countless minor species variations that you're liable to hit on "Random article". As far as WP:QUOTEFARM goes, it's a non-binding guideline for starters. Second, even if you were to quarantine the quotes into a wikiquote article, it would make the non-quote aspects of this article very awkward. It would also be user unfriendly to have to go to so many pages. The relatively low-importance information of this article being cordoned off from the high-importance main article hits that balance that makes just about everyone happy. Plus it's not like Wikipedia is hard-up for storage space. I will say one thing, though, it is weird that someone moved up the national reactions above the other reactions. Having the list at the bottom would improve readability. -- sarysa (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British responses first

[edit]

I moved British responses, especially those from Manchester, above the international ones, but it was reverted. As of now, some British responses are at the top, but others are way below the reaction of other countries.VR talk 02:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ariana Grande?

[edit]

Should this article be added to Category:Ariana Grande? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably not. She's a major player in the incident itself, but just a bit player in the reaction chorus. A reaction article tends to be in its own little world with other reaction articles, linked only through its parent article. -- sarysa (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth

[edit]

Should we put commonwealth reactions above other states? Obviously its more close closely connected.Lihaas (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it "obvious"? As good, or better, case can be made for putting European countries first. Probably best to leave in alphabetical order, as now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was originally a Commonwealth section, but admittedly I did not populate it well and didn't really contest its removal. If someone more keen to UK politics wants to give it a whirl, that would be great. Also, disagree with User:Ghmyrtle's point about Europe simply because the Commonwealth is more closely tied to Great Britain than GB was to the EU, and now even that's (about to be) gone. A commonwealth nation is "kind of domestic" to GB but a nation like Germany or Greece never was. -- sarysa (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...the Commonwealth is more closely tied to Great Britain than GB was to the EU." Well, that's one point of view, though I'm pretty confident that a good chunk (48%?) might disagree with you. Leave it as it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Canada has Queen Elizabeth II on their currency, for starters. Not to mention a shared history through seeded colonization. EU's ties come mostly from geographically convenient immigration and nobles interbreeding. -- sarysa (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some people might agree with you, but many would not. British society, as it now exists, is in many ways far more closely interconnected with other European countries (entirely discounting the connections between royal and noble families) than it is with far-distant countries with whom it shares historical and cultural connections. I'm quite sure that at least as many British people have family and friendship connections with European residents as have with Canada, etc. Anyway, this is going way off topic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Quotations

[edit]

The consensus is to remove the template that indicated the article had too many quotations. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Someone has added a template indicating that the article has too many quotations. I think this should be removed. The nature of the page necessitates a need for quotations, and regardless - paraphrasing is used pretty much throughout the article. This is no different to other articles that describe reactions to previous terrorist incidents.

This has been disputed a lot on the AfD that was made for this page (and subsequently denied), and I feel like removing it without an adequate discussion will just cause an edit war. As such I'm adding a RfC onto this message to gauge outside opinion. Jayden (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone always does that, like here. I'll grant them one thing: The redundant quotations (condemnation at the attackers, condolences to the victims) should (READ NOTE BEFORE ACTING)eventually† be compressed to make room for the more unique parts of each official's statement. (†but not until the unique parts are pulled from the link, it's irritating when people cut content when they could've spent a minute or less looking up something) Only maybe 5 or so of the country quotes lack anything other than the commonalities. The most notable part of the country quotes is what agenda they push alongside their statements. -- sarysa (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove template. I agree with Jaydenkieran that this page does, if it stays true to its title can never be free of quotations, but paraphrasing should be used whenever possible, and when it wouldn't move from the original intent of the quotation. Tutelary (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this looks like a drive by tag, and bearing in mind this similar discussion, I'm going to comment it out and add a comment note asking people to make their case here before adding it back. This is a BFWOT. -- sarysa (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • A Wikipedia article cannot just be a collection of quotes. Wikiquote exists for that purpose. This is where we write articles based on a distillation of the best secondary sources. It cannot consist of 50% anodyne quotes. --John (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John: @Knowledgekid87: Oh please, do not WP:SOFIXIT. The country reactions will be unreadable if they are in prose. Already had issues early on with someone who ran a broken script on the Countries section and then left. On a lark I decided to make a program that tallied how much of an article is quotes, obviously excluding references, excess whitespace, and wiki garbage. It's 38.7% article-wide at the moment, which is not bad given the high edit volume. Furthermore, WP:QUOTEFARM is a recommendation and NOT a requirement. Look at all the articles similar to this one, and how neat and tidy they are. (continued next paragraph)
The best way to WP:SOFIXIT, and I plan to do so myself when the edit volume decreases, is to condense the obvious and to only quote a country's more unique words. With that said, I really dislike the template that's used. It would be more helpful to have a template that suggests something along the line of strategic paraphrasing. Otherwise, someone might come along, WP:BOLD, and turn it into something like this monstrosity. -- sarysa (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
38.7% is bad. I don't know why the tag keeps getting removed. We cannot have an article that is over a third quotes, especially such trite and formulaic ones. --John (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove template. A little heavy on quotations, but not that bad. LK (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove template - I don't believe the article quotations are excessive at all - Reaction articles are going to have a lot of quotations anyway so I personally fail to see what on earth the point is of adding the template in the first place ?, If they pointed to the article talkpage so we all understood why then fair enough but just to drive by tag it without any explanation is rather silly IMHO, –Davey2010Talk 19:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Jason Manford

[edit]

Wondering if any of this is worth a brief mention. I was thinking of something along the lines of his attempt to offer Grande words of comfort not being received in the way he intended. This is Paul (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's one of many celebrities whose reactions to the bombing have been criticised by the media as attention-seeking / narcissistic /self-promoting etc. If we include him, we have to include the others. Jim Michael (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]

The main article has been moved to Manchester Arena bombing per talk page consensus. Should this article therefore be renamed to "Reactions to the Manchester Arena bombing"? Bennv3771 (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. The main article has been moved back to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWE

[edit]

Instead of continuing to revert each other (edit-warring), please discuss why we should or shouldn't include the WWE response. I've left a note on the IP's talk page to comment here. Sportsfan 1234, where is the consensus about not including the WWE response? I don't see anything about WWE on this talk page, and there doesn't seem to be any archived talk page posts. — Gestrid (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is there is a general consensus to not include minor events on events of this magnitude. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I (and likely many others here) am not too familiar with the WWE. Why is what they did a minor event? — Gestrid (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an event with their developmental organization for wrestlers (ie. not the main wrestlers/roster). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Now, we should wait for the IP to comment with the reason they want to include the WWE section. — Gestrid (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there's very little separating WWE proper from its bush leagues lately. Both WrestleMania and NXT are essentially on the same channel. Back in 2001, things were different. You wanted to watch OVW or HWA, you had to live in the area or know a guy who knows a guy. It was almost mythical, and never mentioned on "real" WWF TV. Back then, when terrorists tried to change the world, not cancelling a show was the cool thing to do.
This cancelled show wasn't meant to be televised, so may seem less important than No Mercy or Rebellion '01 and '02, but the untelevised shows from this venue last year drew roughly the same attendances. In some ways, the disappointment of around 13,000 ticketholders is a more major repercussion than a few words from Sengphet Houngbounyuang or even someone really famous like Miro Cerar. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bee tattoo

[edit]

Could someone please do a check at Flickr etc. for a freebie picture? I cannot access that site where I am. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great Manchester Run

[edit]

I don't understand. The Great Manchester Run is a regular thing. How is the run about the bombing this time? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned it in the context of being one of the events where a minute's silence was observed, but this question appears to predate my edit. This is Paul (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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) 01:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why create an article for a single concert? It would be better as a section in this article, the Dangerous Woman Tour article, or the bombing 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)[reply]

The "Bee" picture

[edit]

Simple drawing by a random author in the lead section, should it be removed? Compared to the one with Tel Aviv City Hall illuminated. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornerstonepicker: It is a symbol of the city (See: Symbols of Manchester) so I feel it should stay as it is relevant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand is a symbol for Manchester. But the photo shows a drawing on the pavement. Is that notable enough? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_the_Manchester_Arena_bombing&oldid=1252353805"