Talk:2017 London Bridge attack

This is pretty recent

is ongoing, and might not warrant an article in the end. It's also not yet confirmed as a terrorist attack, so it'd be worth leaving that out for now -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 21:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. There have been at least two recent incidents which turned out to be nothing to do with terrorism, and so far not even the Murdoch press have speculated about terrorism yet. Uncle Roy (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, could be a mad hatter in a mass spree and not all of those are notable to have a page.Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Besides, it could simply be another incident of workplace violence, you know. XavierItzm (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Second attack at Borough Bistro

We now have a second incident at Borough Bristro in London, looks like we are seeing another situation similar to November 13, 2015 Paris attack where Terrorist hit several soft targets. --Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not yet confirmed as a terrorist attack, but given the two incidents it could well be. It may be worth waiting until a credible news outlet uses the word "Terrorist" -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

With this incident being in more than one location should we rename it? Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note that Borough Bistro and Borough Market are different. Both are being evacuated due to an incident. May have to rename this to focus on London as a whole. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 22:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

As this is still an on-going incident and rapidly unfolding at a rate of knots, I personally feel it is too soon to speculate on links and similarities. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

^ this, and the fact that unless this gets confirmed as a terror attack, it may well not be notable enough to keep around -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Until there is confirmation in reliable sources, I'd oppose a rename as we don't know yet if this is even an attack or related to the Market. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree but it depends Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

If the source of this is this metro.co.uk report, I think this could be over-interpreting a tweet. The tweet and the overall article are consistent with exiting a bar, seeing an injured bleeding person and either correctly or incorrectly believing that someone had a knife in his hand. It doesn't sound like a separate incident. Boud (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a confirmed attack

Has any credible news outlets confirmed this as a terrorist attack? I can't find any. @Walsak: you mentioned one when you restored the attack mention -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

>> I was watching Sky News and they said so about five minutes ago on the live feed on Youtube.--Walsak (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Walsak: Anything in a reliable source? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it reliable enough now, snowflake? Thismightbezach (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor There'sNoTime: nothing reliable to confirm terrorism at this early stage. BBC have even reported that the police have not confirmed anything of the sort (terrorism or linked incidents) and urge people not to speculate whilst they are investigating a rapid-evolving series of incidents. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Vauxhall

Forth incident, what now. Should we rename. Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Its the third, not forth. And still too soon for renaming. It is already clear all this is unfolding at an alarming rate. Hold fire and be patient. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. These are not necessarily linked yet so we'll just give it time. Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories

Someone keeps insisting on categorising this article as 'Bridge disasters' and 'Road incidents'. Come on! How stupid is that? 86.185.30.254 (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Very - so can we stop doing that please? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Used to be called "terror attacks", but perhaps editors would prefer entitling these unpleasantnesses as "events"? XavierItzm (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Third incident

BBC are now reporting of a third incident in Vauxhall. I can see this article getting rather messy with severe disruptive editing. When is best for semi-pp? Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Well there isn't any yet, so move on, to put it politely. Check policy. SP is ONLY for vandalism that can't be otherwise dealt with! It's not for preemption. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Wolf Is salting it until the incident(s) have fleshed out more and have RS and not ongoing an option? I know it's not but I had to try...CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: Trying not to, I prefer to err on the side of allowing editing than restricting it, but it's getting a little silly -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

There's been no problem with the editing so far, except for overzealous removal of material. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

No it is not getting silly. I get really pissed off when as soon as something like this comes along a load of control freaks come along to freeze out IPs for no good reason at all. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Chill, it's not being protected just yet -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Control freaks? And "move on"? No personal attacks, please! IPs have been warned from a couple of admins about attacking me lately. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please don't SP this article unless IP vandalism becomes a real problem. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Until it becomes an issue, don't protect it. And it isn't that difficult to create an account if you're being constructive. You sound too experienced to be an ip. Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Correct, but I'm on my works computer, and I never log on from it (and I won't now edit this article at all while logged on). 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

We have a significant number of very experienced IP editors. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

To editor Chrissymad: correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the act of salting something mean the placing of creation protection level on an article? As this is already created, then I'm not suggesting salting whatsoever. All I'm saying is if this gets out of hand should we be looking into protection? This is likely to appear on the main page, so protection level will be required at some stage per WP:SEMI which strongly recommends when an article is subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. This is high media attention. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: I was joking because right now it's bound to be a hot mess of unsourced or unreliably sourced claims as the incident is unfolding and I was suggesting it would be better to have no article and no ability to create the article than to have a dumpster fire. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Chrissymad: ah right, LOL. Shall I get the coffee pot on boil? Looks like this could be a long-haul night keeping watch on this article. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Propose rapid straw poll move

Propose moving to London incidents of 3 June 2017:

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

No, the word order is wrong.Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for now: as even the police have said they do not know if these incidents are linked, and are not treating them as such whilst they ar still investigating. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, I'm with WikiImprovement on this one. I think it needs to flesh out more since we don't yet know if they're related, no matter how likely it is. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose wording above, but I do support an eventual move... perhaps better wording would be 3 June 2017 London attack — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose because of wording as well. June 2017 London attacks would be better.Walsak (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The detail of the wording I am not too fussed about, that can be resolved in due course. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

OK, let me explain my reasoning here. We do not know if the events are related, therefore having them in an article entitled "London Bridge incident" makes little sense. It may transpire that only the LB incident is significant, for example, in which case we can move back, but meanwhile it makes sense to have a title that covers all three incidents. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

Oppose for now: If they're found to be all linked later, then sure. For now, no. DanielEnnisTV ✉ 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now as we don't yet have all the facts. Would support an eventual move to something like June 2017 London attacks. No need to disambiguate with the day date. This is Paul (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Many references now available for the multiple location aspect of this/these incidents. However, re-word slightly - 2017 London attacks or similar 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Why has the article been moved anyway, by Rossbawse when this discussion is still ongoing? Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I've also pinged them on their talk, Wesley Wolf. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Map

can someone add a map of the 3 areas in London?Lihaas (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is Open Streetmap of the area. Couldn't get my head around the attribution requirements. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

Number of deaths

I understand the need to get the wording correctly, but we all need to agree on the correct way to phrase this. Should it be spelled out or using symbols? RES2773 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Symbols? Do you mean numerals (1, 2, 3 etc) or lettering (one, two, three, etc)? Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, or using greater than/less than. RES2773 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest using words until we have some reasonably stable figure - without "at least" or "more than" in it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

US President Donald Trump first two reactions to incidents

In his first reaction to the incident, U.S. President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter in relation to his travel ban executive order: "We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!" He further wrote that the United States would do whatever it can to help out in London and the U.K. CNN documented that his national security team had briefed him on the incidents.

References

---

Placing here for posterity. Sagecandor (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we get rid of this absolute garbage from the article? I keep trying to remove it, but someone has now accused me of vandalism (LOL). 86.185.30.254 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It IS notable whether one like it or not. I have trimmed the quotes to proper english.Lihaas (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This is crackers! There's more in the article about what Trump thinks than there is about the incident itself. Can we please remove the nonsense? 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Does the IP need to be reminded about civility towards others? What might be garbage to one person, may be useful information to another. Everything needs to be written in a neutral point of view, including reactions from Heads of State. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, but I think the editor who accused me of vandalism does. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiple references now applied to single statements - a sure sign that the contested statements should be deleted. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That warning on your talk page is a standardised worded template, issued via Twinkle. I wouldn't worry too much about it, and assume good faith. I get them all the time and shrug them off like water on a duck's back. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

:) No probs - thanks. But what about that stuff from Trump? I think at this stage in the article development it really isn't needed and for the most part is not relevant - all that stuff about a travel ban ... 86.185.30.254 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Citation overkill needs to be considered in cases like this. Too many inline citations for one piece of context isn't necessary. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Tweet 2 was just quoted on BBC News. I'd say that's the most relevant one to this topic and the one we should use. This is Paul (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Replaced all primary sources with secondary sources. This is notable. Secondary sources are reporting on it. Multiple. Sagecandor (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you to the IP for cooperating and respecting civility. I respect that it can be hard at times like this, as tempers can get frayed and overheated. But an approach of calm should be practised as it helps others to maintain a level of calmness during this distressing incident. The Mt have now confirmed all of this as an act of terror though. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the IP in saying that the trump tweet should be removed but not in full. The travel ban nonsense is political garbage that really is just extra fluff. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of this. I've seen quotes hailing "Merkel as the leader of the free world" when she wasn't even a major participant of Trump's withdrawal from Paris. I think it's important that this gets mentioned under "reaction". Lankandude2017 (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

"2017 London Bridge incident" redirect

2017 London Bridge incident has been redirected here. Should it remain or be changed to a disambiguation? Although this is the only to occur on the London Bridge, it is not the only on a London bridge. The first part of the 2017 Westminster attack was on Westminster Bridge, a London bridge. I realize that this distinction may be obvious to UK citizens, but I suspect that is not the case for most others. RN1970 (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor RN1970: I wouldn't think that is necessary. Everyone knows about the London Bridge, and is hardly going to get confused with a bridge in London. Don't forget the worldwide known nursery rhyme, London Bridge is Falling Down. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This is one of those weird cases where 2017 London bridge incident might be a dab, but 2017 London Bridge incident doesn't need to be. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for both your comments. However, I really would appreciate some comments from people that are not UK natives. As I said in my earlier comment, I realize that the London Bridge/bridge distinction is obvious to UK citizens, but most en.wiki users belong to other nationalities. As a frequent London visitor, I'll also leave the final judgement on this redirect to others. RN1970 (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor RN1970: I would assume that {{distinguish}} might be a good solution, as that would bring up Not to be confused with. But as noted, everyone knows of London Bridge as it is a landmark and notable for being in a nursery rhyme. Also WP:COMMONTERM may apply. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Another good tip might be to add {{R from more specific geographic name}} to the redirect itself. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) American here. Never been outside the country. I understand the difference between "London bridge" (a common noun with an adjective) and "London Bridge" (a proper noun), and I suspect most other Americans that have at least been through elementary school (If I'm not mistaken, it's what you guys would call "primary school".) will understand the distinction as well. — Gestrid (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if it was unclear from my posts, but the question wasn't if people know the difference between a common noun with an adjective and a proper noun. I certainly presume most do, regardless of nationality. However, most people searching on wiki (or google, etc) are lazy with caps. "Donald Trump" becomes "donald trump". Similarly, "2017 London Bridge incident" becomes "2017 london bridge incident". When only the version with caps exists, it'll redirect you. Regardless of your use of caps. The same will happen to anyone putting "2017 London bridge incident" into the search bar. You'll be redirected via "2017 London Bridge incident". RN1970 (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, 2017 London attack/2017 London attacks ought to be a disambiguation page now. The first has been created, so I'll redirect the second. This is Paul (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable in my eyes. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Move to "2017 June London terror attacks"

Article should be moved to "2017 June London terror attacks". That is what police, politicians and reliable sources are calling it. If it turns out that one of the incident isn't a terror attack, then this isn't the article where it is covered. --DHeyward (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Present title at June 2017 London attacks is short and the article is defined in the first few sentences for the reader. Sagecandor (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: None of the other terrorist attacks which have articles, use the word "terror" in their titles. Keep with consistency. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "something else exists" is never a valid argument for editing the Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Consistency with similar articles' titles is explicitly spelled out in the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA policy. You are probably confusing it with WP:OTHERSTUFF in deletion discussions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, the lack of "terror" in the titles of other attacks was a lack of confirmation that they were terrorist attacks. That is not the case here. In fact, some are trying to argue that one of the attacks were not terror related. Even the term "attack" had opposition until RS's called it. --DHeyward (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You raise a very good point, DHeyward. The attacks of tonight have already been declared terror, and therefore the article should plainly call the black kettle black, i.e., terror attacks. Recommend you move boldly. XavierItzm (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support No substitutes for plain English on encyclopaedic articles. XavierItzm (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Much like the Manchester bombing article, until it is officially confirmed that they were terrorist attacks, the article shouldn't be renamed or moved. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

But these have already been called "terrorism" by the powers that be! XavierItzm (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor XavierItzm: I could hypothetically be chasing a person with a log and be acting with "terrorism", but that would not link me terrorist groups. The "powers that be" might well have labelled it as terrorism, but not linked to any groups as of yet. Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That's why it's a "terror attack" and not an "Islamist terror attack." If it's the IRA, it's still a terror attack and is still being treated as one. We don't need to identify a group for the word "terror" justs as we son't need a group for the word "attack". --DHeyward (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

I'm sticking to my opinion of "strong oppose". Nothing is convincing me nor will I be bullied into changing my opinion. I've pointed out my reasons, which have been further justified by another user who points out WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. As an admin, I would have thought you would be one respecting policies, and not arguing them? If that policy is wrong, then it needs to be addressed by the wider community, and not on this talk discussion. Wes Wolf Talk 01:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC) I have no opinion on the naming. However: 1) The "as an admin" argument is better avoided, especially in discussions where no admins have participated. 2) I see no one trying to bully anyone into changing their opinion; just people disagreeing, which is entirely acceptable. Let's keep it like that. RN1970 (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC) To editor RN1970: I'm not stating anyone is bullying. All I am merely saying is that current view still stands and I won't be bullied (as in, coaxed, coerce, future tense) unless a more convincing argument can persuade me otherwise to change my view. And DHeyward, is an admin, I do check a user page so that I know to whom I converse with. It avoids awkward situations, as I had in the past come out with a comment to a user, only to discover that if I had checked their user page first, I would have avoided coming out with the remark. So nowadays I like to be safe and avoid situations like that again. Wes Wolf Talk 02:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC) His/her user rights: Not an admin. I was unaware of the earlier history between the two of you and I'll stay out of that. (This is also only indirectly related to the name change discussion; should an editor wish to collapse it, feel free to do it.) RN1970 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC) I was about to mention that. You beat me to it ;P Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Well that is confusing then. They have RfA items on their user page as if to portray across they are an admin. I thought users were not allowed to add content on their user space to portray across a "fraudulent admin" status? Wes Wolf Talk 02:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Notice the heading those items are under – Need help from admin links. Presumably they have the items there for when they themself need help from admins. TompaDompa (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC) @Wesley Wolf: I can't see anything wrong with having links that help following what the admins are up to. For quick and accurate identification of userrights, I recommend User:PleaseStand/User info – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC) To editor Finnusertop: so it is reasonable to have {{RfA toolbox}} on any user page, even if that user is not an admin? Wes Wolf Talk 02:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Sorry Wesley Wolf, it's not meant to be confusing. I do have a section called User Rights [1]. Admins, I believe, are generally required to have an admin userbox. I am not an admin. I keep the "Need help from an admin" section both for myself and for those that have issues with me that defy ordinary resolution. I am just a regular user with lots of experience and virtually no chance of passing an RfA so no worries. --DHeyward (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC) @Wesley Wolf: having {{RfA toolbox}} on a non-admin userpage seems rather pointless, yes. I think the key is that users themselves recognize if their pages could cause confusion and, if necessary, offer to clear it up. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose -- compare with September 11 attacks. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. Current title is descriptive and consistent with similar incidents. WWGB (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lets give this article like 24 hours or so before we start thinking up new names. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for consistency. Most if not articles about terror attacks follow this style. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current title is accurate, sufficiently descriptive, and concise.- MrX 03:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I must say that it's very optimistic to name this article so that there wouldn't be other terror attacks in London during the month of Ramadan. --Pudeo (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per MrX and others, unnec. Pincrete (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Declared terrorist attack

Per Met twitter https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/871152151787171840 -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 23:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

But not the Vauxhall one. https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/871152386739404800 158.174.11.112 (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2017

Add "A waitress was reportedly stabbed in the neck." Under "Borough Market". 32ciN (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done. Details like this should wait until they are confirmed - "reportedly" means that some unspecified person or organisation has said that but it hasn't been verified as correct. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Mike Pence and other reactions

I've twice removed, and user:MrX has removed at least once, mention of Mike Pence from the reaction section (added I think only by user:Lihaas). MrX described it as "Trivia". My rationale is that Pence is not an international leader, is not relevant to the UK and has not said anything significant at all so it does not add anything to a section that is likely to become extremely bloated with meaningless, formulaic quotes as more people react. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editors Thryduulf and Sagecandor: strangely enough, Lihaas had removed the same content as quoting non-notable indivicduals, only to reinstate it 5 minutes later as being notable. Both summaries got me all confused! Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That user is being very disruptive at this page. Sagecandor (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course I agree. Such platitudes should remain out, or be relegated to the inevitable reactions and flags article.- MrX 00:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just removed it, and the US flag template, again. Added this time by user:PerfectlyIrrational. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with you Sagecandor. And still making disruptive reverts too. The user is showing signs of edit warring, and I'm dubious of them wandering into WP:3RR territory. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

someone ELSE added the latest addition. In fact, I further removed non-notable stuff.Lihaas (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) And now user:DHeyward has just added the Pence quote back. I've not removed it as I don't want to go over the 3RR. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We have a consensus on the talk page for NOT having this on the page. Sagecandor (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to replace it with a note to not re-add without discussing it here? Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 4 (I hate edit conflicts lol). To editor Thryduulf: I think it is exempt per WP:3RRBLP, as it would appear to fall under biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added a note not to add Mike Pence's reaction per talk page consensus. I don't know what good it will do, but we can try. I've also replaced Trudeau's quote with the start of a list of international leaders who have reacted. Unless they say something different to the standard formulatic sympathies, etc. we don't need the quotes here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I only changed a long string of words to "offered" as a copy edit. Same as I did for Trump. I could care less if it goes or stays and there are a number of busybody numbskills worried about whether the VP of the US is notable. Who cares? --DHeyward (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I don't care what your motivations are, your edit summaries on the talk page and above are personal attacks. If you persist you will be blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

[2] [3] - Is this WP:NPA reportable somewhere? Sagecandor (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I refer all busybody numbskulls to ANI. They are used to them and there is much fucking off on that page. --DHeyward (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Thryduulf: Would the use of {{Consensus}} on this talk page and list any consensuses be helpful? Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: Maybe, it's not a template I've encountered before so I don't know how effective it is in practice. If you think it will help then I've got no objections. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Thryduulf: it is one that I've seen on the talk page of the Manchester attack. And it seems to be working very well on that, so maybe worth a go on here!? Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Go for it then. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I added it. It works well in my experience. TompaDompa (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Already done by TompaDompa. Nice swift action there, TD! Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

"Islamic terrorism"/Witnesses

Thre is no official corroboration of an invstigation into the backgrounds of the perpetrators and/or their motivation. Further, the views of a witness somewhere about is not notable enough to be here. Else we ought to add all the individual analysis on the web too with people who have more credentials. This s not a newspaper.Lihaas (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Which is why @Lihaas: if you actually took the time to read edit histories, rather than rush-edit, you will have seen why the template has been hidden. Somebody has clearly added this article to the navigation template. And I did state in my edit summary that it is probably best left hidden for now, and subject to becoming visible should details verify otherwise. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on what WP:RS report, not on some "official corroboration of an invstigation". Your position is untenable. XavierItzm (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor XavierItzm: to whom is that comment being directed at? Please specify. Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

Yeah, heed the Muslim person above: the attacks weren't actually Islam-related. Who's ever heard of such a thing as Islamic terrorism? They were clearly carried out by either Lutheran Finns or Japanese Shintoists. --79.56.15.171 (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC) I sincerely hope there is no act of WP:SCRUTINY of another user, by that IP comment which bears similarities to the original post. Wes Wolf Talk 01:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wesley. The article is directed to the person who wrote "official corroboration of an invstigation", i.e., Lihas. XavierItzm (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah right XavierItzm, I can see that now, yes. Thank you for clarifying that comment further. I smell a dodgy scrutiny going on though. The good old sock and scrutiny snout is working well as 2:12am - LOL. Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

I'm not a sock puppet. I'm a real person. Chill and hunt down those evil Finns. ;) --79.56.15.171 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC) For an IP who has made 3 sole edits in the last 10 minutes, you seem to be well educated on the sock-puppet term. Talk about quacking scrutiny. Wes Wolf Talk 01:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Yeah yeah sure, whatever, mate. I really don't care about all your rules and the collapsable Off-topic box censorship trick, I'm off to bed. Keep being slaughtered by Muslims and denying they're Muslims if that's what you want, okay? Peace. --79.56.15.171 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC) For your information, I never collapsed the content. Wes Wolf Talk 01:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC) I was referring to the collapsable Off-topic discussion box I'm currently writing in. --79.56.15.171 (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC) And like I said, I never placed yours or my comments into this collapsable Off-topic discussion box, nor did I "censor" anything. Check the edit history "mate", someone else censored. Wes Wolf Talk 01:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We clearly have eyewitnesses who were attacked by the jihadists corroborating the story. If eyewitness reports aren't good enough for you, I don't know what to tell you. CitationKneaded (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Map (2)

Could someone please create a map to show the proximity of the two sites? Thank, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Gaia Octavia Agrippa: already done from what I gather, see above. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No it hasn't been done. I've found File:Southwark London UK location map.svg, if anyone knows how to put pins on it. Its the smallest local map I can find. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 01:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the best I can do. Should they be added to the page? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 01:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended content
London Bridge London Bridge (London Borough of Southwark) Borough Market Borough Market (London Borough of Southwark)

References

To include Ariana Grande's tweet?

Outside of politicians, she is the first to express condolence -- and it comes just after her concert got bombed. Is it significant enough to include? Kingsif (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't see why not, on a separate "reactions" page to be used as dustbin for all the virtue-signaling to pour out of politicians and performers. XavierItzm (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No. I think the article should focus on what happened and meaningful commentary from UK government officials, terrorisms experts, etc.

I say no. Trivial really. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't generally include celebrity reactions to these kinds of incidents unless there is a direct connection which doesn't appear to be the case here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that Grande's tweet is necessary or significant enough for the reasons that other editors have given. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Eh... normally I am inclined to say not to include it however due to the circumstances where this closely follows the Manchester attacks and her benefits concert is today in my opinion I would include it. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Selective Trump Tweets

I object to the removal of President Trump's tweet about the Muslim Travel ban, which sources clearly show is the most noteworthy reaction from him in response to this tragedy. Knowledgekid87 removed it (twice), the second time with an edit summary "Removed political bias". Is this to suggest that we can only quote Trump when it's completely innocuous?- MrX 02:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The section is about reactions to the incident not about an executive political order. This tweet just adds WP:UNDUE weight, why does America have to be the dominant English country with the most detailed response to the attack? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't. It sound like you advocate listing his name next to Turnbull, Trudeau, Macron and Kenny, without quoting his Tweets?- MrX 02:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel we should just quote his tweet in reaction to the attack or yes remove it, if you want to make a worldwide political reaction section then go ahead. I am sure this having a ripple effect on the upcoming election in the UK as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please make up your mind. Either we quote his first tweet and his second tweet, or none. None makes more sense since that is what we have done for other major UK allies.- MrX 03:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with none then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump's travel ban is a US domestic issue. It's not related to this in any way. Keep in mind that relevancy is also what keeps out responses such as "Islamist terror" or "Al-Qaeda" or "ISIL" before it is known. Arguing that the "muslim ban" is a relevant tweet means that "islamic terrorism" is a relevant tweet. We should be consistent and respectful of being neutral. --DHeyward (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing it; the sources are and so is Trump! His first public communication after learning of this attack was to renew his call for a Muslim ban. Even Fox News points that out in large bold font. But that's OK, let's leave his tweets out altogether and just say that he reacted along with other world leaders.- MrX 03:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@OP You know by now it's not a "Muslim ban", right? It's a travel restriction on 7 countries known for producing terrorists. If it was, as clueless critics claim a "Muslim ban", then why are there no SE Asian nations (the most populous Muslim-majority nations in the world) on the list? Please refrain from embarrassing yourself by commenting on things you have clearly not taken the time or effort to educate yourself on, thank you.CitationKneaded (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The majority of attacks in US have been by people from countries not on the list (Saudi Arabia? UK? US itself). What the 7 countries most have in common is that neither US industry, nor specifically its president have substantial commercial interest in them. Banning Saudis or Brits would be too expensive and difficult, so hey, let's just pretend this is going to work. Pincrete (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This should be in Wikipedia front page

I'm watching news in Australia and thus event is being called out as a terrorist attack, with dead and wounded. Notable enough to be in Wikipedia's front page. Why is in not yet there? Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. And with it being well-established that the attackers shouted "Allah!" during their rampage, why was it not listed under "Islamic Terrorism"? Leaving out that blindingly obvious fact reeks suspiciously of a blatant bias to whitewash the attack of crucial religious & cultural context.CitationKneaded (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editors DPdH and CitationKneaded: it currently is pending at Portal:Current events/2017 June 4 and also at Portal:Current events/2017 June 3 and will most likely appear on the next cycle (whenever the bot does its update). Wes Wolf ^Talk 03:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Wesley Wolf: Actually, the article was quickly nominated here, but is was closed because there wasn't enough detail at that time. I think we have enough now, so it could be worth re-opening. ^Falling_Gravity 04:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor FallingGravity: it already is in the ITN part as "ongoing", which the two links I provided above are located. Wes Wolf ^Talk 04:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Dubious material

 Requesting immediate archiving...

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.

---

The "this is for Allah" allegation has no basis and can be harmful to Muslims. The first mention appeared to be some fake news site like Daily Caller, who said that the witness told it to BBC. But the allegation doesn't appear to be anywhere BBC. "Reliable" sources like Telegraph only picked up on it hours after the fake news sites did (and even then it's just an allegation and innocent until proven guilty) which is more than enough time to copy fake info and mistake it for real news. Unless someone can point to me where BBC mentions this it should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.15.14 (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2017

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd hardly call the BBC "reliable" after they report that the Middle East is one of the lowest-rate places in the world for modern-day slavery. And if your first concern after an Islamist terrorist attack is "oh no, this will be bad press for Muslims" instead of for the innocent people killed & injured, then you're part of the problem. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral platform - please refrain from using it as a soapbox for ideological apologia.CitationKneaded (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We clearly have eyewitnesses who were attacked by the jihadists corroborating the story. If eyewitness reports aren't good enough for you, I don't know what to tell you. [4] CitationKneaded (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)CitationKneaded (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We have eyewitnesses. And it's nothing new that Islam, sadly, teaches people to kill. No one has ever blamed all Muslims for what some Muslims do. We are only talking about a social construct called Islam. --Rævhuld (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There, and now we do have it from BBC. [5] [6] [7] Is that finally good enough for the obligatory parade of Islam-apologists that come up after every Islamist attack? Can we get back to calling it what it is? CitationKneaded (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC) What does this have to do anything with "Islamic apologist"? The article are based here on facts. If you don't like it, then take it someplace else. Don't start blaming others for something you don't like. Whether or not this is Islamic terrorism, will emerge. In 2014, BBC reported three Muslim-majority countries in 3 out of top 5 in terms of modern-day slavery in terms of proportion to population. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-30080578) Hiding it is meaningless anyway. Once you find reliable sources for a notable detail, nothing is stopping you from adding it. However this isn't a place for politics or religious discussion. 117.207.146.186 (talk) 07:33, 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.

All the Islamic apologists can stop with the obligatory cries of "oh, but we don't know for sure if it was" apologia already, it's getting old, you're not helping

Extended content

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. We have multiple eyewitness accounts confirming that the attackers shouted "Allah" during the terrorist attack. If that's not good enough for you, nothing ever will be. CitationKneaded (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC) I'm pretty certain YouTube cannot be used to cite content, per WP:YOUTUBE. And please remain WP:CIVIL at all times. Calling people "Islamophiles" is inappropriate and may lead to a WP:BLOCK. Wes Wolf Talk 04:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 1st. I was mostly citing BBC, don't whine just b/c the links themselves led to youtube (srsly?). 2nd, you do know to indent your entry when posting after someone else, don't you? Firstly, don't be telling me about whining. I am the one talking calmly and with civility. Pity the same cannot be said about yourself. Secondly, don't get patronising about indentation of comments. I have been a user for almost 6 years, and I am fully aware of indenting. Your actions are coming across as disruptive. Your comments are very pointy. And thirdly, have you forgotten about your ArbCom sanction? At least I have some level of intelligence to do a background check on your behaviour. Wes Wolf Talk 04:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC) And finally, WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS is explicit in not reporting first-hand accounts, of which those "eyewitness" videos are first-hand hearsay. Wes Wolf Talk 04:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC) @Wes Wolf Oh heeere we go w/ the tone-policing, the seniority pissing-contest, the condescension, and finally, the stalking. For that last one, you can kindly not interact with me again on here or you will be reported, this is your first and final warning. At least get my name correct, CitationKneaded. It is Wesley Wolf. And nobody is tone-policing, I am merely reminding you to maintain a level of civility. And feel free to report - here's the link WP:ANI. Be ready to catch a WP:BOOMERANG though. Wikipedia is a free place to edit, and this is a talk page to discuss an article. I am of free-will to post a comment on here if I so wish. You cannot WP:SILENCE people. Wes Wolf Talk 04:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Motive It's established beyond a reasonable doubt by multiple eyewitness accounts that the attackers shouted "for Allah" during the terrorist attack. Therefore the motive was pretty obviously Islamic Terrorism, and unless any new information surfaces to challenge those conclusions, any changing of the "motive" entry on the article page should be considered vandalism. We have a motive established, the attackers made it very clear who they were killing those people for. Erasing it here accomplishes nothing helpful & exposes an obvious bias to cover up the truth. References Can't we just wait until we know more about the attackers? I'm sure we'll get an in-depth investigation into their identities and past lives soon. Seriously, there's no rush. FallingGravity 04:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Do we really need to know their whole life story to know that they murdered innocent people "for Allah"? That's what they were shouting during the attack - one would have to be either daft or purposefully obstructing the truth to not get something that obvious. They told us their motives.CitationKneaded (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC) To editor CitationKneaded: Seriously, you need to quit this behaviour of yours. Disrupting in order to illustrate a point is not going to gain you any favours around here. There are policies in place that we are suppose to be adhering in order to comply with Wikipedia. An eyewitness account is first-hand news, and cannot be used whatsoever. It could easily be said that you are posting these comments because "Allah told you to do so", but that would not make it factually correct without actual evidence to back up such claims. The eyewitnesses (and I'm not saying they did or didn't hear what was said), but they could be making extortionate accounts, as all of the media have said that everything happened so rapidly that even eyewitness accounts are blurred. So please, be patient and wait. Allow the dust to settle first! Wes Wolf Talk 04:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC) I have a strong desire to close this thread. It's unhelpful, uncivil, disruptive and potentially insulting. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC) You have gained my support on that decision, Callmemirela. I'm finding some of the remarks to be somewhat distasteful and vile to be honest. Wes Wolf Talk 04:55, 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. @Wesley Wolf "Seriously, you need to quit this behaviour of yours." I had just asked you to please cease & desist from any further interaction with me due to your above behavior, did I not? Why are you continuing to harass me after I had specifically told you not to talk to me? Do you have trouble understanding simple requests to stop harassing people?CitationKneaded (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Title should be changed to singular: 2017 London Bridge Terror Attack

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.

---

Guys, this was only one attack, in two stages. Same perpetrators, they just got out of their microbus and started the stabbing. Calling it the "London Bridge" Terror Attack would be more easily identifiable than just "London" attacks, because the city has routinely undergone islamist attacks since 2005. XavierItzm (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

For starters, the attack(s) extended beyond London Bridge, and the inclusion of "terror" is already opposed above. WWGB (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Must. Avoid. Descriptive. Titles. Let's call it the "2017 London Event", and be done with it. XavierItzm (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Haha yeah I love that new title, XavierItzm. We could include Depeche Mode's Global Spirit Tour which was an event in London last night too. Sorry to have gone off tangent there, but that has lightened up the mood to be fair, after the close-to-home events of the past 2 weeks. Wes Wolf ^Talk 06:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

XavierItzm Wesley Wolf Or Maybe it's because usually "Terror Attack" isn't the type of title used. But then I wonder why bother with changing it to simply add Terror when it's already shown "London Attack". But yes we know you people thinking "neoliberal Wikipedia" and injecting what you think is correct per your political POV, otherwise it's "censorship" if the article isn't correct. Please. Try. To. Be. Patient. And. Follow. The. Rules. Instead. of. Complaining. 117.207.146.186 (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is complaining here, nor showing any signs of political POV. Think you'll find my comment to be a lighthearted banter in response to let's call it "2017 London Event" in order to restore some calm on the talk page. Wes Wolf ^Talk 07:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the title could be improved by a more specific reference to the London Bridge rather than just London in a generic sense. And I do think this could and should be described as an attack (singular) rather than attacks. The reason being, for anyone familiar with the area, 'London Bridge' can reasonably be used to describe the southern end of the bridge, where eg. the London Bridge station is, and not just the actual bridge itself. And given that the attackers appear to have moved immediately from hitting pedestrians with their van (on the bridge) to stabbing bystanders etc. (in Borough Market), to me at least this constitutes a single incident, not separate 'attacks'. For all those reasons, I think something like 'June 2017 London Bridge attack' would be more descriptive and arguably also more accurate than 'June 2017 London attacks'.DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• That's my view, at any rate, happy to be proven wrong.93.89.131.57 (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Wolf (talk · contribs) I was referring to Xavier as well as you're non-chalant way of dismissing him making fun of legitmate concern of others. And XavierItzm, I suggest that instead of poking fun that too without any reason and indicating bad faith assumption, I suggest you seek a consensus. If there is already a consensus, it's not like people are free to change it however they want. Why bother with talk page if you are going to poke fun while yourself making a bad faith assumption but hinting POV yourself. Please remain civil here. Discuss it, take reliable sources, conduct a consensus if needed. Simple as that and even I seem to understand that despite not knowing much. You don't need anything else. 117.207.146.186 (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've repaired the link error you created, so that it doesn't post my entire user page onto this talk page. Also I wasn't being nonchalant or dismissive. As I said, I was adding some lighthearted atmosphere into here, as it had got overheated recently. That is evident with my "haha I love it" comment. I didn't feel it necessary to repeat my view on renaming, seeing as I made myself clear on that side of things in the previous thread about renaming the article. I'm fairly sure Xavier will have seen my comment has banter and not malicious. Wes Wolf ^Talk 07:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

So many people keep on accusing "censorship", "bias", "supression" on everyone while themselves being similar. There are biased users, but instead of talking in a civil tone, or relatively civil, it involves into a politico-religious, even national slugfest. Many users are here honest editors. But even then, few care to solve differences amicably. Honestly, Xavier's comment are meant in a bad manner to others. 117.199.84.88 (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure to whom that remark is being directed towards, or if it is in relation to the other IP who's comments were legitimately removed per WP:SOAP, WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:NPA. Alas, they have now been blocked. But there is a discussion active at the bottom of this talk page, should you wish to participate and share your views. Wes Wolf ^Talk 10:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that quibbles of geography notwithstanding, most media seem to refer to it with reference to London Bridge. I appreciate that it is not quite WP:COMMONTERM, but on that kind of reasoning, I would use the description that mainstream media tend to use. I also think (for what it is worth) that two years hence it will help distinguish it from the Westminster attacks (or, God forbid, another London attack during this calendar month). --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with Legis it might not be WP:COMMONTERM but mainstream media is using London Bridge Attack so going with the media might be the best option. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You well know what my comment referred to User:Wesley Wolf. Vandalisms on attack articles aren't rare. There are editors who have been involved in such things, some are blocked, some are let go until blocked later or creating troubles. Some just poke fun at others and are disrespectful instead of straightforward rule-breaking. Who or exactly when we could dig and refer to a lot of it if you want. Nor is XavierItzm's comment right. Bad faith assumptions may seem funny, but it doesn't bode well for the site and will only create distrust. 117.199.84.88 (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Disputes aside, I'm okay with simply "June 2017 London Terror Attack" even though such headings aren't much used and in common practice. But "London Bridge" doesn't sound okay. The attack wasn't limited to one place. 117.199.84.88 (talk) 11:23, 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.

Location of transition

According to Cressida Dick's recent statement the van was driven to Borough Market, however we say that it was crashed on the bridge. I'm sure there's a photo or footage of the van available, so news outlets should have the exact location. Can someone check, and clarify? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC).

The images are very clear. The van drove south over the bridge, and stopped on the pavement on the west side at the south end of the bridge, close to the east end of Southwark Cathedral. That is near Borough Market, which is a very short walk away. It certainly did not drive "to" Borough Market. "Towards" perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.196 (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the confusion comes from the way 'London Bridge' can be used to refer to not just the actual bridge itself but the area around the southern end of the bridge, ie. where the London Bridge station etc. is. Quite where one would draw the line between the 'London Bridge' area and the 'Borough Market' (etc.) area is probably a moot point. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It stopped on the bridge abutment, not above the water but above ground level. Here's[8] a ground-level view of the abutment with a shop inside the bridge embankment on the right, the cathedral on the left and the Barrowboy and Banker pub sign just visible. 92.19.24.114 (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by Anthony Appleyard. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

---

June 2017 London attacks → June 2017 London attack – This was a single incident involving two separate locations, just like the 2017 Westminster attack, which is not referred to as "attacks" plural. The majority of reliable sources also describe it as a singular attack [9]. Prioryman (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me to be misleading to call this "a pair of attacks". Surely it was a single incident? This attack was functionally pretty much the same as the Westminster attack: a vehicle attack followed by a knife attack in a nearby location, carried out by the same perpetrator(s). However, our article on the Westminster attack describes it as a single incident (2017 Westminster attack, not attacks). I'd suggest revising this article to make it clear that it was a single incident and renaming it as June 2017 London attack. Prioryman (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm going to be bold and move it to the singular. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've requested a move since I don't have access to do the move. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree also. To me this is like someone attacking a crowd first with a gun, and then when they run out of ammo, switching to a knife. AFAIK the attackers ran people down with their van, got out, and immediately proceeded to stab people. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As suggested above, "London" is a bit too generic. It would be worth adding in the word "Bridge". 2017 London Bridge attack.

If an agreed title can be reached, then I don't mind performing the move seeing as I have page mover rights. Wes Wolf ^Talk 09:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

My vote goes to '2017 London Bridge attack', ie. specifying 'Bridge', and singular 'attack' rather than plural. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Also see #Propose rapid straw poll move, in which a discussion was still active until Rossbawse unilaterally moved to this current title. The user has been questioned about this, but no reply back as of yet. Wes Wolf ^Talk 09:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't favour specifying "London Bridge" in the title as it also took place in the Borough. Same reasoning as for "Westminster attack" as opposed to "Westminster Bridge attack". Prioryman (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That is an interesting perspective @Prioryman:. I agree on the Westminster situation as that was in the Borough of Westminster. Seeing as both London Bridge and Borough Market are both in the Borough of Southwark, should we be looking towards June 2017 London attacks → June 2017 Southwark attack? Wes Wolf ^Talk 09:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the comparison with the Westminster attack is quite valid. That attacked started on the Westminster Bridge and proceeded towards and ended at the Palace of Westminster, hence 'Westminster attack'. This one started on the London Bridge and proceeded towards the *southern* end of the bridge, at least parts of which are referred to commonly as 'London Bridge', as in "I took the Tube to London Bridge" (meaning the station, not the actual bridge). In any case, just calling this 'London attack' seems awfully vague and non-specific to me. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just added some more locational info. The attack started on the north side of London Bridge (the City end). The van crashed on Borough High Street, and the remainder of the attack was around Stoney Street adjoining Borough Market. So it actually took place in two boroughs. I agree that just calling it "London" is a little vague but it's perhaps unavoidable given the roaming nature of the attack. Prioryman (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I would presume the naming of London Bridge tube station is due to its proximity to London Bridge, and not based on "area". Most if not all of the London Underground stations are named due to a street or landmark it is located in close proximity. Both London Bridge and Borough Market ar located in Southwark. But I am just throwing idas into the pot. Wes Wolf ^Talk 09:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree that the station gets its name from the bridge. My point was, the immediate vicinity also gets its name from the same source, albeit possibly indirectly via the station. If someone asks me where the Shard is, I'd probably say 'London Bridge', but maybe that's just me. Anyway, my view is (at the risk of repeating myself) that in what comes to the title for this article, 'London Bridge attack' is specific enough, so it's immediately obvious what is meant (rather than calling it 'London attack'), while being succinct enough even at the cost of some accuracy (rather than something more factually correct but more convoluted like 'London Bridge and Borough attack'). DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a valid point, which I respect. I've just become under attack from thee same IP who posted anti-semantic remarks on here. I hope an admin will intervene soon, as I don't know how much more I can take today. Wes Wolf ^Talk 09:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Just an observation: the article describing the recent Westminster attack is titled "2017 Westminster attack". This article is currently titled "June 2017 London attacks". So in addition to the issues already discussed here (singular vs. plural; how to describe the location), there's also an inconsistency which should be addressed, perhaps by starting with '2017' and dropping the 'June' part, ie. something along the lines of "2017 London Bridge attack" maybe? DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

'Westminster' is a metonym for 'UK Parliament' as well as being the name of the bridge/ palace/ tube station, district and borough. So comparisons are not wholly valid or useful, insofar as they are valid, it's perfectly normal in London to use the name of a station or landmark to describe closely adjacent areas, in this case that would be 'London bridge', which is infinitely better known outside London than 'Borough Market'. Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Same people, same time frame = one attack. WWGB (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support:Attackers were the same ones it seems. 117.199.84.88 (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support One group continuing with one attack. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's possible that there can be different types of attacks by the same people. The fact that there were both stabbings and vehicle rammings says, to me, it should stay plural (attacks, not attack). CB19 (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

What about either June 2017 Central London attacks or 2017 Central London attacks? CB19 (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support: One event - same attackers. close proximity. Same immediate time frame (they didn't "return to base", and then go out and stab in a separate incident. They rammed, ran, and stabbed). Quite similar to 2017 Westminster attack (which is attack) - initial ramming, then stabbing in close proximity. In the night of, there were questions whether these were connected (+ a 3rd non-connected stabbing got lumped in). There is no question now.Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changing death section on infobox

Hi all, wouldn't it be a good idea to change the death section on the infobox page from: "7 + 3 perpetrators" to "10 (7 citizens, 3 perpetrators)" because there is a total of 10 deaths in this attack. The reason why I bring this up is because all terrorist pages on Wikipedia have the total number of deaths - including the attacker(s). --82.41.158.132 (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but some people seem to take issue with grouping together the victims and their assailants. In any case, since I updated the number of victims to 7, I've noticed that this has changed a couple of times already (eg. someone changed 'attackers' to 'perpetrators'). IMO all this is largely down to personal opinion, and as such it's probably impossible to get consensus. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Deaths of suicidal perpetrators (who clearly attacked and did not expect to survive unscathed - high risk attack) are clearly not in the same category of innocent victims. I personally would prefer these terror attacks get an Infobox military conflict, where perpetrators (who, usually, in their mind are carrying out a military terror mission). get one side, and the attacked get another side. e.g. Battle of Nasiriyah. Most of the free world really doesn't place equivalence between the two. The headline I see in Reuters (and other places) is "Reuters TV: Seven killed in London attack" - without any mention in the headline of the perps' death.Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I think 'number of victims' and 'number of deaths' are two different things. Yes, I realise how some people might find putting the victims and attackers together insensitive. But the infobox field is called 'deaths', not 'victims', so in that sense counting the two groups together would not be factually incorrect. But I agree with you, separating them along the same lines as the 'belligerents' in a military conflict article would be the clearest and probably least controversial, all told. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The field is fatalities, not victims. The infobox has fields for victims, perpetrators, assailants and injuries. The article body can further elaborate about the number of victims and assailants.- MrX 11:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

In 2008 Mumbai attacks attackers are listed separately from other fatalities. But frankly I think they should be separated in the Infobox template - and that we should get a clear view of what happened to the assailants (escaped and at large? captured? injured? dead?). As-is you are left guessing in the Infobox.Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

In the death section though however, it does include the attackers involved in the incident. Assailants have always had their own seperate infobox but we are talking about how many deaths are involved in the attack and every terrorist attack page including the November 2015 Paris attacks, 2017 Westminster attack and 2017 Manchester Arena bombing have in their infoboxes, the total number of deaths including citizens and attackers together but seperated in brackets (---). --82.41.158.132 (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC).

I went ahead and changed it to "10 (7 civilians, 3 attackers)" which brings it in line with the formatting used in November 2015 Paris attacks and 2017 Westminster attack however just to point out the previous way it was noted "10 (including 3 attackers)" was the format used in 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. If this was outside WP:BOLD and requires more discussion than I thought please feel free to change it back. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 12:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the infobox looks fine! Thank you for changing that Alucard --82.41.158.132 (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Denied 7 + 3 perpetrators is much shorter than your suggestion. Your suggestion doesn't add more information. There are examples of articles who list the deaths up like this as well. And some of us do find it a little disturbing to put victims and perpetrators in the same boat.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Not sure when it was changed back to just "7 + 3 perpetrators" but I changed it back to what the IP was suggested. Which matches September 11 attacks, November 2015 Paris attacks and 2017 Westminster attack in formatting. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Impact on elections

Didn't notice until now, there was no detailing of its impact in this article. I think there will be. Nothing else is there except suspension of campaigns. At least I've read some off news outlets. The impact of shootings of French policemen on election was presented, why isn't the same thing done in this case especially considering how close to the election ot has occurred? 117.199.84.88 (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As the election is only four days away, I'd suggest waiting till the polls close in the UK on the 8th. Then, if anyone notable publicly says in a WP:Reliable source that there was an impact on the election, then that might be worth adding. Uncle Roy (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

While when could go with the bookie betting odds, this is a clear case of TOOSOON. Wait and see how this develops.Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

What impact? The suspensions of campaigns is already mentioned and seems to be the only current impact worth mentioning so doesn't need a separate subsection. Stuff like betting odds are not significant enough for inclusion, even if you could find a RS covering them. Likewise speculation of potential impact is not something worth covering unless there's some particular controversy about it. It may very well be that there is believed to be some impact and this will be significant enough to cover, but until and unless that happens, it's irrelevant to us. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We do not do WP:ORIGINAL research. It might be WP:NOTE but you need to find WP:RELIABLE sources to write about it.--Rævhuld (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody asked for an "original research". I am asking for "help" and WP:CONSENSUS to see if users are ok with it or oppose it. In case of the shooting of French officers, the impact however brief was detailed. I don't have all the details and all reliable resources as I haven't had the time to research, nor I have currently added it. That's why I asked it here so others will help and research. The more join, the easier ot is. I can't do the whole thing on my own. Of course some important topics might not be considered by aome people, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be added. 117.199.82.143 (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Impact on elections

Didn't notice until now, there was no detailing of its impact in this article. I think there will be. Nothing else is there except suspension of campaigns. At least I've read some off news outlets. The impact of shootings of French policemen on election was presented, why isn't the same thing done in this case especially considering how close to the election ot has occurred? 117.199.84.88 (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As the election is only four days away, I'd suggest waiting till the polls close in the UK on the 8th. Then, if anyone notable publicly says in a WP:Reliable source that there was an impact on the election, then that might be worth adding. Uncle Roy (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

While when could go with the bookie betting odds, this is a clear case of TOOSOON. Wait and see how this develops.Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

What impact? The suspensions of campaigns is already mentioned and seems to be the only current impact worth mentioning so doesn't need a separate subsection. Stuff like betting odds are not significant enough for inclusion, even if you could find a RS covering them. Likewise speculation of potential impact is not something worth covering unless there's some particular controversy about it. It may very well be that there is believed to be some impact and this will be significant enough to cover, but until and unless that happens, it's irrelevant to us. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We do not do WP:ORIGINAL research. It might be WP:NOTE but you need to find WP:RELIABLE sources to write about it.--Rævhuld (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody asked for an "original research". I am asking for "help" and WP:CONSENSUS to see if users are ok with it or oppose it. In case of the shooting of French officers, the impact however brief was detailed. I don't have all the details and all reliable resources as I haven't had the time to research, nor I have currently added it. That's why I asked it here so others will help and research. The more join, the easier ot is. I can't do the whole thing on my own. Of course some important topics might not be considered by aome people, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be added. 117.199.82.143 (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think all of it can be directly attributed as impact to elections but we'll see. The elections have brought back security into the spotlight as an issue ahead of the polls, that's clear enough. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/uk-election-pauses-time-london-attack-47822816) May has detailed several strategies to crack down on extremism through increased jail offences which has unnerved some in the Labour camp as they see it as a breach of the suspension of campaigning by parties. (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/04/london-attack-theresa-may-says-enough-is-enough-after-seven-killed) She has criticised tech firms which was criticised in response. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40149649L)

NY Times also commented on May's statements as :"By stating that police and security measures were insufficient, she was announcing a new effort, if re-elected, to break down what she considers to be essentially self-segregated communities and to be less delicate of their sensitivities." In addition it also states that it may be too early too predict exactly what impact it will have, noting that the Manchester attacks didn't help her in anyway (partly because of campaign mistakes). - (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/world/europe/uk-london-attacks.html)

Then there's the issue of parties suspending elections of course which is already in the article. There were also calls to postpone the elections, which was rejected by David Davis (https://www.ft.com/content/ad6e3778-48f8-11e7-a3f4-c742b9791d43). The again there's opiniomd like this one from The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/london-bridge-attack-terrorism-general-election-theresa-may-a7772491.html). I don't know if it's good, but it's what I could find. 117.199.82.143 (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Ironically, can't remove vandelism. Someone who can edit, I'm confident COBRA has no bearing on the attack, and the reference does not mention COBRA. Statement to be removed, "An emergency COBRA meeting was held on the morning of 4 June.[5]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.161.218 (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Denied There isn't any vandalism in the article in response to the attack an emergency COBRA meeting was held and it is in the news plus the source provided in the article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 12:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Denied It is WP:NOTE and is covered in WP:RELIABLE sources.--Rævhuld (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment. This is not in the scope of WP:VANDAL.--Rævhuld (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Bridge

Could we have the bridge in a day time shot?Trevor Casey (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That's the same image as the one used in the main article on London Bridge. I personally don't see what difference it makes either way (day or night picture), except that as the attacks happened at night perhaps the night one is marginally more relevant here. But if someone thinks otherwise, there are more images in the gallery section of the London Bridge article, eg. this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_Bridge_from_South_bank.jpg DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ye, the attacks took place at 22:08 BST. So I'd agree that a night time view was more appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

the UK Threat Level

why having it in the article, its not in any similar page BernardZ (talk)

Unlike previous instances in which the threat level was raised post-attack, in this case the threat level was high prior to the attack due to a previous attack + intel. + it is Ramadan ([10] [11] [12][13] [14]).Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Umm, actually the threat level is the same that it's been at for most of the last several years. It was raised to the highest level after the Manchester bombing, but dropped back over a week ago. -- 83.104.44.241 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Including perpetrators in the death toll

Someone has just changed the article to include the perpetrators in the death toll. I know this discussion took place before with previous incidents, but should we include them among the dead? This is Paul (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they are dead.- MrX 18:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Reactions from Other world leaders

Did no Arab World leaders make a public statement? (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The Reactions is already way too long; about 1/4th of the article. It's mostly just utterly predictable PR mush. What, did anyone think Mariano Rajoy's P.R. staff from Spain was going to tweet anything other than "condolences," "support," and "solidarity."? Like in prior events, the political pap from "world leaders" (i.e., politicians) should be mercifully taken out and shot into a separate article. XavierItzm (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Rothorpe (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I just added a line about the known Muslim countries that have made statements but the article I found didn't list any leaders just the governments reactions. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.- MrX 19:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's too long. In most cases we have country, office, leader's name (blue-linked) and reference, which is all very thorough but almost unreadable. If we're to keep iit, could we reduce it to country (not blue-linked, per WP:SOB) and reference? 92.19.24.114 (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe Trump should be listed as a leader sending condolences. His reaction is the second-most prominent news component right now specifically because he is criticizing, rather than sympathizing. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Being neutral I would say leave the condolence part in there however on the relevant article about Trump should be about his recent tweets and how he is being criticized for using this event for political purposes. However removing Trump completely we may need to revisit Pence's comment for inclusion since it was just simply condolences. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I would be in support of switching Trump out for Pence in this article. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• The 2017 Westminster attack put the list of countries into a footnote to remove them from the body of the article. This looks like a good compromise to examine. – Sigersson (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)