Talk:2017 Finsbury Park van attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nominated for In the News

This article has been nominated to be featured on the main page as part of the In the News section. The nomination can be viewed and discussed here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Tarawih? CPR!

"A group of people were helping an elderly worshipper who had fallen down in Whadcoat Street - a short road off Seven Sisters Road - as they waited for their next set of prayers. It was then that a white van came down the street, mounted the pavement and drove into people. ... The person who died was the same elderly worshipper people had been giving first aid to before the attack." http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40323769 --Scrutinize13 (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Policy Against Quoting from References

Is there a policy against using the "|quote" parameter that I'm unaware of? It seems like a very useful way to highlight exactly the relevant text from an article being used as a reference, but the quotations keep being removed as "bloat". I can't imagine they genuinely affect the readability of the Reflist. Is there an official Wikipedia policy on this? PvOberstein (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

See per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Additional annotation, "In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source; readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information". WWGB (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference." Just because it's unnecessary doesn't mean it's unwelcome. Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Additional_annotation. PvOberstein (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice work taking that quote out of context. The full text is "A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference." So, quoting is useful where "cited text is long or dense", which is rarely the case in a media article. WWGB (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't really see how that's taking the "quote out of context". "This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense" [emphasis added]. That's not to say that it's unhelpful when the cited text is short. PvOberstein (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

UTC +1

I've removed the "(UTC+1)" from the lede as the BST article as a whole would explain the whole UTC+1 thing and on related terrorist articles this has never been included so don't see why it should be an exception here, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I've seen the UTC+1 inserted elsewhere - there does seem to be some confusion here (including some edits (IP and otherwise) that place GMT/UTC times here). Perhaps the more correct course of action would be to remove the time all together from the lede - though the problem with "midnightish" times is that you get a jumbled dating issue if you don't put this in (in this case - UTC (which is widely used - generates a different date). If it were 2100 - I probably would just leave "on the night of..." without the time.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Specifically - here - June 2017 London Bridge attack#Attack.Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Icewhiz, I agree it's all confusing, Well I've removed the time altogether and just added the "utc+1" back in the events section as the link you posted does have the UTC bit in, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Background

@AusLondonder: You reverted the entire background section (which I would see in bad faith - instead of improving what you see as wrong). This section was well sourced - and follows what is widely reported in international media today. There is a specific background to this place, which is reported, as well as the general "terror incident background" recently in Britain (the 3 previous Islamist attacks) - that are all over any source that is covering this in depth in a serious manner. There might be factual corrections to be made in what I inserted, or other improvements that could be made, but a blanket revert of well-sourced background information really isn't appropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Several additional sources (some I wouldn't use in an article e.g. Daily Mail, some definitely yes -e.g. Guardian, but all show the link to Abu-Hamza and Islamism is widely covered this morning): . The fact that this mosque was used by Abu-Hamza is not disputed - and is well established. The fact that previous Islamic terror attacked took place in the UK this year - is not disputed, well established, and in news reporting as well. This is all being brought up this morning.Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yet more: . The Abu-Hamza background is amply sourced and covered, removing this has no grounds beyond WP:IDONTLIKE - this wasn't a random mosque that was attacked, but a location with a history and notoriety - this doesn't make the attack justified, but it is relevant background as to why this occurred at this location.

And more: (besides a godzillion of local UK papers referencing this - about 50 separate hits from the last hour from the locals).Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

References

To be specific, the attack happened outside the Muslim Welfare House on Seven Sisters Road, not directly the once-notorious Finsbury Park Mosque. Fences&Windows 07:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The mosque connection is well-cited - all the media source mention the mosque (most actually in the headline or byline, just afterwards in the article body mentioning the Muslim Welfare center) which is less than 100m away. The attacker targeted Muslim people, on the street, near the mosque - at a time one would expect devout Muslims to leave the nightly Ramadan prayers and specifically a group that had Muslim attire. This was not a random location.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A background section similar to the one in June 2017 London attack would be appropriate. The only caution I'd have though is that we wait till more details are available, e.g., the motive, etc. This is Paul (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly if UK police (in a week or two) release a confession or if the attacker left a manifesto somewhere - this should be referenced. However this will take time to develop (and might not develop - suspect may die in custody or may keep silent) - you don't always get a clear manifesto (e.g. 2017 Manchester Arena bombing - we don't have a clear attacker statement). In the meantime - the background cited by WP:RS refers to recent terrorism and to the particular terror-related history of the mosque (which is very near).Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding exact location - [1] - this was a city block away from the Muslim Welfare center (which is across the street from the mosque) - and in any event close to both - very close walking distance.Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Reply I removed the background section, as did User:TheGracefulSlick, because it was not salvageable. It contained numerous factual inaccuracies and a lot of synthesis. AusLondonder (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• TheGracefulSlick cited lack of sources written after present attack (which are actually not needed - but are available - and she had a point). These were then added. Instead of speaking with generalities - I suggest you point out what specifically was SYNTH or inaccurate - as the text clearly followed current sources that are covering the current event - as can be seen in the 16 references above which contain Abu-Hamza in relation to the attack from tonight.Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I would note that the issues with the Mosque were retricted to the early 2000s. As I have just added, the Mosque was completely shut down in 2003 and then reopened in 2005 under tiotally "new management," and the only subsequent issues were residual linkages to what had happened previously. I think we should be very cautious, because at the moment much reporting is based on out-dated information about the Mosque being a hotbed of radicalism, which it clearly has not been for over a decade. The distinction may well have been lost on the terrorist, but we should not fall into the same trap here. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There have been other attacks directed at this mosque recently (specifically threatening letters post Charlie Hebdo, arson (the door), and rotten pork meat thrown at the mosque - all in the past two or so years). While the current mosque administration may have divorced itself from previous affiliation (though still apparently a Salafi institution (at least per sources Finsbury Park Mosque) - this does not seem to detract from the notoriety achieved in the past. Whomever is attacking apparently does so based on past coverage and not after an in-depth inspection of the current environment.Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nick Cooper: - Careful yes. But the fact that a number of mainstream RS have chosen to report on it seems to be sufficient rationale for us mentioning it here. NickCT (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Just because some otherwise RSs have chosen to ignore - or are ignorant of - the events of the last 12 years does not mean that we have to do the same. The BBC is certainly not even mentioning Abu-Hamza in connection with the event, mindful no doubt of the expensive lesson learned by another new organisation not up to speed with subsequent events. The past noteriety of the mosque may well be the reason to terrorist chosen to drive halfway across the country to target it, but that just makes him similarly ignorant. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• @AusLondonder: - instead of blanket reverting, how about pointing out what should be corrected, or providing a different formulation? This is directly pulled from major international sources from today (Reuters, NBC news, CNN, AFP):

Finsbury Park Mosque has gained attention for the activity of radical Imam Abu Hamza al-Masri, in the early 2000s. Hamza's activities in the mosque are cited as direct influences of Zacarias Moussaoui one of the architects of the September 11 attacks, Richard Reid the so called shoe-bomber, and Mohammed Sidique Khan the suspected organizer of the 7 July 2005 London bombings. The Mosque was shut down in 2003, and re-opened under a new board of trustees two years later.

• Yet another, in-depth coverage of mosque's history from today (and on top of Telegraph's webpage)- The Finsbury Park Mosque: radical hotbed transformed to model of community relations, Telegraph.Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz and AusLondonder: - I'm just going to restore the content. Londonder's "no consensus for this" summary seems a little half-hearted. The material is clearly well cited and relevant. NickCT (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: the media has a tendency of mixing up causation and correlation. For example many media sources mentioned the 2017 Tehran attacks together with the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis. That doesn't at all mean the two are actually linked. So until the motive comes out, we should avoid adding background information that serves as speculation for the motive.VR _talk 13:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: - What? That doesn't make any sense. Mentioning this as background information isn't speculating as to the motive. It's simply mentioning notable elements about the mosque. NickCT (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure it is. It can be construed as a form of victim blaming. Some in the UK have already begun to engage in that.VR _talk 14:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: - There's a difference between it being "victim blaming" or "speculation", and it being possible to "construe it as a form" of victim blaming or speculation. I agree with you on the latter. Not the former.

The bottom line as I see it is that mainstream RS have chosen to mention it. That should be enough for us.

Take a look at the Mosque's article. Half of that article is taken up by the terrorism issues. It seems completely appropriate that that angle be covered in the background section here. NickCT (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, as I pointed out, the fact that "mainstream RS have chosen to mention it" is not enough. Mainstream media often mention things are not related but might appear to be so. In fact, the media has also been talking a lot about this attack and the Grenfell towers fire. Should we cover that too in the background?VR _talk 14:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: - I don't think a single line mentioning that this event occurred near the Grenfell tower fire would be completely out of line. Anyway, the primary standard for inclusion on WP is WP:V. This clearly passes WP:V. The onus is on those who want to exclude it to demonstrate consensus. NickCT (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: This mosque is notable mainly for one thing - for Abu-Hamza. Yes(*) - he's no longer there. Yes(*) - it is a success story. Yes(*) - it is like any other Salafi mosque.(*AFAIK per RS today and in the past few years!). Why is it notable for Abu-Hamza? Because Abu-Hamza was a mega-mega-mega international news story (purportedly (and convicted!) for influence of both 9/11 and 7/7) - almost everything else about this mosque and area isn't terribly notable. This is being brought up by most media. This is clearly relevant background material. Just as coverage of Charlie Hebdo shooting wouldn't be complete without some background of what Charlie Hebdo was/is and what they did in relation to Islam. We don't know what the motive was (beyond "Killing all muslims" (and similar stmts) as per witnesses saying the attacker said) - however mentioning the past here - is highly relevant. It is really not encyclopedic to try and whitewash this out because it isn't politically convenient.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition the use of the history - as victim blaming - and we already have some public figures bringing up the history - and others blasting them - makes the history itself (in an objective fashion!) highly relevant for the article.Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Except we don't even know if the mosque was the actual target of the attack. The target could just be Muslims.

Secondly what you've added is hardly NPOV. Its a cherrypicking of certain facts and omitting many others - some of which you mention yourself in your above comment.VR _talk 14:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It is far from cherry-picking - it is a quite verbatim and concise summary of what appeared today in most major international WP:RS. I was about to add some of the post-2005 history (as per the Telegraph source - which is on the front-page there), including that it is currently regarded as a success story (even though - for inclusion - this would be more questionable than the Abu-Hamza history) - when you reverted (so I stopped doing this in the midst of the edit warring / censoring). I think we can add more information here - e.g. success story post 2005, additional attacks/threats on the mosque (there have been a few in the past few years), the court case they won against Thompson-Reuters (+regret letter) for being listed as terrorist in a financial database. Instead of trying to censor what you think is irrelevant (and in my mind, if we write about the rape of scantily dressed prostitute in Wikipedia (assuming it is notable for some reason) - we should mention she was a scantily dressed prostitute - even though that may be construed as victim blaming - as it is relevant information) - how about improving this section constructively?.Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Compromise? - Why don't we try to address potential "victim blaming" concerns over the Abu Hamza al-Masri info with content about the mosque having reformed. There are lots of sources to back this up. This telegraph article for instance. NickCT (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Lol, that's not compromise, that's the minimum necessary if you're even going to mention that, per WP:NPOV. So far users who've added the section, including you NickCT, have been cherry picking facts, creating the same narrative as has been used by those who engaged in victim blaming.VR _talk 14:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

An actual compromise would be to move it on the part where we talk about Tommy Robinson and not give this section so much prominence that it feels like Wikipedia is endorsing the narrative of victim blaming. Currently the mosque's past radicalism and recent terror attacks are the only things listed in the background.VR _talk 14:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

My 2 cents: we don't even know that the mosque was the target. The vehicle attack happened 100 yards from the mosque. Why so much focus on the mosque? WWGB (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@WWGB: - I don't know. Why do the RS focus on the mosque? NickCT (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: - I'm simply relaying verifiable information. That's what we do on WP. Listen, I'm sensitive to the victim blaming concerns, but at some point, trying to avoid victim blaming can become censorship. I think we've reached that point. Do you want to straw poll this? NickCT (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Polling is a good idea. But dear @NickCT:, I have made the same point twice already and I don't think I've seen your response to it. (Pardon me if you actually responded and I missed it). The point being that reliable news sources often mention unrelated facts in their article alongside each other. It happens all the time. I gave at least one example above. Hence breaking news stories are not a good indication of what constitutes good background and we must use our good judgement instead. So can you please respond to this point, please, or point out where you have already responded to this?VR _talk 14:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: - Do you object to me starting the poll?

re "often mention unrelated facts in their article alongside each other" - Clearly the sources think they are related, right? Else why would they have mentioned them alongside each other. As I said, I don't think a brief mention of Grenfell (i.e. a single sentence) would be amiss. Ultimately, whether things are related or unrelated is going to be subjective. We should just follow the sources.... NickCT (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If you read my comment above, it says "Polling is a good idea." Here's the example I gave:

For example many media sources mentioned the 2017 Tehran attacks together with the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis. That doesn't at all mean the two are actually linked.

"Clearly the sources think they are related, right?" Of course not. The sources themselves don't know what's related! They're journalists, not God. It's highly unlikely that they could've determined the motive in a few hours. The 24-hours news media's job is to speculate. But we're not news, we're an encyclopedia.VR _talk 14:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: - Let's poll it. What is or is not speculation is ultimately going to be pretty subjective. As I see it, a huge number of sources mention the mosque, and our own WP page on the mosque dedicates a lot of attention to its history; hence, it's OK that we dedicate short mention to the history element in the background section. Can I set up that poll? NickCT (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, please set it up in a neutral manner.

"our own WP page on the mosque dedicates a lot of attention to its history". Which may actually be relevant once we actually knew if the mosque was the target. We don't.VR _talk 15:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The Abu-Hamza link is highly relevant to the background (and isn't long, It is only 2 sentences!), as are the recent terror attacks. Perhaps we should also add some Islamophobia / EDL / counter-jihad information to the background as well. But instead of censoring stuff out - how about adding content that is relevant?Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• WP:CENSOR says some people seek to remove content if its "objectionable or offensive‍". That is really not the argument here. The argument is that the relevance of the material is not yet established. Those are two different arguments. Accusing a use of censorship (who is not trying to censor) in removing the material is putting words in their mouth. Not cool.VR _talk 14:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: - You say it's not relevant, the mass of RS seem to think it is (by virtue of the fact that they mention it). Who are we to believe? NickCT (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It would be relevant, even if there were no causation (though given the apparent (witness stmts) anti-Muslim sentiments of the attacker it is quite probably relevant), as general background of the place and its significance in the context of the conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying above is please don't put words in someone's mouth, ok? Don't make straw men argument. Do argue against my point that it is irrelevant. Do not pretend that I'm trying to WP:CENSOR the material out.VR _talk 15:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Straw poll started below NickCT (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Compromise version

I've put in a compromise version. Its careful in the sense that it gives one sentence to the extremist background and one sentence to the positive interfaith work. There's plenty of sentences that can be given on both topics. Hopefully, users will resist the urge to add more material, thereby creating an imbalance, until we achieve consensus on this.VR _talk 15:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: - I did a minor reword of the first sentence which didn't strike me as great english, but otherwise I like this version. NickCT (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

And I just tweaked it again. I think the first sentence should cover both views, just to respect the balance.VR _talk 15:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The correct balance here, in terms of weight of coverage, is the terrorism link - which has receive the preponderance of coverage prior to the attack and after the attack. However - I do not feel like edit-warring on this rather short-term content issue (I'm sure this will evolve in any event in the next few days as the investigation develops and more in-depth coverage emerges).Icewhiz (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I don't really like that tweak. Seems like a little to "narrative-y". That said, I'll take it if it gets us past this debate. NickCT (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Reaction to the 2017 Finsbury Park attack

Is Reaction to the 2017 Finsbury Park attack necessary? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

In this case not really. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the level of reaction, but at present I tend to agree it's not necessary here. This is Paul (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Content should only be spun off when the section becomes too big in relation to the rest of the page. This is not the case here and it seems to be a way to dump cookie cutter "thoughts and prayers" slacktivist reactions from people who have no authority in the area. This happens far too frequently on Wikipedia and should be reserved for events of truly global significance such as International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2008 Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it happens as often as you think but I agree that it all depends on the scope/depth of the reactions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Put "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to..." in the search bar and play around. You'll find a few. The thing is that most people now get their news from online sources produced by temps and interns, who instead of doing actual journalism, trawl Twitter for "news". This creates a false balance of the importance of certain voices to the matter on hand. On a different but similar note, there are plenty of BLPs with a "Controversy" section which is just random anonymous Twitter users disagreeing with the person; none of these stories has any notability at all, with the possible exception of the POTUS blocking people. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sub justice judice tag

What is that about? I mean, we didn't have it for any other article with the same content. So I don't get why we a) have it now and b) what it is all about. Please help. Rævhuld (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It means don't infer the driver is guilty of a crime, as that is a matter for the courts to determine. WWGB (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you <3 ... I have changed the article who talked of a perpetrator to suspect (after the police released his name). Hope that was right? Rævhuld (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspect

A) Should we name him? I did name him, because the police named him. But I don't know if it is against the policy? B) As far as I remember, we call everyone a suspect until judges say something different. C) Why did Darren Osborne got an entire article? Is that normal? I mean, we didn't do that for all the other suspects? Rævhuld (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is against policy. Specifically, WP:BLPCRIME. I suggest you self-revert, so there's no WP:Edit warring. Edited to add: That article is for a fictional character with that name. TompaDompa (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you <3 Rævhuld (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not against ploicy which says editors should seriously consider not naming suspects, but does not forbid naming. In this particular case, given his apprehension on the scene on one hand, and his being named widely in international media on the other... It is completely pointless not to name him. Treating suspects as Voldemort as he who must be named is pointless in a case such as this.Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should name the perpetrator or at the very least include information about him without explicitly mentioning his name. For reference, the June 2017 London Bridge attack article mentions the name of all three attackers. Then again, they all died so I guess WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we can at least name the suspect, but maybe err on the side of caution about any personal history that could prejudice a future trial, though this would be difficult given the level of media coverage. I've just been checking through the history of Murder of Lee Rigby (another recent incident where the suspects were identified quite early on). I can't find the exact time their details were added to the article, but this edit from 23 May 2013 (a day after it occurred) includes brief details of the perpetrators. This is Paul (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

As of now, it seems that the perpetrator's name is indeed mentioned in the page. He has also been the subject of entire news articles such as this one so I think it fits WP:PERP. Note also, that the perpetrator should be mentioned if the "motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" which it is this case. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Osborne has been widely named in media outlets as the suspect. It is right, I feel, for the article to include that. However, I personally feel that the description of him should be kept to a couple of simple neutral sentences: "The suspect was named as Darren Osborne, a 47-year-old father of four from Cardiff, who grew up in Weston-super-Mare. UK Security Minister Ben Wallace stated that Osborne "was not known" to the security services prior to the attack."

I'm less keen though on including the description of him by neighbours as "aggressive" and "strange". I feel the tone of the following two sentences from The Guardian doesn't sound entirely neutral towards the suspect and I personally wouldn't include the following two sentences..... "Osborne's neighbours described him as "aggressive" and "strange." He had previously been thrown out of a local pub for "cursing Muslims and saying he would do some damage. Investigators also said the perpetrator is believed to have links to the extreme right wing." Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kind Tennis Fan: I don't believe it's a violation to include the sentence about how neighbors described him since WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE states, "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." The Guardian is certainly WP:RS. For reference, see the incredible amount of detail the 2017 Stockholm attack page goes into the suspect. If that didn't violate WP:PERP, the article as is clearly does not. Kamalthebest (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Rise in Islamopobic Attacks

I have an issue with the following statement "Following those attacks, there had been a rise in Islamophobic attacks against Muslims in Manchester.[7]" The source that this is taken from is community leaders stating they were told of more Islamophobic incidents but the wording of the sentence makes it seem like there was an actual increase in crime rates. Can someone provide a source to actual crime statistics or a more substantial source. or reword the sentence to be more reflective of the source. I was thinking "Manchester Muslim communities have perceived an increase in Islamophobic attacks"

---

The Guardian article cited uses the word "rise" in the headline, but actually it doesn't say that in the article. It just says Muslims have complained about being abused. We don't know if it's actually a "rise", (or if it's actually true). RustlingLeaves (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@RustlingLeaves: The article does, however, mention that "Fiyaz Mughal, founder of Tell MAMA, which monitors and records Islamophobic hate crimes, said there had been a 'measurable' spike in incidents targeting Muslims in last 24 hours" and "After the major terrorist incident we have seen a measurable spike in anti-Muslim hate incidents coming into Tell MAMA." Kamalthebest (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Tell MAMA is a notoriously discredited source, having been exposed a few years ago as making up and exaggerating "attacks", which usually turn out to be tweets. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10093568/The-truth-about-the-wave-of-attacks-on-Muslims-after-Woolwich-murder.html RustlingLeaves (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@RustlingLeaves: I don't know if I would call Tell MAMA "a notoriously discredited source" but even if it is, here is another Guardian article that talks about a rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes using official data from the "Metropolitan police." Should we add this source to the article too? Kamalthebest (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest Well they lost their government funding over it! That's the problem with a vague phrase like "Islamophobic incident" - could mean anything from a tweet to a murder! Anyway, I'm happy to include this other article, seems relevant. RustlingLeaves (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest I think we need to draw a distinction between an increase of reports of crimes and an increase in actual crimes. Also, if we want to specify the increase, I think it'd be tidier to do it in one sentence. Rather than having one sentence for the increase and then another sentence for the specifics. I think we should just call it "fivefold". RustlingLeaves (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverting of improved wordage

user:WWGB curious as to why you reverted my improved wordage about the van being piloted by a person. There was tremendous confusion on the other London attack article as to how the vehicle was controlled. I believe you helped out with the article. user:DoubleGrazing was there as well. Nearly ALL manufacturers offer some kind of "autopilot" feature and there are also remote controlled cars (full size!). I was trying to settle a confusion by improving the wordage. 2602:301:772D:62D0:7472:38CB:C06E:A93D (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It is normal to assume all vehicles are human-driven ("piloted"?) unless stated to the contrary. WWGB (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Land vehicles, yeah. When a plane strikes Muslims, it's very often the other way. And buddy wouldn't need such a long IP address if the future involved fewer remote-controlled crashes of all sorts. It will be tremendously confusing, but I don't think we're there yet, at least by my non-recollection of this issue arising on a past attack's Talk Page or mainstream analysis. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Neighbour 's spirit tap

Here is the source please read it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4619518/Friends-say-terror-suspect-heavy-drinking-brawler.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772d:62d0:7472:38cb:c06e:a93d (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2017‎

Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Even if it were, you need to include the source as an inline citation in the article when you add new information. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh I honestly didn't know that. Im sorry. I will try to find it in a different source. 2602:301:772D:62D0:7472:38CB:C06E:A93D (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't bother, it has no relevance to the attack. WWGB (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure no problem. How about I just stay away from the article completely.? Looks like everyone will be happier that way and from what it sounds like, my edits will be reverted anyway. Sorry for any trouble. 2602:301:772D:62D0:7472:38CB:C06E:A93D (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Location/mosque

Starting a new section for this as although it feeds into the debates above about the relevance of the mosque's background and history, it also affects the current alternative name "Finsbury Park mosque attack" and some of the current content, eg where the page states that "worshippers from the mosque restrained the attacker". The map here suggests that the incident took place some distance from the welfare centre. Which in turn is some distance from the mosque.

The cited, and admittedly sourced in some places, description of it being "91 metres" away is misleading: that appears to be an as-the-crow-flies calculation. There's a massive railway line in between, and to get between the two, at least by road (there may be a more direct back route for people walking, I don't know), you have to come back on yourself and come under the bridge, probably doubling the distance. You can't see the one from the other. Yes we are stuck with how some things are being reported and named, but at the same time in this sort of situation it is OK to simply not use media reports that are clearly wrong. N-HH talk/edits 23:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgable on London geography but numerous WP:RS have mentioned the mosque in relation to this attack most likely due to the fact that the worshippers who were injured, as well as those who restrained the perpetrator were from the mosque. Therefore, I don't think it's inappropriate to mention in the article. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Or that they just were reporting very quickly and lazily in the early stages of a fast-moving story? I know it's not up to us to contradict generally reliable sources, but as I say, when they are clearly getting things wrong, equally we don't *have* to use what they say. And rushed-off media stories are not in fact good sources. People who were injured or involved in restraining the driver may well have been from the mosque, but they were not near the mosque. N-HH talk/edits 23:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@N-HH: But it's not just "very quickly and lazily" reports that refer to this as an attack on the mosque. For instance, this this Independent article updated two minutes ago described the incident as the "Finsbury Park mosque terror attack." Kamalthebest (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"Mosque attack" only appears in the headline, which WP content should not be written to. In the body, it says "near", which is arguably correct depending on what you define as near (and he may even have been heading there but stopped some way short – who knows). It may also be that in that piece or others the welfare centre (correctly or otherwise) is being referred to as a mosque. The issue is that we should not be, even if some media still are, confusing this with Finsbury Park mosque proper or suggesting that this was an attack on or immediately adjacent to the mosque. This BBC piece has an even clearer map showing the distances involved. The front of the mosque faces away from Seven Sisters Road (ie to the right), and as I say, there's a railway behind it. N-HH talk/edits 23:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@N-HH: So I'm confused as to what you would change? WP:COMMONNAME states that "Wikipedia... generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." People are probably going to be searching "Finsbury mosque attack" for info on this event since that is how it's being reported in headlines and even in the body of some articles such as Evening Standard article that opens with "The sister of a man arrested over a van attack at a mosque in north London..." and then explains the event took place near the Muslim Welfare Centre. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a major road connection, A503. Multiple RS name mosque in their lead. Consider this - the perp instead of attacking his local Muslim neighbors in Cardiff (who were interviewed about him), rents a van and drives 244 km, at night, to one of the most notorius mosques in the UK (rightly or wrongly, it is notable for the terror link), and then drives up and down the road in the area around the mosque looking for a clearly Muslim group to attack. The location attacked fits exactly the route one would take if circling around the mosque. The mechanics of a car ramming attack are such that as a perp you want to circle around looking for targets and then veer off at speed when a suitable target presents itself. This is not a method that leads to precision, if the sidewalk is obstructed (e.g. parked cars) you are blocked, and you need to be moving and make a split second decision once you see a valuable enough target.Icewhiz (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said, his intended target may well have been the mosque itself. I acknowledged the media are (not unreasonably to some extent) making a connection. The point is that any WP page needs to be careful about how it uses newspaper reports. Headlines and first-impression reports are not reliable when they make clearly factual errors about where things are and where they happened. Newspapers, even serious ones, can be sensationalist. It is noticeable that, outside of headlines, papers this morning are now talking talking more about the "Finsbury Park attack" than they are a "mosque attack". N-HH talk/edits 08:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In terms of name - "Finsbury Park attack" is probably better than with the mosque (alternative with mosque should be mentioned). However, the mosque is clearly relevant in terms of background.Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

better map

• https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/6166/production/_96543942_map.jpg
• https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1420C/production/_96544428_040137292.jpg
• https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/0D74/production/_96544430_040137232.jpg

It is far from the mosque. --Scrutinize13 (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Not far - close walking distance along the major road leading to the mosque and Welfare house. Most of the news outlets are leading with the mosque.Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

0.2 miles --Scrutinize13 (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Which outlet? There is UCKG. --Scrutinize13 (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

BBC news main headline Man dies as van hits London mosque crowd, Telegraph web main headline Live Finsbury Park mosque attack: One dead and 10 injured in latest London terror incident, Guardian web main headline Finsbury Park terror attack: one dead near north London mosque. They all mention the mosque. It also seems (from other news stories) - that the people attacked were worshippers hanging around in the general vicinity of the mosque between two prayers (and that they were in that spot, as a group, as they were giving CPR to an elderly worshiper).

"100 yards (91 m)" is about the half way from the Welfare House to the F.P. mosque. (News : https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/19/muslim-welfare-house-much-more-than-mosque : "Finsbury Park mosque is only 200 metres away from the Muslim Welfare House") --Scrutinize13 (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

FAIR?

Under "Organisations", we've now got a comment from something called FAIR. Does FAIR count an an organisation? As far as I can tell FAIR exist purely to complain about media coverage that isn't left-wing enough. They're not actually responding to the attack, they're criticising media coverage of the attack.RustlingLeaves (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I added a tag about WP:NPOV being disputed. TompaDompa (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

OMG, a new article?

 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.

---

It's like I am not writing/creating any articles on Wikipedia besides the perpetual murder in London by islamic terrorists :'( ... maybe we should decide how we create article in future about such incidents? I mean, it seems like it is going to happen soon again, should we create a new article for every terrorist incident in Europe? Should we change our policy? Maybe only make a list? I mean, it is a new incident every day; should we create a new article every time? Rævhuld (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't know the motivation here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Though we do not know the motive, each article per incident would be proper since each displays their own respected notability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Rævhuld could you please sign your posts? You have been asked this before and it is an incredibly simple task. In response to the post, not every terrorist attack (if that is what this is) is automatically notable. There have been plenty of AfD discussions to attest to that point. Maybe there would be less of those if editors wait for the details of these events and their impacts to be revealed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• TheGracefulSlick it is not that easy for me. This here is how my editor on the talk page looks like. There is no "sign" button. So I put the auto-sign command on my talk page. A bot should actually sign every comment I do· --Rævhuld (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Rævhuld: No one's editor has a 'sign' button. All you have to do is type four tildes (~~~~), and it gets automatically replaced with your signature. IagoQnsi (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It is notable so it should get a page. -- BernardZ (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

BernardZ I'm not disputing the notability of this incident. I'm just pointing out to Rævhuld that not every terrorist attack deserves a standalone article. In some instances, a listing is appropriate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree. I think all such attacks should have a page if possible as its not like we have any space considerations.

Still have you see last months list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_May_2017 154 attacks so far with this one in June we only have 74, so I can certainly see where you are coming Regards from BernardZ (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that we need to have a village pump discussion on these terrorist attack articles. In many cases I am convinced that these attacks can be summed up on a list, we are an encyclopedia not a directory of every terror attack that has happened. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly my point.-- Rævhuld (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree we'd need to decide on a set of rules on when to create these articles if they become regular occurrences over time, though one would sincerely hope they won't. It's a difficult one to judge because any terror incident is no doubt going to receive blanket media coverage. Perhaps we could look at the articles about attacks carried out by the Provisional IRA as an example of how and when to create articles about attacks carried out in the present. I notice not all of those incidents have standalone articles. As for this particular article, the nature of the incident and those targeted gives it notability, since such a thing is rare. This is Paul (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that just about everything and anything that has the word "terrorist" in it is getting its own article. This includes cases where the attacker has died without killing or injuring anyone (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack). Why are we trying to make these attacks more notable then they are? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 20 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.

Reversions of the lead

@Continentaleurope: I just wanted to let you know that per WP:LEADCITE, it is not a violation to add citations to the lead, especially when the claims being made are controversial such as that this event represented a rise in Islamophobia. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I perfectly understand but the wording is very bad and sound like an agenda. It should reflect what the main article says and not differ. English people are very nice and these supposed civil rights groups are rhetoric of victimization. I will not contribute here until things are settled.Continentaleurope (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Continentaleurope: Well, the claim that "British people are not all islamophobes and avoid own agenda" and "English people are very nice" is not an reason not to include that segment in the lead. Many WP:RS and politicians have claimed that this event represents a rise in Islamophobia in the United Kingdom such as the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, the Prime Minister Theresa May, the leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn, the Muslim Council of Britain, etc. These officials are not claiming that all British people are Islamophobes. Furthermore, these are not my own views. They are the views of WP:SECONDARY sources and officials. The lead even says that the motive is still officially under investigation. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

None of those statements make an article ... in either case none if them are civil rights groups. We can say it is a hate crime, which is, but not writing political rhetoric. It is ok if you wish to have it how you want. I do not want to sound evil to you, and do understand your good intentions.Continentaleurope (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Continentaleurope: Ok, well thank you for your WP:GOODFAITH. The lead as is it right now mentions that "politicians" as well as "civil rights groups" claim it represented a rise in Islamophobia. I'm assuming that the Muslim Council of Britain is like the British equivalent of the Council on American–Islamic Relations here in America which would be considered a civil rights groups. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• My two cents I was directed to this article by the "in the news" section on our main page. I suspected immediately that there was probably some nonsense "controversy" over whether an act committed against Muslims should be labeled "terrorism", but that was ironically not the first problem I encountered with the article. I read through the lead and saw that we were accusing "some Muslims" of beating the perpetrator but being stopped while in the act by the imam. I wanted to change "some Muslims" to a more appropriate phrase like "some of those present" (we don't know if they were Muslim, and the Al Jazeera article that I was in the middle of reading while the tags I had added were removed specifically said that many victims were not necessarily Muslim. The sources attached to the statement had apparently nothing to do with the content, which is why I started tagging them, and explained what I was planning on doing with those tags here.

The actual background of the problem has been explained to me by Kamal on CE's talk page. (I got the ping a while ago but was busy with some other stuff and didn't read it until just now.) It was also pointed out to me (no need to go into details) that the sentence in question was a summary of another sentence in the body and so was unrelated to the LEDECITEs I had been tagging. The problem was that the lead sentence misrepresented the body sentence (a claim attributed to "witnesses" became a factual claim in Wikipedia's voice) and the body sentence not only misrepresented what the cited source said (one witness whom the source named was changed to "witnesses") but also what other sources including one of the LEDECITEs I had read through said (another witness, named in the NYT source, gave a different and apparently contradictory account). I fixed the body sentence accordingly with this edit, and my text has remained pretty stable for the last 90 minutes or so.

As for how the article should look in the short term (in the long term I would obviously like all the LEDECITEs removed so that the lead can just be a summary of the article), I think the lead at present is, ironically, fine, but the body should be amended to reflect the lead a bit. Citing the opinion of Pegida UK but not the Ramadhan Foundation or the Muslim Council of Britain's reactions to the incident (cited in the NYT and Telegraph articles) is way out of line. The lead at present summarizes what the body should say rather than what it does say ("Islamophob-" appears in the lead and in the titles of three of our cited sources, but in the body it appears only under "background" and in an opinion attributed to Theresa May). I will add some, but some help from editors more experienced with this kind of article would be helpful.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It was a Terrorist attack

Why is this not being described as a terrorist attack in the first sentence, like the 2017 Westminster UK terrorist attack page or the 9/11 September US terrorist attacks? The UK Prime Minister, London Mayor, London metropolitan police and various UK news media all describe the event as a terrorist attack.

BBC 'London terror' [2] Telegraph 'Terror attack [3] Funkinwolf (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

See how it is phrased in June 2017 London Bridge attack. Whether an act is labelled as terror is often a matter of POV. While it is clear the mainstream UK POV is to label these events as terror - ISIS or pro-Osborne supporters might vary in opinion. You'll have an easier time here with a statement that isn't in Wikipeida's voice - e.g. writing that someone (e.g. May) has said this was terror.Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

What does ISIS or Osborne supporters have to do with whether the event is described as a terrorist attack? Wikipedia has to take into account what ISIS thinks, since when? the link you gave me described that event as a terrorist attack in the first paragraph. Funkinwolf (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

We should be neutral vs. all points of views (Be it the Islamists, anti-Islamists, or the vast majority in between). In this case, you might even have the suspect fail a mental health eval BBC - man would be the "subject of a mental health assessment in due course", Telegraph - he was "disturbed" and had been on medication for mental health problems.. He might claim self-defense. Or - whatever. When you are placing this in Wikipedia's voice, you are asserting an undisputed fact (other than a fringe opinion - e.g. the Earth is flat). I constructively suggest that you perhaps choose an appropriate attribution to place in the lede (e.g. described as a terror attack by X,Y,Z) - which wouldn't be in dispute and would be relevant at this point. You also have BLPCRIME issues here since the suspect is alive and not convicted - specifically with wiki's voice. It will be easier to state this once he is convicted in Wiki's voice.Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

it is clear the mainstream UK POV is to label these events as terror If the clear preponderance of reliable sources call something a terrorist attack, then we call it a terrorist attack, full stop. If you would like to provide sources to demonstrate that this is not the "clear mainstream view" then you may do so, but it's not an argument you win by speculation about what hypothetical sources might or might not exist. TimothyJosephWood 12:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

To state a fact in Wikipedia's voice - it has to be an undisputed fact, not just the mainstream view. You also have BLPCRIME issues here. While I'm 99.99% certain this will be a "terror attack" in Wikipedia in a few months (following some investigation and criminal proceedings) - the time is not now. If he were dead, it would be faster.Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I have edited it to suspected terrorist attack because that is what it is by UK law and various elected politicians, UK (and international) media and UK security forces. This is not my POV. Funkinwolf (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You are confusing the characterization of the individual (e.g., John is definitely a terrorist) with the characterization of the act (e.g., A terrorist attack occurred. John has been arrested and is the primary suspect.) The former is a BLPCRIME issue. The latter is not. The latter is a choice as to whether to use charged language, which is determined by what language the sources use. BLPCRIME is indifferent to whether we characterize it as mass murder or terrorism. It just cares about whether we say he definitely did it, which requires a conviction. TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with with suspected terror attack in Wiki's voice (+substantial and copious quotes on how various officials are saying this is terror). For reference, look at - 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing - which still isn't described as a terror attack. In this case - we don't even yet have a mental eval on the suspect - he might not be mentally fit for trial.Icewhiz (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

What? You can be mentally ill and still commit a terrorist attack. The reason suicide bombers are not given a mental health check is because they are dead. You cannot mentally check someone who has blown themselves up. This is a UK legal and political fact. Funkinwolf (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

...Whether he is objectively certifiably bat shit crazy is actually completely irrelevant. I'm going to go ahead and assume that most acts of mass public violence don't come from really stellar mental health situations. Take the individual out of the equation. We're not making a judgment on the individual; we're making a judgement on the language used to describe the act. If we had no suspect, would we call it mass murder/attempted mass murder or terrorism based on the language the sources use? Whether other articles use the term is a decision that has to be made for those article based on those sources, and isn't precedent setting for other articles and other sources.

The BLP issue is that whatever language is used needs to be well sourced because it's all negative with implications for living people. The only thing we should care about for NPOV is that whatever language we're using matches the language the sources are using. If you're going to call it a "suspected terror attack" in WP's voice, then you better be finding a source that calls it that; otherwise it's original research. TimothyJosephWood 12:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism is determined by the motivation of the attacker (or the group sending him if such a group exists). As per mw: Legal Definition of terrorism: the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion. To determine terrorism, you would have to ascertain the intent of the attacker. Mentally-ill people may or may not be terrorist (and they may also be employed as terrorists - there are quite a few example of mentally challenged/ill suicide bombers who were induced by various means, but were sent by terrorists (as well as coercion of children in Nigeria, by terrorists, to serve as suicide bombers)). While I personally agree that this will with almost certainty be classified as terror in the future on WP, now is too soon. In any event - to establish this in WP's voice, you need something stronger than the "PM said so" - especially when the suspect is alive.Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. TimothyJosephWood 12:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Plenty of sources are calling this "suspected terror attack" - [4] Finsbury Park Mosque: Police confirm all victims of suspected terror attack are Muslim, [5] Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick has joined a vigil held in the wake of the suspected terror attack. and a vast multitude of others as evidences by a google-search on finsbury+"suspected terror" with a 24-hr filter.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Independent source actually changes it's own headline when you scroll down to call it a 'terror' attack in scare quotes, and the Telegraph calls it a terror attack without qualification twice. So... those aren't terribly good arguments to say that the sources are really hedging their bets on this one. TimothyJosephWood 13:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it was discussed on every terrorist attack so far. While most of us agree that it was terrorism, we do not create facts here on Wikipedia. We should wait until a reliable source calls it terrorism. --Rævhuld (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The British police, UK security forces, London Mayor, UK Prime Minister, BBC, Telegraph and Guardian are not reliable sources, are you being serious? they all described this as a terror incident/attack. The question is not whether Osborne is the person responsible, that is a matter for the courts but the event itself is a different subject matter and is being called a terrorist attack by the British police, UK security forces, London Mayor, Prime Minister, Leader of opposition, various MPs, the BBC, the Telegraph, the Independent, LBC radio, the Guardian and so on. Mr Osborne can get off free but the event is still a terror attack, the UK judiciary system has just failed to find the person/people responsible for it. Funkinwolf (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a "terrorist attack" when a white (especially white man) commits the act. If it's a non-white who committed the act, then it's called an attack with "no clear motive." Same concept pretty much applies for hate crimes as well. 2601:8C:4102:1210:59EF:A019:8C6E:FE58 (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll be more than a bit crystal balling here in this comment - but it would be very convenient for British authorities to claim the Finsbury attacker was mentally ill. At this point, what probably concerns MI5 is averting a tit-for-tat escalation scenario.Icewhiz (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

A terror attack is not a terrorist attack. One causes terror, one causes terror on civilians to coerce their government. The sooner everyone can agree to not conflate these terms, the sooner we can easily agree on which attacks should be called what. Since this particular guy is alive and facing trial for terrorism, calling it a terrorist attack would be prejudicial, so this one's easy: "alleged terrorist attack". If he's convicted, drop "alleged". If he's acquitted, go with "terror attack". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A terror attack is committed by a terrorist. That is basic standard of the English language. This page is about the event, which is a terrorist attack and the individual who was arrested is being charged. Whether he is found guilty or not does not stop this attack from being a terror attack. You cannot cause a terror attack and not be a terrorist. This literally makes no linguistic sense. It's like saying a murder is not committed by a murderer. Or killing is not committed by a killer. However it's been changed to 'terror attack'. Funkinwolf (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A murderer commits murder because "murder" is the direct root of "murderer". With terror, there's an extra significant transformation to terrorism before it can be the thing a terrorist does. A person who creates terror without the intent to coerce is just a terror (because terrorer sounds too stupid). If they do it with an attack, they can be a terror attacker. All terrorism involves terror, but not always vice versa. This is standard with every -ism word in English. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Splitting hairs here, but an attack could conceivably viewed by the public as a terror attack and have the effects of a terror attack yet the perpetrator may have not have had a terror intent (perhaps even an accident or mistake) and therefore would not be a terrorist. (No - I am not claiming this is the case here). However, this is not the concern here - the problem is WP:BLPCRIME which is becoming even a greater issue with recent reports regarding the alleged mental instability of the perpetrator.Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok I agree with 'suspected terror' attack. Funkinwolf (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Straw Poll : Should we mention the Finsbury Park Mosque's terrorism links?

Note: This straw poll is simply to see if we can establish consensus on this issue. It should not be construed as a vote.

The Finsbury Park Mosque, which was nearby the site of this attack (a fact widely noted in reliable sources), was the subject of a great deal of media attention in the early 2000's due to its association with radical imams and the so-called shoe bomber.

It has been proposed that a short paragraph about this element of the Mosque's history be added to background section of this article. The mosque's history has been mentioned widely in sources covering the attack.

Objections have been raised that it is too early to determine if the mosque was actually the target and whether its radical past had anything to do with why the attack happened. Additionally, the material could be seen as victim blaming.

What is the appropriate course of action;

• Mention the mosque's history in the background
  • Support it should be added to background. --Rævhuld (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support adding to the background. Yes it could be construed as victim blaming, and perhaps some sources and/or people really are victim blaming, but it's not up to us to decide what material is or is not relevant. We follow the sources, and the sources seem to think the mosque's history is relevant (by virtue of the fact that so many of them mention it). NickCT (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Highly relevant and well-cited in major international media as well as some responses by public figures and counter-responses to them. Even if this is not ultimately the established motive following police inquest (if such a motive is ever established with certainty) - it would still be relevant background information.Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the current version, which seems to be pretty neutral. It has already been alluded to by media and public figures as well, so it's not irrelevant. ansh666 21:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion, but I agree with Nick Cooper's point that we should also mention how the mosque has seen changed a lot since then and hosts interfaith sessions, etc. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Don't mention the mosque's history in the background
  • Support. There is no indication that the alleged attacker was even aware of the existence of the mosque, let alone its history. Until we know that the mosque was a factor in the attack, its history has no direct relevance here. WWGB (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The argument above is that News sources mention the two facts side by side each other, hence they must be linked. However, it is common for news sources to justapose irrelevant facts with each other. For example, many media sources mentioned the 2017 Tehran attacks together with the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis. But we know the two weren't linked and the two wikipedia articles don't really talk about each other. Thus, we should wait until we have information linking the two topics before adding the material.VR _talk 15:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Other
  • If it is mentioned, it has to be made abundantly clear that such events are more than ten years in the past. This is the equivalent of someone bricking the window of a house someone actually moved out of a decade previously. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know if the phrase victim blaming is really suitable to use in an article of this nature. It is a bit of a slippery sociological/psychoanalytic concept which has a bias in its application. Similar to how describing the Ariana Grande love/peace concert in the aftermath of the Manchester attack as Stockholm syndrome would be bias too. As far as I can tell, the only publication making reference to victim blaming is the American website Mic, a George Soros-esque publication which caters to liberal petit-bourgeois identity politics. If a mainstream publication uses the phrase in a significant way in regards to the Mosque, then there would be better grounds to include it. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• @AusLondonder: you removed the text in question. While I personally agree that it is too early to include this material, there seems to be a 5-3 split on whether to retain the material or not. In either case, you may want to participate in this straw poll.VR _talk 02:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I just want to point out that the British government has released figures on the increase in far-right terrorist activity and this has been picked up by reliable sources in connection with the attack. NGOs have made similar comments about the rise of the far-right. Having said that, it is currently not clear at all if the motive behind the attack was far right extremism. But if we choose to include details about the mosque, then I think this material deserves mention too.VR _talk 02:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: - Even the Telegraph (a right-wing publication) is reporting on this angle, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that we would. I think some kind of wording like the Telegraph uses (i.e. "Part of the police investigation will be focusing on whether Mr Osborne had any links to far-Right organisations or extremists.") could be appropriate. NickCT (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

First aid prior to attack?

"In addition, one man who had been receiving first aid prior to the attack died at the scene."

This sentence doesn't really make clear why he was receiving first aid and what its relationship to the attack exactly was? Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The bunch of people that were hit were performing CPR on an elderly man. The elderly man died - at this point attribution of his death (to car attack or to condition that led to CPR) is not determined.Icewhiz (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll chip in: from what I understood from news reports the elderly man had collapsed at the bus stop, presumably a result of heat/exhaustion from fasting. Agree though that it is not exactly clear - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspect (neutral language)

As some users have pointed out: we should follow WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERP. We should consider even mentioning his name according those two policies. If we mention him by name, we should only include facts. That tabloids have interviewed the neighbours who claim he was aggressive or that he flew out from a pub is not factual or neutral. And should not be included. We should only include facts! --Rævhuld (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey: name

Should we include his name as suspect?

• Yes but only as suspect. --Rævhuld (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Of course he should be named as an arrested suspect. It is in reliable sources and does not breach any rights. WWGB (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. His name is widely out there, on every media outlet in the world. Masking in these circumstances is utterly pointless and counter productive.Icewhiz (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yes That's how these always work. People arrested in connection with an attack retain some anonymity, but never the prime suspect. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong NO per WP:BLPCRIME: For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. Clearly applicable in this case, he was relatively unknown so we should not be suggesting that he is accused of committing a crime unless he gets convicted. -- de Facto (talk). 20:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey: neutrality

Should we include gossip and blunder or only neutral language? We aren't even sure that he did it (Presumption of innocence).

• No. We should only include facts as of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERP policy. --Rævhuld (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with that. Remember this topic is the matter of sub judice. This is Paul (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment Invalid WP:RfC. Rævhuld, Please discuss the topic first before opening a survey. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  @Kamalthebest: It has been discussed - in section above (Suspect). This was opened after a discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  @Icewhiz: Yes, I recognize that but it did not appear that we had reached an impasse, so why start a survey? Also, the framing of the second question is not nearly as impartial as it should ideally be in an WP:RfC. Very few people are going to be blatantly in favor of "gossip and blunder" as opposed to "neutral language." Regardless, it seems that no one is really opposed to the current version of the section as it is now, so I guess it's not really a problem yet. Kamalthebest (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  Well - there were opinions both ways there (he self-reverted after someone told him naming was against BLPCRIME (which it is not - can be named after serious considerations)) - and there were opinions both ways there. I agree the wording here is far from ideal (frankly - I didn't really read the wording and just voted).Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"The Finsbury Park Mosque has attracted both positive and negative media attention"

I'm not happy with this line because it suggests that somehow it's the media's fault. Are "positive" and "negative" objective? Surely what's more important is the facts of Finsbury Park's history, not "media attention" its received. The two cited articles don't say anything about "media attention", unless they are media attention in and of themselves. I propose it be scrapped and we just go straight to the facts. RustlingLeaves (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@RustlingLeaves and Vice regent: - See the section above titled "compromise version". It was a messy compromise. I think it could be re-written. NickCT (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No - we shouldn't cut it out. This place has received quite a bit of attention (I would argue that the negative past out swamps the positive recent coverage - but that's another issue). The negative and positive coverage was, at least in part, objective - the mosque has a significant negative past with major terrorism activity (including a 9/11 celebration conference on the 1 year anniversary!) - this ended circa 2004-5. Since then - the mosque has been more mainstream (all be it with Muslim Brotherhood management including some figures (e.g. Azzam Tamimi, Muhammad Sawalha) with questionable history and statements) - and has positive media coverage. The point behind all this - is that this is a highly notable location with a very charged past. It's not a random mosque. Whether the past objectively reflects on the present is not as important as the public perception (including the perpetrator's perception) of the place.Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: - I think RustlingLeaves is commenting solely on that opening sentence. Not the whole paragraph. NickCT (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The whole thing could/should be reworked (I would like to see the notoriety, in terms of public/media coverage, more clearly asserted) - but the media (& public) attention on the mosque - is the whole point of the subsequent paragraph. If an Islamist preaches in the middle of the desert and no one sees.... Would that motivate anyone to do anything? But if the mosque's name is mentioned time and time again in a terror context - in very wide international coverage - that's relevant background. It doesn't really matter, if the media/public attention was correct or accurate, just that it was there in a very large fashion.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: @NickCT: To clarify, I am all for talking about the mosque's history. I'm just complaining about the first sentence where we talk about "positive and negative media coverage". Media coverage isn't the point. It makes it sounds like it wasn't doing anything wrong, it was just the media giving it negative coverage. We wouldn't talk about this Osbourne bloke "receiving negative media coverage", would we? He's receiving negative media coverage because he ran people over on purpose. Similarly, Finsbury Park Mosque "received negative media coverage" because it had a Jihadi Imam for seven years. That wasn't the media's fault. RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see the notoriety more clearly established - however there was concern regarding victim blaming. In my view - this is probably in the "top 5 notorious Western mosques" - even 14 years after Abu Hamza and his disciples were kicked out (and despite the notoriety arising from them - the mosque still gets current coverage on major events dating back to then (e.g. Charlie Hebdo in 2015 - [6] [7]) - as "Abu Hamza Finsbury graduates" (and graduates of graduates) - keep on popping up. One should note that the mosque's current administration has received positive press and coverage. In the balance between this not being in - or being in with "both positive and negative" - I prefer the formerlatter. Perhaps you should try suggesting a reformulation here - it might fly. Another option, is to wait until whatever comes out of the investigation (e.g. if the suspect states he did so and so because of X) - which might cast light on the relevance of this. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC) fix:Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@RustlingLeaves: I wrote that sentence out of concern for neutrality and balance. I tried my best to be fair in this regard, giving equal coverage to both narratives and mentioning both narratives in the first sentence of the paragraph. If you can respect balance, then I'm totally open to re-wording. I oppose any sorted of lopsidedness that emphasizes one narrative and downplays the other.VR _talk 07:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Yep, whether they did good, bad or both, I just think that should be the point. Rather than citing good or bad "media coverage" which implies, at least to me, that the media coverage was unfair or inaccurate, when the positive and negative media coverage was presumably due to the mosque's positive and negative activities. RustlingLeaves (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Organisation

Since every organisation under "organisations" is a Muslim organisation. I propose we change the title of the sub-section to "Muslim Organisations".

I further propose that "several local Labour politicians" be scrapped. Several local Labour politicians should be in "politicians" not "organisations".

When Muslims commit terrorist attacks, we usually include reactions of non-terrorist Muslims. So when far-righters commit terrorist attacks, we should include reactions from non-terrorist far-righters. RustlingLeaves (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Whilst I agree that the politicians should not be listed under organisations I do not agree to the name change. The reason (by the way) that Non-terrorist Muslims (community leaders) reactions are included is to give balance to an article so as to make it clear that they condemn the attack like non-Muslims do, when a leading far-righter comes froward (a leading one, not a fringe one) then I would have no objection to including that. So have any come forward to unequivocally condemn this attack?Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly tendentious proposal. It is malformed in that it mixes the reasonable "politicians are not organizations" with the above-discredited "statements that are sympathetic to the perpetrator of terrorism are equivalent to statements by Muslims that condemn terrorism". RL, you have not contributed anything to this project beyond attempting to "other" the Muslim community and create a false equivalency between ordinary Muslims and anti-Muslim far-right extremists. It's also not clear what you mean by "we usually include reactions of non-terrorist Muslims": you have never edited any other articles than this one, so clearly by "we" you mean "Wikipedians who aren't me"; and could you link me to such an article? Also, could you explain what you mean by comparing "non-terrorist Muslims" to "non-terrorist far-righters"? Wouldn't "non-terrorist Christians" be a closer equivalent? Not all Muslims are hold the same extreme political ideology -- in fact very few hold any extreme political ideology at all. And we already list the views of several notable non-terrorist Christians. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose But suggest re-title or move text. The text is pointing out the rising Islamaphobia, the 'pointers' are Muslims and politicians, others may do so also. Why not just move the sentence either to 'Community' or elsewhere in the article? Pincrete (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Not sure if you've checked the background, but the reason for the current title and content is that when I showed up the article contained a section discussing various "organisations"' reactions, one of which was a far-right ideologue, but none of which were the two Muslim groups currently mentioned. I said it was pretty sick that we were quoting the former in the manner we were, and that not mentioning the latter seemed inappropriate as well. I figured that no one had read my comment, which was quite long, but apparently someone did because the latter recommendation was partly fulfilled by someone -- I suspect Jamal, but I couldn't be bothered checking -- and no one (at least at that time) seemed to be interested in writing the article to reflect the sources, which it seemed they hadn't read, so the odds of someone else spontaneously coming to the same conclusion I had are low. Through various twists and turns the other "organisations" were cut. I actually wouldn't be opposed to simply removing the heading entirely. The section as it is now is short enough that it doesn't really need subsections. Honestly "UK" and "International" reactions seems like a more worthwhile dividing line. I think we can safely ignore the various SPAs who say we should "other" Muslims by splitting the reaction between Muslims and "Muslim-sympathisers" on one side and far-rightists on the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I decided to be WP:BOLD, and removed the subheadings. TompaDompa (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I was partly aware of the background, read some of the discussion. Pincrete (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)