Talk:Grenfell Tower fire/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A sub-page? Discuss.

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Can I reiterate the thanks to all the editors of this page. Watching the press we are now getting the autopsy reports of the victims, and press reports and bios of many of the survivors. I can't decide whether it is just ghoulish or encyclopedic to write a page List of victims and survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy. I am thinking that in 25 years researchers would welcome the list as a microcosm of 2017 West London society- the links it would provide would be immense- documenting the shortened lives of the disposessed rather than the Harrow and Eton bunch. Yes- lots of issues, at least it should be discussed so we can make a positive decision. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd say not. So far, there is only one victim notable enough to sustain an article, and that victim is very much at the lower end of the scale for notability. Mjroots (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no way you could get reliable sources on everything that would be of interest in such an article so it would either be very incomplete or original research, neither of which is acceptable. Write it on your own blog if you feel inspired to record it.Weburbia (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't usually produce lists of victims, so I'd say we shouldn't do it here. Any notable individuals could be mentioned in the main article. This is Paul (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree.79.77.193.0 (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Very late into the discussion but see WP:MEMORIAL JRPG (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Parking a reference

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anna Minton on councillors' links --ClemRutter (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

My British English isn't good.

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Could my edits here be reverted if I only use American spelling? That "scary box" at the top confuses me, otherwise I'll be Wikipedia:BOLD and add my content. Just curious id it's a reason for reverting or not. 🤔 --Codename Alex (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely - more probable that some kind soul would correct any spelling etc failings. ;-) Nedrutland (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Ya, just don't go through and try to recolour the article. The advice at WP:ROWN applies to reverts of an inadvertent Americanization. VQuakr (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Spelling differences won't upset the guys here and will soon be corrected. The hat note is mainly a warning that errors will be corrected. More of a problem will be that this is a highly monitored, high profile article and any edit needs to be referenced with WP:RS and they will be challenged, as the expertise of the author will be assessed. If you are coming here afresh, considered posting your changes here on the talk page so they can gain concensus before they are posted in main space. Best wishes. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Gigga-update

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

79.77.195.77 (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Casualties

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Casualties

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As of 28 June 2017, the official presumed number of deaths was 80. As of 5 July 2017, 21 victims have been formally identified and their families informed. A handful more are missing and assumed dead,^[1]

Please discuss at the Talk page and gain consensus before adding these names.

Abdeslam Sebbar (aged 77, 11th floor)
Abufars Ibrahim (39, 23rd floor)
Ali Yawar Jafari (81, 11th floor)
Anthony Disson (British, 65, 22nd floor)
Farah Hamdan (Moroccan, 31, in a stairwell between the 20th and 19th)
Gloria Trevisan (Italy, 26, 23rd floor)
Marco Gottardi (Italy, 26, 23rd floor)
Husna Begum (22, floor ?)
Mohammad Alhajali, 23, floor ?
Jessica Urbanno, 2?, floor ?
Isaac Paulos (5, 18th floor)
Khadija Khalloufi (52, 17th floor)
Leena Belkadi (Moroccan, 6 months, 20th floor)
Malak Belkadi (Moroccan, 8, initially rescued, later died, 20th floor)
Omar Belkadi (Moroccan, 32, 20th floor)
Mo Tuccu (44)
Mohammad Al Haj Ali (23, 14th floor)
Rabeya Begum (64)
Saber Neda, also known as Mohamed Amied Neda (57, 23rd floor)
Ya-Haddy Sisi Saye also known as Khadija Saye (Gambia, 24, 20th floor)
Sheila Smith (84, 17th floor)
Vincent Chiejina (60, 16th floor)
About 30 others.

Some names have not yet been released to the public, at the family's' request.

The police said they were using "every imaginable source" of information "from government agencies to fast food companies" to identify casualties, but did not expect a final figure until 2018 when the search and recovery operation is over. On 28 June, the authorities stated that there were known survivors from 106 of the tower's 129 flats; eighteen people among the occupants of these flats were reported as dead or missing presumed dead, whereas most of those killed were said to have been in the remaining 23 flats between the 11th and 23rd floors.^[2] Some people from lower floors may have tried to move up the building, and it is thought a number of people may have ended up in one flat.^[3] Some victims were identified from twenty-six 999 calls made from inside the 23 flats.^{[citation needed]}

The missing include many children including Amaya Ahmedin (aged 3, 19th floor), Biruk Habtom (aged 12), Fathia Ibrahim, Fatima Choucair, Firdaws Hashim, Hania Ibrahim, Jeremiah Dean (2, 14th floor), Jessica Urbano Ramiez (12, 20th floor), Mehdi El-Wahabi (8), Mierna Choucair, Yaqub Hashim, Yayha Hashim and Zeinab Choucair.^[4] The youngest of those known killed, Leena Belkadi, was just 6 months old. One victim died in hospital on 15 June due to inhalation of fire fumes.^[5]^[6]^[7] Additionally, one survivor suffered a stillbirth as a result of the fire.^[8]

A total of 151 homes were destroyed in the tower and surrounding area. The incident ranks as the deadliest structural fire in the United Kingdom since the start of the 20th century, when detailed records began.^[9] The death toll is higher than the Bradford City stadium fire of 1985, which killed 56 people.^[10]

^ Samuel Osborne (5 July). "Grenfell Tower: Government sends in 'taskforce'". BBC News. Retrieved 5 July 2017. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Samuel Osborne (28 June 2017). "Grenfell Tower fire: Total death toll from devastating blaze may not be known until the end of the year, say police". The Independent. Retrieved 1 July 2017.
^ "No final Grenfell Tower death toll this year, police say". BBC News. 28 June 2017. Retrieved 1 July 2017.
^ "Grenfell Tower: candlelit vigil for victims after grief turned to anger at earlier protests". The Daily Telegraph. 17 June 2017. Retrieved 27 June 2017.
^ May Bulman (16 June 2017). "Grenfell Tower fire: Met Police confirm 30 dead and 12 remain critical". The Independent. Retrieved 1 July 2017.
^ Tom Kelly and Inderdeep Bains (16 June 2017). "Agony of girl, five, feared to have lost her entire family". PressReader.com. Daily Mail. Retrieved 1 July 2017.
^ "Grenfell Tower fire: Six-month-old baby 'found dead in mother's arms'". ITV News. 28 June 2017. Retrieved 1 July 2017.
^ Couple who escaped Grenfell Tower blaze lost unborn son (news.com.au)
^ Associated Press (via New York Times), The Latest: London Fire Deadliest in UK Since 20th Century, 19 June 2017
^ Griffiths, Frank; Kirka, Danica. "79 now believed to have died in London high-rise fire". Chicago Tribune. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 19 June 2017. Retrieved 19 June 2017. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

79.77.193.0 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

79.77.221.247 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

79.77.195.77 (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Cause"

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Yes, the faulty fridge was the origin of the fire. But suggesting that this as the only cause, as the infobox does, seems less than ideal. The causal contribution of the cladding, compared to that of the initial fire source, seems so much greater. How have other fire article infoboxes dealt with this issue? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Fridge was the primary cause, secondary cause was the design, installation and materials of the cladding. Mjroots (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. As with many accidents, especially aviation accidents, there is often a misguided search in the popular media to determine a single overarching cause. That's usually a convenient myth. If the fridge really was "the cause" all the resulting safety activity would have focused on fridge freezers, or at least on sprinkler systems? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, Martin. (Yes really - I know we've had our differences) In which case...the statement that the faulty appliance was *the cause* is somewhat misleading. Perhaps something along the lines of "first flames, which led to the cladding taking the conflagration up the building" would be appropriate. But then some wikiidiot would probably say "oh that's not yet been proven, that's conjecture or WP:BLABLA" even though everyone knows it to be true. Boscaswell talk 12:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"Everyone knows it to be true" is not valid reasoning for inclusion. There are likely to be multiple complimentary factors at play, not just solely, "the cladding." Nick Cooper (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Aviation accident articles generally just use "under investigation" or something similar, at least until an interim official report has been published. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC) p.s. User talk:Boscaswell - whatever they were I have long since forgotten them and I won't be trying to find them!

I think there should be a Public Inquiry ;-) David Crayford (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll be the judge of that (... or maybe not). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. Define "Cause." Met Police say it *started* with a Hotpoint fridge. You could include the cladding as contributory. But arguably the environment: lack of investment in social housing, poor white goods safety standards, poor building standards or enforcement, lack of international cooperation on standards, greed, ignorance of consequence, evasion of responsibility, deference to authority, the status quo, karma... could be considered part of the "Cause." Maybe we could use a neutral, narrow technical word like ignition, root, source? David Crayford (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, David. Perhaps "The initial ignition point was..." Simply "the cause was..." is ridiculous.

Further, <<"Everyone knows it to be true" is not valid reasoning for inclusion.>> *sigh* And therein lies the problem with Wikipedia. Or one of them.

Boscaswell talk 19:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

David Crayford (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Gentlemen, your comments on the 'Faulty' fridge section below would be welcome. JRPG (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Back to the cladding: Grenfell cladding '14 times combustibility limit' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40645205 The cladding's plastic core would have burned "as quickly as petrol" David Crayford (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Parking a reference

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

compensation not getting through --ClemRutter (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Dany Cotton C4 Interview

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Worth a watch. https://www.channel4.com/news/dany-cotton-only-a-miracle-could-have-saved-grenfell David Crayford (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to pin down the number of firefighters. 5 FF per engine times 70 engines = 350. The only direct quote I have seen is "More than 200" but I will look further. Cotton says so many were present they could not all fit in the building and were limited by the single stairwell. David Crayford (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Investigations section in need of organisation

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

At the moment, there is one sub-section, about the Public Inquiry. The rest of the section has paragraphs in it which are about one or another type of investigation (RBKC, police, fire service) which are often mixed up in individual paras. There is also at least one para without any refs at all. I'm not suggesting that what's said in that para isn't valid, but.

I think the section needs to be sorted by subsection and trawled for pieces without any citation. Boscaswell talk 12:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I was thinking about this too. Initially, it was a small section but is growing over time. I have had a go at adding sensible sub-sections, grouping elements and referencing. This continues to be a work in progress. David Crayford (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - it's all still developing day-by-day, and will do, I'm sure, for many months yet. You did just fine, David, thank you! Boscaswell talk 20:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

'Faulty' fridge -comment please

Latest comment: 6 years ago18 comments10 people in discussion

Attempts by myself and This is Paul to add the word 'faulty' to the description of the fridge have been removed by two 1st time editors. The London Fire Brigade highlighted five months before the tragedy reasons why fridge are potentially dangerous.

While most fridges and freezers work safely for years, they are potentially the most dangerous appliance in the home if they are involved in a blaze because they contain so many flammable materials. They are also one of the few electrical items to be always left on when you are sleeping.

In English law it is unnecessary to prove a device is faulty if its behaviour clearly shows it is -see Res ipsa loquitur. I propose we say it is believed to be caused by a faulty fridge. There are of course far more important issues than the original quite small fire.
JRPG (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Certainly agree. Does anyone have a coherent argument for not using the word "faulty"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It was reported shorty after the time of the fire that there had been power surges in the building. It's possible that that caused a non-faulty fridge to burst onto flame. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Just the one appliance, then? Is there any source for these reports? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there an RS to support the statement that the fridge was faulty? -- de Facto (talk). 19:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes This quoting the police and The Independent though the Telegraph report is more circumspect -as I propose we should be. JRPG (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The initial reports (Independent 16th June ) reported a 'faulty fridge freezer later reports (Telegraph 23rd June ) had changed it. I have no qualms accepting that there had been power surge. It is a POV, that the power surge, could have caused the fridge freezer to fault, or develop a fault- hence change from being a working fridge freezer to a faulty fridge freezer. I prefer to use the earlier RS- not one published five days later when other influences could have required the editor to change the wording. Besides working fridge freezers don't burst into flames- it must have been faulty.--ClemRutter (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm now fully expecting Andy to tell us what the power surge tolerance is on the Hotpoint FF175BP. Not that that would be WP:OR, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(Edit clash) How odd, I used to work for NG -albeit mostly to do with gas and I thought I'd better look up whether anti-surge filters would be fitted to buildings like Grenfell. I note The Guardian re Grenfell in 2013 JRPG (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Those sound like speculation. I think we should wait until the facts are confirmed. -- de Facto (talk). 20:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

IMHO The alliterative phrase "faulty fridge" originates as a journalistic poetry soundbite. Possibly even from BBC as they are not beyond popular tabloidism. The fridge bit has been subject to alternative spelling debate but nobody thinks it was the talking toaster. I'd leave it bare until we have more data. Which might not take long. Very fluid and well-reported event. David Crayford (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

An informative & useful discussion -thank you. Given previous power surges I agree we can't blame the fridge ATM. FWIW, my own experience of damaging surges relates to transient spikes from emergency generators -which I've read the tower had albeit just for lighting.

JRPG (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It is wrong to state what caused this fire when it is still under investigation. It is as simple as that. Danrok (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Might be that the fridge wasn't faulty, but the electricity supply was. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If the fridge caught fire, it could be anything that caused it and not necessary the fridge was faulty. STSC (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Flamability of fridge compared with higher USA standards (mentioned previously) may have contributed. David Crayford (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

LFB has a campaign to improve white goods safety standards including how they are made, numbered and recalled: http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/LatestNewsReleases_Brigade-reissues-essential-safety-advice-on-white-goods-following-Grenfell-fire.asp

Linked to that LFB page is a video of a plastic backed fridge catching fire: http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/total-recalls/change-the-way-fridges-and-freezers-are-constructed.asp

David Crayford (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

currently, the 3rd para of the Cause & spread section gives info on repeated power surge problems. I can't see a reason to insist on 'faulty' being reinserted.Boscaswell talk 20:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The UK government has started to publish the fire test reports for various assemblies

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The first one is here. I don't have the time right now to add a full citation to the article, but at some point it might be a good idea to mention these tests and note that the first test was terminated at 8 minutes, because the assembly had already failed the test, when the assembly is supposed to withstand the fire for 40 minutes. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

New fire in Dubai

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here we go again: looks like it spread on the outside of the tower. "Massive fire breaks out at Dubai skyscraper" http://abcnews.go.com/International/massive-fire-breaks-dubai-skyscraper/story?id=49020386 David Crayford (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Video with sound on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ABC/status/893234385192972288 David Crayford (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Local

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Lacunae: For reference, both Akala and Lily Allen reportedly live in the area [1][2]. There was no need to repeat the word "local" though, so your edit is an improvement anyway. We could add those two sources to back up the assertion (still implicit in the text now) that they're locals. --Andreas JN 466 11:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Deconstruction

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

In British English, deconstruction is an Engineering term meaning to disassemble a structure:

1. (philosophy, literature) A philosophical theory of textual criticism; a form of critical analysis that emphasizes inquiry into the variable projection of the meaning and message of critical works, the meaning in relation to the reader and the intended audience, and the assumptions implicit in the embodied forms of expression.

2. The destroying or taking apart of an object; disassembly.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deconstruction

See also http://www.deconstructuk.com/ for a UK Engineering firm that uses the professional term.

BTW I am happy to leave @Lard_Almighty 's edit to Demolition but it is not technically the same thing :)

David Crayford (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It will be demolished, not deconstructed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction_(building): "In the context of physical construction, deconstruction is the selective dismantlement of building components, specifically for re-use, repurposing, recycling, and waste management. It differs from demolition where a site is cleared of its building by the most expedient means."#

The building will be demolished (that is also a term the source uses). I doubt very much that it will be a "selective dismantlement" for "reuse". Lard Almighty (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Grenfell Tower, I understand "deconstruction" mean a careful, methodical, demolition, as opposed to just bringing the tower down in one fell swoop. Mjroots (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but are they actually going to do that. The source uses both terms. As I said, deconstruction in an engineering context is usually done when there are things to recover for reuse or recycling, or when the structure is going to be rebuilt somewhere else. Neither would apply to Grenfell Tower. So once all the forensic and investigation work has been done, it is likely to be demolished, which does not necessarily mean bringing the building down in "one fell swoop" (e.g. by implosion). Demolition can also be methodical. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Edit Comment. QUOTE: "Deconstruction does not mean what you think it means! It's a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language that emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems."

I hope I clearly demonstrate the Engineering definition was intended, not philosophy. Either way, there is currently insufficient information publicly available to say what methods will be used. David Crayford (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

More reorganisation and re-writing with this...?

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

In the Political Criticism subsection of the Analyis section there is one massive para which is all to do with the Inquiry. I'm not suggesting that it be moved lock stock and barrel into the Inquiry subsection of the Investigations section, because it needs some re-writing itself, I think. And if it is moved just as it is then the Inquiry subsection in this article will be almost as big as the main article about the Inquiry. But clearly something should be done about this. I have limited Wiki time and work mainly on the Inquiry and Moore-Bick articles, so it won't be me who does it and I'm pointing out the problem here for those working on this article, since when I read through most of the article just now, the point I'm making sprung to mind immediately. Boscaswell talk 19:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes! To be honest, I have been scrolling past it without reading and I bet most people browsing the page are doing the same. Not impossible to break up (it's shorter than an NTSB report) but it's going to take a bit longer than 10 minutes. David Crayford ☎ 00:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the style manual - there are no hard and fast rules on headings b/c of the diverse nature of subject matter. Anyway, have put more bones in to hang paras off. David Crayford ☎ 01:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, David! Boscaswell talk 20:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of the enquiry

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I am parking three references here that will be useful.

Guardian child-abuse-panel-members-say-inquiries-are-not-independent

and

Guardian fire-brigades-union

and

Guardian broadening to include council response

I also want to use the opportunity to thank David Crayford for all his hard work in monitoring this article ClemRutter (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank @David Crayford: for his unceasing work on this article. I'd get involved, but looking after (primarily) the Inquiry article is enough for me. So I'll take this opportunity to point out to you, David, that in the two PDF docs newly-referenced in the new Social housing subsection to the Terms section of the Inquiry article, which are letters to and fro between Moore-Bick and TMay about the Terms, M-B appears to be asking for more leniency from the PM about immigration status so that those currently fearful can come forward and bear witness, but this request is in effect refused by her. Hey, you could use my newly-written refs for the docs! ;) I hope this helps. Boscaswell talk 17:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: I just wanted to point out that the main Inquiry article is just that and the piece about it in this article shouldn't be long. Boscaswell talk 18:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Boscaswell: Yes I had missed it. I have concentrated on other subsidiary articles such as Lancaster West Estate, Grenfell Tower and the Kensington Aldridge Academy- so going back to the main article was like going in afresh. I have added a hatnote and a further {{main}} link. I'll pop over to 'your article' and have a look- from the POV of the naive general reader- delete if I start getting too political. ClemRutter (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: will do! ;) It's not so much my article of course, but hardly anyone else has written anything. It only gets on average <100 hits per day anyway. Were you aware of this little marvel: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2017-06-30&end=2017-07-16&pages=Grenfell_Tower_Fire_Inquiry Boscaswell talk 20:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: @Boscaswell: Thanks, both. Glad my numerous additions (and subtractions) count. Lets hope society will rise stronger from this whole flaming mess. David Crayford ☎ 00:18, 18 August 2017

Photo

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone have a photo of the building after the refurbishment? All I'm currently seeing is either before the refurbishment or during/after the fire.MartinezMD (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please. Does anyone have current or historic photos of any council estate. This is a black hole on commons. It is very easy to upload using Commons upload wizard. I need interior shots, vistas from the tower- anything! I need shots of the finger blocks, and the later housing for Lancaster West Estate and anything on the Silchester Estate. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

this is a useful source of images. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Ref Audit

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Doing some prep with idea of making chronology into a table. Just found some live news site Refs were updated, so no longer prove the text. Think it might be a good idea to work through from the top to check them, bit by bit.

David Crayford ☎ 21:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Once or twice a while back I ran this tool to archive links so the archives may be valid even if the current urls have changed. For these sort of topics it's worth archiving each reference as soon as it is used. Thincat (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Thincat: Thanks for advice. Thought you *were* a robot. Very pleased to be wrong! :)

David Crayford ☎ 00:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

To Do

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Added a To Do box. I am still a novice editor so feel free to work on this if you know better. David Crayford ☎ 01:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Jon Snow comments on the social divide between reporters and the residents

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Firstly- parking a reference.Ruddick, Graham (23 August 2017). "Jon Snow: reporting on Grenfell made me feel on wrong side of social divide". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 August 2017..

This could open a whole new section if anyone is brave enough to tackle it- it is not just the news media, but also Wikipedia that suffers from the same perspectives. Why for instance was there no article on the innovative Grenfell Tower, or indeed The Lancaster West Estate until after the event? --ClemRutter (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @ClemRutter: I need to read this. There is a Social Division heading under Political Criticism. To answer the question: Notability? We now have a reason for the tower being of considerable note. But why would it be notable before the fire? As part of a general article on Social Housing or Tower Block Architecture maybe: but was there anything special about this particular tower before the fire? Who would have thought to document this, unless they had a conflict of interest? I recognise your point is wider than this page. David Crayford ☎ 16:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@David Crayford: Notable! Construction technique- framed unlike Ronan Point. Six flats not the usual four. Internal service wells unlike Trelleck. On the cusp of funding changes which meant Lancaster West Estate was designed to Parker Morris standards, then stopped half way and the rest built to the reduced space standard, and then using in house LCC designers.This was the only tower block to be designed by that architect. That it is was reluctantly included in the original plan to push up the density of the estate. Mmm.

Snow appears to be widening this debate and as WP is strong on using the notable sources he is talking about, there is an implication that we are part of the elite too. This is an article where I will use the talk page, but will not edit as my politics might show through. Do what you can with the new source. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 August 2017

@ClemRutter: - please do edit the article, doing your best to remain neutral. Other editors will stop you getting wildly out of control. It should all balance out in the end. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Seconded, -many will actually agree with you & I include members of all 3 main parties. JRPG (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

How about a "Media response" subsection on coverage and include Snow? I understand anyone wary of the politics: its an easy way to upset folks. Simpler to do police figures or the height of the building. Also the detail can be worthy, boring and endless. I started noticing how good news reports carefully hedge their language. David Crayford ☎ 17:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

OK you are twisting my arm- so I have put in a couple of short paragraphs.ClemRutter (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Thanks, man. I have this as number 12 on my To Do list. David Crayford ☎ 21:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@David Crayford: Then I looked at ==Political Criticism== in disbelief and googled "austerity caused grenfell tower"

I came up with https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/28/grenfell-tower-fire-was-tory-austerity-to-blame-or-do-problems-date-back-to-blair and a string of other references ... , open up your to-do list. ClemRutter (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: This might be a good time for me to start a Bullet journal. David Crayford ☎ 00:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I have had a look at our politcal criticisms, and it seems out aim to be NPOV has caused all our referencing (and writing) to err on the side of the establishment. We couldn't use the Grenfell Residents blog as a source NS when in effect we should have been- and shouting loudly too. I have started with a mind of NPOV but also non-establishmentarianism to write in the political criticism section. Support needed- but it does give some indicators.ClemRutter (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts are that if we have 5 or 10 quotes all supporting the same argument, can we consolidate those into one point stating the argument itself and its supporters rather than a list of quotations? My aim being to make for a more efficient reading experience. Obviously, its still a reasonably young page and there will be expansion for some time yet, although the event itself has finished so that's not going to change. I'll look at Snow's video and (ongoing learning) at other articles for ideas about structure, style et al. David Crayford ☎ 15:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@David Crayford: This does take a bit of distance- and a lot of thought. I think that articles have a life- they start unstructured and small- then grow and grow to the point where we are proud of them- but to become a GA or FA they have to gain focus and will contract sharply. We have approached this one in an exemplary way so far, and your diligence has ensured that we have missed nothing. Some of the stuff can now go, but it is time to review our balance and per 'Jon Snow' check that we are representing the victims, and not just playing out the battles oń the 'medias agenda'. ClemRutter (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Watson Street fire

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I found the following text has been commented out in Similar fires - UK. Should it be deleted, left as is or put back in?

Not a fire that spread through exterior wall assemblies:
*1905 [[Watson Street fire]] – a major fire in Glasgow which led to building regulation changes [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08y24f5 BBC podcast]

David Crayford ☎ 12:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@David Crayford: the golden rule: did a reliable source connect it to the subject of the article (I'd check myself but cannot listen to a podcast at my location)? VQuakr (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Thanks for reply. Will take time to follow this up and remove if unusable. David Crayford ☎ 00:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@VQuakr: OK I could not play it either: you need to register for iPlayer now and thats not open enough for here. Also from reader comments to a newspaper report on the programme it appears the link is "tenuous" so I am just going to cut this (enthusiastic journalism) out completely. REF: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15418996.Glasgow_tenement_fire_that_killed_39_men_was__just_like_Grenfell___show_claims/ David Crayford ☎ 18:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@David Crayford and VQuakr: First apologies for the slow response due to a gremlin hitting my watchlist. Second, more apologies that you can't read it. It is a downloadable MP3 podcast in the UK & I didn't need to register or sign in to IPlayer. It is also most unfortunate that the fire isn't covered at all in Wikipedia & this will need to be done but its way past my bedtime. The BBC and other Scottish sources link Grenfell and Watson street through similarities in the tenants social background, the ignored safety standards AND propagation by external cladding.

A Google search shows Death in a Lodging House Remembering the Glasgow tragedy which killed 39 of the city's poorest workers ..The victims perished in a lodging house that had been lauded as a 'model', but proved to be a wooden-clad deathtrap. -an article which describes the fire as spread by the wooden cladding and Street Fire, Glasgow, 1905 ,,Like Glenfell Tower a social housing disaster

Regards JRPG (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@JRPG and VQuakr: Was it a High Rise? Note the section opens with:

Similar fires

The following are similar high-rise fires that spread through exterior wall assemblies (cladding, insulation, wall) containing combustible components.

David Crayford ☎ 22:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi David and thanks for an early response. I think the section title should be altered to refer to fires spreading via the building's structure so that the otherwise relevant Summerland fire can be logically included. Given the problems I won't press the Watson street comparison until it has an article. Regards JRPG (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@JRPG: Logically, one could exclude the Summerland fire to keep the list pure, Captain. I have not checked if there is one, but could these fires form the basis for a list style article?

David Crayford ☎ 12:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Material used on the outside of the Summerland building was partly responsible for the severity of the fire. It should be kept. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi David, I strongly agree with Mjroots, the common & deadly aspect of these fires is not really the height of the building but the spread of the fire via an inflammable external structure. Ronan point sorted out much of the risk of structural collapse before Grenfell though a few Ronan point era buildings weren't properly fixed. JRPG (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@JRPG and Mjroots: I also strongly agree, given the human scale and nature of the event. But mathematically, my ridiculous alternative was a logical possibility.

Live Long And Prosper. :-) David Crayford ☎ 07:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

No problems -and psychologically rational anyway. I suspect whatever we say or do our readers will associate Grenfell with the dangers of high rise living and not inflammable structures. Regards JRPG (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"While the Review will cover the regulatory system for all buildings, it will have a specific focus on multi occupancy high rise residential buildings." [Ind Review Building Regs & Fire Safety] David Crayford ☎ 15:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Independent Review of Building Regulations

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Government published terms of reference for Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety. Need to do some restructuring to consolidate this subject as its mentioned in more than one place. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-review-of-building-regulations-and-fire-safety-publication-of-terms-of-reference David Crayford ☎ 13:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I propose we have some kind of "ongoing" section where we can dump consequential events such as this review, public enquiry, inquests, etc. to keep it all together. Welcome to any ideas. David Crayford ☎ 13:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I think an embedded WP:TIMELINE, with the likely end state as a spinoff timeline at something like Timeline of the Grenfell Tower fire and investigation, would be appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Video on twitter

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I understand that social media is not always a reliable source but where does Wikipedia stand on using video footage from a verified account from a public figure as a reference when social media is an increasingly popular communications vector for official bodies? Example: Dany Cotton video shared by LFB. https://twitter.com/LondonFire/status/903260089020272641/video/1 David Crayford ☎ 20:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

For an article like this I would prefer sources over Twitter however if there is none then Twitter in my eyes is the next best thing, FWIW I use Twitter for sources if nothing else is available but yeah can't see why Twitter cannot be used especially when it's coming from a verified and legit account. –Davey2010^Talk 21:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Social media doesn't vet sources, so anything on Twitter isn't a reliable secondary source. But sources on Twitter and similar can still be used in some situations, as discussed at WP:SELFPUB and WP:SPS. It would be better if the Twitter-published video could be paired with a written description of the information from a reliable source; that also helps with accessibility for WP readers that cannot watch video. VQuakr (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for comments. Nobody could reasonably argue that Commissioner Dany Cotton or The London Fire Brigade are not credible sources! But the point about access and bandwidth is an understandable consideration. Some places may firewall twitter or video, even if they have a fast enough connection. Some concepts are luddite and backward facing, so I will have to make my own judgements in context. David Crayford ☎ 00:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Twitter is my least favourite source because we can all think of cases where the output was hasty, ill considered and later bitterly regretted. The London Fire Brigade & many public bodies will have a media trained operative who knows what he/she is doing but it's impossible to generalise. JRPG (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The main picture for this page was taken by a twitter user. Her pictures were used by AFP and The Daily Telegraph. For speed of reporting and access to eyewitness material it is hard to beat citizen journalism. I follow many official and journalistic sources in real time. And fact-check pro-actively and collaboratively. And submit corrections to journalists.

My main point is about a verified official source using social media. If the White House post something on their official YouTube channel it is still the US Federal Government, even if they use the medium of YouTube. Some editors seem to object to *anything* that uses social media. But it is just another method, like handwriting, printing or broadcasting. It can be used by anyone for good or evil, and any method can be hacked, spoofed or forged. So, it does come down to the common sense and thoughtful judgement of a human, not an algorithm. David Crayford ☎ 12:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is covered in the policy I linked above: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." VQuakr (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Cat survivor

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this worthy of inclusion or not? Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think many Love pets died .... in the BBC 21st floor program a child was carrying a Dog but it was not made clear if the dog made it. Pauseypaul (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grenfell Tower fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gI2d-LIqHhIJ:www.kctmo.org.uk/sub/assets-and-regeneration/152/grenfell-tower-q-and-as-remote-heat-metering+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk with https://web.archive.org/web/20170614133303/http://www.kctmo.org.uk/sub/assets-and-regeneration/152/grenfell-tower-q-and-as-remote-heat-metering on http://www.kctmo.org.uk/sub/assets-and-regeneration/152/grenfell-tower-q-and-as-remote-heat-metering

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Overview

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

IP Overview ranting

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is the overview of "such substandard content" that the article is better off without any overview at all? I thought this overview had been achieved, by consensus, after months of editing, as an acceptable stable version of a summary. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The lead section is the overview. No "acceptable stable version" of any article would ever start with the sentence "Firefighters rescued 65 people." I doubt very much that you even looked at the text before you put it back. Exactly where do you think a consensus was formed for including such substandard material? 2.25.45.249 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

So, you want to remove the first sentence? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No. If I wanted to remove the first sentence, I would have removed the first sentence. I removed all the material which fell woefully short of encyclopaedic quality. You seem to be trolling. 2.25.45.249 (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) So far, the only concrete argument you've presented 'No "acceptable stable version" of any article would ever start with the sentence "Firefighters rescued 65 people."' appears to be a misunderstanding. The article does not and never has started with "Firefighters rescued 65 people". Whether you doubt that Martinevans123 looked at the text before putting it back is neither here nor there. Please provide some concrete rationale (beyond "you should know better, otherwise what are you doing editing an encyclopedia" (paraphrasing)) why the entire referenced section, which you removed without improvement or substitution, should remain outside the article, thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The anon IP has just been blocked for block evasion. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. I think the first sentence was a fact, supported by reliable sources.

local issue

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've added the polling of Courtfield ward to the "Council response" section. Feel free of course to remove & discuss if you feel it's controversial. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sky News investigation

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This makes interesting reading. Probably worthy of a subsection of its own. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of criticism

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've undone this unexplained removal of criticism from the article. It is not Wikipedia's job to suppress criticisms made in respect of the fire, events leading up to it, or events afterwards. It is simply our job to report the facts, and supply references for material incorporated into the article. Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I'm attempting to rewrite these parts of the article is because many sections are jumbled, violate NPOV, duplicate content from elsewhere in the article or any combination of the three. The article needs rewriting. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said, the removal was unexplained as there was no edit summary. I accepted that the edit had been made in good faith which is why I undid it instead of using rollback. On the face of it, it seemed to me to be a case of censorship. Your comments below are noted and I'll respond there. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Quick review

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Some rewriting is needed, for the reasons I raised on the above thread.

Overview: As complex as this article is becoming, I don't think this section is of much use.
Building: The first subsections are mostly okay. However, the later subsections need rewriting. This is section is about prior events but there are too many hindsight comments. Some of this content duplicates or needs moving to the political section.
Fire: Mostly okay.
Casualties: Mostly okay. This section is related to the Impact subsection but probably too big to merge with it.
Impact: Mostly okay.
Reactions: Mostly okay but probably should go directly beneath the Fire section.
Rehousing: Probably should go under Impact.
Direct causes: Some of this belongs in or duplicates the section on regulation failures.
Emergency response issues: A subsection title header for problems specific to the site.
Regulation failures: needs a clearer narrative. It doesn't clearly answer the question of why flammable cladding gets approved. Even if nobody fully knows, it could at least explain what is known and what is unknown. Criticism of government would fit better into the section below.
Political criticism: This section has POV issues. For instance, there are no quotes from a politician in the governing party or council ruling group, but many from their rivals and critics. Comments about regulation should be merged into the above section.
Fire and structural reviews: Perhaps needs better narrative flow.
Investigations: As these have more official status than fire safety reviews, they should go first.
Demolition: This section is very short, though I admit there doesn't seem to be anywhere else to fit it.

Anywikiuser (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Anywikiuser (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Re point 11, it is difficult to give quotes from the ruling party if they are all keeping schtum. I had this issue with the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident, where there was much criticism of the train operator involved, but said operator generally refused to speak to the press.

Re point 14, the demolition section is necessarily short at the moment. It will no doubt be expanded in due course as the building is taken down. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

However, this is different. It would be hard to argue that anyone outside of one organisation (WCRC) was to blame for the Wootton Bassett SPAD incident. This incident is far more serious and its causes are far more complex. Some are treating it as politically charged. Because of this, I don't know how possible it is to produce balanced coverage, but we can do surely better than this. For instance, in one of the two moments I could find when someone from the council is given a voice, the text introduces his words in this way: "he was criticised for his remark that..."

The other problem is that many subsections have become jumbled. For example, look at the "Neglect" subsection. The first paragraph is about how the council was criticised for its response. Then we have a line when Sadiq Khan blames "neglect" for causing the fire. The next sentence of the paragraph says that there are calls for the council leader "and some others" to resign, without saying who these calls were by and who the "some others" were. In fact, he resigned a few weeks later. If he hadn't, this would belong in the "Impact" section. The last paragraph begins a quote from a journalist from a socialist American magazine about how the "a symbol of the United Kingdom's deep inequality", followed by stuff which mostly duplicates content from the "Social division" subsection.

The obvious solution is to edit this subsection, however the nearby neighbouring subsections are just as bad (and any criticism of the inquiry really should go on the inquiry's article, rather than here). I'm writing this to illustrate the problem, which I guess is a result of piecemeal editing. Anywikiuser (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Review of building regulations

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently Hackitt's review is nested in Section 11. I think it could be promoted up and expanded now the interim report is published. This section might need restructuring. David Crayford ☎ 17:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yo User:David Crayford....

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Forgive me but why does it seem like you are changing the timestamps on your posts on this talkpage?... Shearonink (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a fair point. I edit my own comments in the "Ongoing News" list to clean it up, and replace the timestamp when I edit. This section changes with the news cycle. When I don't have time to edit the main page, or a story is first developing, I will put it on the list if significant. When subjects in this list are moved to the main page I remove them. Think of it as a rolling To Do list, similar to the To Do box at the top of this page. I do not modify comments made by other editors. I could have made a To Do list in my own user space, but it is more visible and useful to other editors to place it here. Two examples: The Met asking the Home Office to pay for the investigation, and KPMG quitting as auditor. There is no attempt to hide anything. Hope that helps. David Crayford ☎ 16:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Speeding paramedic - to archive

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Grenfell Tower fire paramedic caught speeding at 116mph http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-42643329 David Crayford ☎ 01:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

(What has this got to do with the fire? journalist making news for the sake of selling papers. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC))

Agree, irrelevant, no need to cover it. Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for input. Moved this so it goes to archive. David Crayford ☎ 16:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox building

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This edit by Smithr32 removed the {{Infobox building}} from the article. I've given this some thought, and on balance I think that the article is poorer without it. I can seen the reasoning behind the removal, which is why I'm raising this for discussion rather than reverting. Should the infobox be restored to the article or not? Mjroots (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Impact - expand to cover buildings at-risk

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could the impact section be expanded to mention investigations about similar buildings e.g. whether they will have cladding removed or replaced, who is paying/will pay for it, freeholders & councils refusing to pay for work which they/someone says is needed following the fire and leaseholders being charged huge sums for such work.Zaq69 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing news

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Going to park news here that can be mined / referenced. Will move some material to the article.

Collections

Government docs https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/grenfell-tower
Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/grenfell-tower-fire

Video

James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture: Jon Snow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpMI3nWsrY
Grenfell Tower: The 21st floor – BBC Newsnight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cY_fgeeCzc

News

Council leader heckled. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/grenfell-tower-kensington-and-chelsea-council-leader-heckled-with-calls-to-resign-at-tense-meeting-a3618796.html
Sadiq Khan demands Government creates first social housing tsar after Grenfell. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-khan-demands-government-creates-first-social-housing-tsar-after-grenfell-a3624736.html
Sajid Javid: Statement on Grenfell Tower: 5 September 2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-on-grenfell-tower-september-2017
Firefighters' union recommends random high rise checks https://stv.tv/news/politics/1397381-firefighters-union-recommends-random-high-rise-checks/
New boss in charge of finding homes for Grenfell families will earn £100k https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/new-boss-in-charge-of-finding-homes-for-grenfell-families-will-earn-100k-a3631586.html
Australia must ban cladding of type linked to Grenfell disaster, inquiry finds https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/06/australia-must-ban-cladding-of-type-linked-to-grenfell-disaster-inquiry-finds
Grenfell Tower fire: 'Cyanide' foam also in sheltered homes http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41246630
BBC Blog: some details of the Inquiry announced http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-41264197
Fire staff on long-term mental health leave up by 30% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41164996
Police probe 'fraud cases and thefts' following Grenfell Tower disaster https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/police-probe-fraud-cases-and-thefts-following-grenfell-tower-disaster-a3638266.html
Grenfell Tower fire is a 'crime' that should topple the government, says Fire Brigade Union chief http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/grenfell-tower-fire-crime-fire-brigade-union-fbu-matt-wrack-topple-theresa-may-tory-government-a7967471.html
Grenfell contractor: Sprinklers would have saved tower http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41230521
Glasgow flats with Grenfell-type cladding to be identified https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1398652-glasgow-flats-with-grenfell-type-cladding-to-be-identified/
BBC: Grenfell Tower management body's contract terminated http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41422255
Telegraph: Management firm loses housing contract http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/28/grenfell-tower-management-firm-loses-housing-contract/
BBC Newsnight: The 21st floor http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Grenfell_21st_floor
Grenfell fire: 'Water in insulation may have accelerated fire' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-berkshire-41445559/grenfell-fire-water-in-insulation-may-have-accelerated-fire
Nicholas Paget-Brown stands down as councillor http://news.sky.com/story/grenfell-tower-fire-former-council-leader-nicholas-paget-brown-quits-11088513
Reality Check: Is Grenfell Tower council outspending the government? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41724262
Fire chiefs call for sprinklers in all UK schools http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41744582
Grenfell: MSPs back unannounced fire safety inspections https://stv.tv/news/politics/1401034-grenfell-msps-back-unannounced-fire-safety-inspections/
Fire rips through factory owned by maker of Grenfell Tower cladding panels https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/fire-rips-through-factory-owned-by-maker-of-grenfell-tower-cladding-panels-a3676516.html
Grenfell Tower: Taskforce says 320 families are in hotels http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41894673
Why no-one heard the Grenfell blogger's warnings http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-42072477
Grenfell Tower fire: Building safety cuts corners, says review http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42392138#
Grenfell Tower management company hands responsibility back to council https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/26/grenfell-tower-management-company-hands-responsibility-back-to-council
Fire in Manchester city centre block of flats http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-42524546
DCLG from 8 Jan 2018 is Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)
Residents asked to foot £2m bill to replace Grenfell-like cladding http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42726315
Government introduces new product safety office http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42760756
Cladding in just three out of 300 tower blocks replaced in wake of Grenfell Tower tragedy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/22/cladding-just-three-300-tower-blocks-replaced-wake-grenfell/
Firefighter Ricky Nuttall Newsnight Video http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-42813120/grenfell-firefighter-i-just-felt-broken
LFB: Total Recalls campaign victory as Government confirms database of deadly white goods http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/LatestNewsReleases_Total-Recalls-campaign-victory-22-01-2018.asp#.WmX8na5l-Uk
Grenfell Tower conman Anh Nhu Nguyen jailed for family deaths lie http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43006691
Cladding fitted to Grenfell Tower 'was never fire safety tested' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-cladding-fire-safety-checked-acm-cladding-aluminium-composite-material-reynobond-a8200801.html

Latest

One of last people pulled from Grenfell Tower dies seven months later http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/27/one-last-people-pulled-grenfell-tower-dies-seven-months-later-7346680/
Grenfell Tower fire survivors to get final say over site http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43244766
Grenfell Tower doors 'resisted fire for half the time expected' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43413989

David Crayford ☎ 12:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ministers refusing to honour commitment to pay for fire-safety improvements in other tower blocks https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/06/ministers-refusing-pay-improvements-fire-safety-grenfell : ClemRutter (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Life in the shadow of Grenfell tower- testimony from Whitstable Tower on Silchester Estate. https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/ng-interactive/2017/nov/18/life-shadow-grenfell-tower-next-door ClemRutter (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Emma Dent Coad MP profile. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/19/emma-dent-coad-grenfell-interview-shaun-bailey ClemRutter (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Schools response to grieving children https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/nov/27/grenfell-children-art-schools-tower ClemRutter (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Report into Response Failings ClemRutter (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Grenfell Tower fire: Soaring cost of high-rise fire safety (BBC) Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Residents of tower block with Grenfell type cladding told to pay for its replacement Mjroots (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Names of the victims

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There is an external link to the Guardian article that names the victims giving mini-testimonials. Is this enough- I have refrained from doing anything as I have mixed feelings about how it fits in with wikipedias perception of the scope of an encyclopedia. Also I would know how much prominence to give it. In deciding, not to do so- I became conscious that to deny the victims their place here was a deeply offensive political act, condoning one political view of social housing. We have a whole article on Steven Lawrence so why are these childrens' names denied their place. Can we comment on this and work up a method. --ClemRutter (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a memorial site. Providing an external link to a complete list of the victims is appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Photos from May 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am leaving a note here for the editors of this article to say that I have recently uploaded a set of photos of Grenfell Tower and the surrounds in May 2018. See commons:Category:Grenfell Tower - after fire and commons:Category:Grenfell Tower - memorials and appeals on site and look for files with 'May 2018' in the filename (I will add a photo or two to the articles, but please add or remove photos as needed). The scaffolding has been gradually inching up the tower over the past year, along with the white sheeting, and I thought it would be good to have photos of the tower as it now looks. I will try and get more photos if and when the scaffolding and sheeting is extended to the whole tower. Presumably at some point the planned deconstruction/demolition/taking down of the tower will happen, and hopefully someone can document that with photos for use on Wikipedia as well. What will happen after that, I am not sure, though there may be some information in recent official reports and news reports. Carcharoth (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

UK government admits £400m to replace flammable cladding will be taken from Affordable Homes Programme

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/23/replacing-cladding-on-tower-blocks-will-mean-fewer-affordable-homes

John Cummings (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of reporting

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does the section Timeline of reporting still serve a useful purpose? 80.2.41.198 (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Shows how events unfolded and the reactions to them in the days after the fire. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

LRB article

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This - very long - article in the London Review of Books is a compelling read, and has lots of information which may be of use in this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Repeated repeated

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a lot of repetition in this article. I've cut some of it, but someone with a better understanding of its structure needs to step in and work out what information will be in each section, then delete the same information from other sections. EddieHugh (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Behailu Kebede

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm just looking at this diff, and wondering if the consensus on not naming him in the article still stands? He's been widely named in the coverage of the inquiry; it seems remarkable for Wikipedia to refuse to do so. Vashti (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with MPS1992. The inquiry has heard evidence that Mr. Kebede has has threats to his life made, and has had to enter a witness protection programme. BLP / BLP1E is the key here. Is the article substantially improved by naming him? I cannot see that it is. He is not a Wikinotable person, nor is there any suggestion of criminality on his part, so we should allow him to return to his previous state of being just another member of the public. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and would not that police are not treating him as a suspect. Anywikiuser (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

OTD

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I've scheduled the article to appear as part on On This Day on 14 June. Currently, there is one paragraph that is unreferenced. Can we either find references for this paragraph or remove it. There are some editors that would say this is enough reason to prevent its appearance. My own view is that one unreferenced paragraph in an article with over 400 references should not be a big deal. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Which paragraph is unreferenced? Its a big article. Man Over-bored (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Under the heading "fake news"; the paragraph "In the immediate aftermath of the fire, a number of unsubstantiated reports about casualties circulated online which were to later be debunked." has no citations - but but is supported by the citations in the rest of that section; much like the lede of a whole article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

By definition, Fake News often has unreliable references. David Crayford ☎ 17:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to cut the enitre Fake News section. Many stories today will have this dimention. Is it noteworthy enough for inclusion? Wikipedia is not the right platform for documenting fake news - unless it is in an article about fake news itself. Anyone else feel like nuking this section? David Crayford ☎ 18:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

While these reports are false and distasteful by their very existence, someone searching for information on the fire may come upon them. So I think it's important to leave a mention that false information exists, and that they were discredited. I've trimmed most of the detail and retained the references. This way an interested person can read for themselves. This solves the issue of undue weight by minimizing the section from 4 paragraphs to 1. MartinezMD (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

71,909 page views on 14.06.2018 [3] David Crayford ☎ 09:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

BBC documentary on Iplayer

Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Just in case anyone hasn't seen it there is an excellent BBC documentary including interviews with the residents whose human compassion and organising skills contrasts sharply -in my opinion -with Kensington & Chelsea council. JRPG (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: available for 25 more days, i.e. until 11 July 2018. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

iPlayer is for registered UK viewers only. Wikipedia is international.David Crayford ☎ 14:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't mean the documentary can't be used as a source. MPS1992 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

After 11 July It won't be visible? Does that matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No, but sources that are more widely accessible are preferred, if they can be used to source the same information. MPS1992 (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything said above. It can be used as a source & is extremely good background material -though probably familiar to most editors here. Much better however to look for another source having found out more info. I was unaware that May's promise to rehouse everyone, not only wasn't completed in the 3 weeks specified, it wasn't even half completed a year later and many people will find that shocking. JRPG (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, it is clear that all the families were offered new housing, it is that most of them chose (as is their right) to reject the offers and keep waiting for better options. Getting the balance between sorting this as soon as possible, and getting it right rather than rushing it is clearly not easy. On the iplayer programmes, there are a number of these. Some are no longer available, such as the live broadcast of the memorial service (from December 2017). There are also parliamentary debates and news programme features. The longer documentaries are mostly still available. As well as the one mentioned above (Grenfell on 11 June 2018) there have been: Before Grenfell: A Hidden History on 13 June 2018, BBC News Special: Grenfell - One Year On on 14 June 2018, and Reggie Yates: Searching for Grenfell's Lost Lives on 25 March 2018. There is also Panorama: Grenfell: Who is to blame? on 21 May 2018. And Songs of Praise (10 June 2018), but that is veering deep into 'human interest' coverage, of which there are large amounts in many newspapers and which is probably not encyclopaedic (though it would be nice to acknowledge that coverage in some way). If reviews can be found of these programmes (the documentaries at least), then a short section on documentaries about the event can be started. In due course, I expect you will have books as well. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your oversight and suggestions. I've added external links over time. Subject will continue to grow for years with text books, autobiographies, films, the inquiry, trials, legislation. We are not short of material. What we are short of is structure and concise writing to aid navigation, readability and maintenance. David Crayford ☎ 10:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts precisely. There are still some parts of the article that are hard for a visitor to read because they have too much information. We can always split things off into other articles or direct people to other sources if they want to know more. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I just looked on Amazon for books related to Grenfell. I was surprised at how much it is already out there (well, it has been a year). Can Neoliberalism Be Saved From Itself?, poems for Grenfell Tower, The Grenfell Tower Fire: An Investigation, Into the Fire: My Life as a London Firefighter, The cause and analysis of fire at Grenfell Tower, After the Fire: Finding words for Grenfell, 24 Stories: of Hope for Survivors of the Grenfell Tower Fire, The Grenfell tower, Grenfell Hope: Stories from the community. Bit of mixed bag. One of the print-on-demand ones might even be a repackaging of this article. There are also mentions appearing in academic books from reputable publishers. As an aside (very briefly!), the evolution of articles from using news sources to using printed sources doesn't always happen, or at least not smoothly - a case in point is the evolution of the Hurricane Katrina article over time (or pick any disaster article that was extensively covered in the news media with those reports used to build a Wikipedia article). I'll stop there. I have a photo of the tower with the banners on top - I will upload that soon. Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

BBC have a daily podcast that may be of interest. Tower Inquiry Podcast David Crayford ☎ 23:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Mile End tower fire

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Another fire. Tower reportedly has cladding. [Video footage Mile End fire] David Crayford ☎ 12:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The Sun! Really, they're reporting that someone else reports that their building is cladded. And on a closer read, that may not actually be the one on fire—it's a little ambiguous. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It's out. Seems all got out. Sun removed reference to cladding, locals say its not clad and you can see the pictures for yourself. David Crayford ☎ 13:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Courtfield ward questionaire

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've re-added a very few words on the Courtfield ward leaflet issued 5 months after the fire together with 4 references. This was widely covered BUT -as the sources indicate -it is an indication of how important some councillors feel the issue is. Despite 50 years+ interest in politics, I haven't ever seen such a trivialisation of a disaster like this. I hope I misinterpreted what you meant Anywikiuser. JRPG (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Having seen leaflets at various points in the past that contained dog-whistle messaging, lies and personal attacks, I was sceptical that a leaflet asking residents to "rate the importance" was noteworthy enough for the article. I admit I didn't read the sources at the time, and now the cause of offence is now at least explained better. Here's the test for notability: suppose someone had handed out a leaflet like this in a Bradford ward 5 months after the Bradford stadium fire – would it be worth including on that article? Anywikiuser (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm very pleased you say you didn't read the sources but there's no excuse at all for the councillors who produced the survey. Re Braford city fire which I'm less familiar with, I note in the lead "Bradford City continues to support the Burns Unit at Bradford Royal Infirmary as its official charity." Evidence that they at least didn't regard the disaster as trivial and that the Wikipedia editors of that article regard it as significant. Regards JRPG (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Missing image

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

We still do not have a photo of the building before it burned (after the cladding was installed). We have only photos before the cladding was installed, or after it burned. MartinezMD (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Geograph has this 2009 image which we can use. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Available on Commons as File:Lancaster West Estate - geograph.org.uk - 1236020.jpg. Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Too much tree, not enough cladding visible sadly. MartinezMD (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Ignore the above, I misread the question. What we are looking for is post cladding and pre fire. Nothing on Geograph. Mjroots (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct. What did the building look like shortly before it burned? That's the image we need imho. MartinezMD (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing freely available on Flickr either. Might be possible to use a non-free image with suitable rationales, or persuade a photographer to release under a Wikipedia compatible licence. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

After a look on Google Images, I found a couple of pictures of how it appeared in the 11 month period between when the works finished and the fire. However, these all come from news sources so can't be freely used. Anywikiuser (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Talking of images, the current appearance of the tower has changed again. I took the May 2018 image with the protective covering and scaffolding reaching to near the top of the tower. At the start of May, this news story said "Victims of the fire want the safety screen to be changed to green, which could cost an estimated £400,000." That was followed by this story a week ago (beginning of June 2018) where the top of the tower does now have some green in the form of a heart on banners saying 'Grenfell - Forever in our hearts'. When my train went past the tower this morning, I could see that they have finished putting these banners up. It has been done for the 1-year anniversary tomorrow (14 June). If anyone reading this is paying their respects at the events marking the anniversary, they could maybe get some photos (depending on the situation and if it is appropriate). There is an article here about some of the events taking place, with a 24-hour vigil starting at 6pm today. Something about that could be added to the article. Will probably need its own section, though not sure where (the article is a bit large!). Carcharoth (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Shirley Towers fire

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

@Jpmaytum: Thank you for your addition but did the Shirley Towers fire involve external cladding? This seems to be the characteristic editors use for it to count here under "Similar Fires." David Crayford ☎ 21:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

If the criterion for inclusion is fires that were spread via external cladding (and that is what the section introduction says), then Lakanal House should not be included either. The fire at LH spread because "botched renovations had removed fire-stopping material between flats and communal corridors". Although the cladding "burnt through in just four and a half minutes" it did not contribute to the spread of the fire (unlike Grenfell, the cladding was not continuous up the side of the building). 80.2.41.198 (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks David. As the previous comment noted the Lakanal fire didn't involve cladding, neither did the Harrow Court fire (which also had spread up the side of the building). The most relevant reasons for linking to the Shirley Towers fire - in my view - are that the Coroner issued a Rule 43 notice to government (and other bodies) calling for the retrofitting of sprinklers into all tower blocks over 30 metres tall. Also the Shirley Towers fire led directly to changes in building regulations, which is also relevant.

Jpmaytum (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at pre-Grenfell coverage of the Lakanal House inquest, such as here, it appears that cladding was a major factor. The effect wasn't nearly as dramatic, because the facade of Lakanal had external walkways that separated the rows of cladding panels, whereas Grenfell had continuous cladding. The Lakanal fire also started much higher up. The quote that "botched renovations had removed fire-stopping material between flats and communal corridors" refers to another factor in Lakanal, which was that the renovations had left the flats with inadequate fire doors. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

System reform expected in autumn

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Brokenshire published a long written statement on the future direction of regulation and some detail on the housing situation. He mentions Hackitt's report. Quite a bit of detail here.

Grenfell Update:Written statement David Crayford ☎ 13:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

[1] Samuel Osborne (5 July). "Grenfell Tower: Government sends in 'taskforce'". BBC News. Retrieved 5 July 2017. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[2] Samuel Osborne (28 June 2017). "Grenfell Tower fire: Total death toll from devastating blaze may not be known until the end of the year, say police". The Independent. Retrieved 1 July 2017.

[3] "No final Grenfell Tower death toll this year, police say". BBC News. 28 June 2017. Retrieved 1 July 2017.

[4] "Grenfell Tower: candlelit vigil for victims after grief turned to anger at earlier protests". The Daily Telegraph. 17 June 2017. Retrieved 27 June 2017.

[5] May Bulman (16 June 2017). "Grenfell Tower fire: Met Police confirm 30 dead and 12 remain critical". The Independent. Retrieved 1 July 2017.

[6] Tom Kelly and Inderdeep Bains (16 June 2017). "Agony of girl, five, feared to have lost her entire family". PressReader.com. Daily Mail. Retrieved 1 July 2017.

[7] "Grenfell Tower fire: Six-month-old baby 'found dead in mother's arms'". ITV News. 28 June 2017. Retrieved 1 July 2017.

[8] Couple who escaped Grenfell Tower blaze lost unborn son (news.com.au)

[:1-9] Associated Press (via New York Times), The Latest: London Fire Deadliest in UK Since 20th Century, 19 June 2017

[10] Griffiths, Frank; Kirka, Danica. "79 now believed to have died in London high-rise fire". Chicago Tribune. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 19 June 2017. Retrieved 19 June 2017. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]