Talk:2017/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

RfC - London terror attacks

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

---

Should the 2017 Westminster attack and June 2017 London Bridge attack articles be added to this article?. –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Support

• Support - I'm extremely surprised this wasn't added or included in the above RFC but anyway both are notable events and both IMHO deserve to be on the page, –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support obviously the kind of thing you'd expect our readers to be looking for in a round-up of major events around the world in 2017. Both events had global coverage, and global ramifications. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  Global ramifications? Which ones were that? — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  Go after one of the other supporters Yerpo. I don't need your hassle any longer. This is your last warning. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  I am genuinely interested in what "global ramifications" you're talking about. The articles don't mention any (politicians' words don't count, of course), but if there were, I'd reconsider my opposition. No need for empty threats. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  Far from an empty threat, I will seek an IBan between you and your bullying oversight group, and me. Go hassle someone else who disagrees with you all in one of the many RFCs that demonstrates your group is out of touch with community norms. In the meantime leav me alone, and maybe improve Wikipedia for our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  I'll take that as an admission that the "global ramifications" claim is too thin to discuss. But an IBan would be a clever way to exclude opposition from this hostile takeover attempt, I give you that. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  No, take it that I will seek an iban if you continue to pick out and badger just my responses. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support major news coverage from around the world, victims were not just British, attackers of the Westminster attack were born in the Middle Eastern and/ or had dual citizenship, and plenty of international response. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 15:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Major incidents. I am additionally surprised that things like the 2017 St. Petersburg Metro bombing are not here. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support: The Rambling Man's statement seems eminently sensible. The oppose on the basis of "a bigger one happened elsewhere on the same day" strays from dealing with what Wikipedia is in its essence. Has it been covered extensively by reliable sources? Attack in Kabul? Nope. Attack in London? Definitely. We give significant coverage to events that are significantly covered. DrStrauss talk 17:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Strong global coverage. Blethering Scot 21:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support: There has been a great deal of media coverage and would be easy to find excellent sources such as the BBC and The Guardian. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• Exclude these domestic events. Jim Michael (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude - exceptional in no way but for happening in a developed Western country. More than a dozen attacks by the Islamic state with comparable number of casualties occured just in June 2017, including these two and not others would be pure ywestern-centrism. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude. Not exceptional. Even if the "international notability/ significance/ importance" criterion of WP:RY is rejected, not in the top 10 in significance in 2017 in terrorism (or whatever it's called). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude -- insufficiently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE isn't a valid reason to oppose something. –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I did not really want to say "first world problem" but it essentially got the wall-to-wall coverage because it happened in a Western capital. Around the same timeframe, there was an terror attack in Kabul but it barely got covered. So yeah, would "not exceptional" work? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE is not a valid reason in deletion discussions; it could be reasonable in other discussions. At least, that essay doesn't cover the issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

They weren't international, nor were they major by world standards. They received a lot of media coverage because of the saturation of journalists in London. Jim Michael (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What are the global ramifications of these attacks, TRM? Jim Michael (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree - London is a major city and therefore would've been seen as a major attack and although journalists tend to cause some drama and "hype" things up this wasn't the case here, FWIW IMHO each and every one of those listed at List of terrorist incidents in June 2017 should be on that article too however that's another discussion for another day, IMHO this was a major attack and thus deserves to be listed. –Davey2010^Talk 14:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You're suggesting that all the attacks listed on the list of terror attacks should be on year articles? Why?

Terror attacks in major cities aren't rare. It's just that when they happen in Asia and Africa, they rarely receive huge media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Jim, go chasing explanations from others, not just me. I know it's difficult when your project gets noticed and then exposed for its behavioural anomalies, but we are where we are and, once again, the community is finding against the will of the current project oversighters. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And again with the attacks on editors who are trying to make this a worthwhile project, rather than debating the subject at hand. There must be so much responsibility for one editor to be the elected representative of "the community". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't become you. The fact that TRM is being disruptive should be brought up in other venues. As for his proposed IBan, there is nothing he could say which wasn't, in part, a reply to something I said in the past 5 years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes TRM is being disruptive (and this has gone on for weeks now) but the last time I tried to bring this up at ANI it was dismissed. The repeated claims that by TRM that they are acting on behalf of the community need to be addressed, all I see is a disaffected editor trying to establish their own personal agenda for the recent years project, largely based on ideas so faulty that WPITN is undergoing an extensive discussion on replacing them if not wiping the project entirely. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The ANI report you prematurely filed wasn't ANI-worthy. And please guys, this part of the RfC is to discuss if the attacks should be included or not. If you want to discuss TRM's behaviour, please do it elsewhere. It doesn't belong in this section or this talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 05:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

TRM, my second comment in this section was to Davey, not you.

You're making claims of international importance that aren't true. The only way in which the attacks in London last month will have affected other countries is that some of them may have temporarily increased their security measures in order to reduce the chances of copycat attacks.

Jim Michael (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's clear that the regulars don't like their decision-making being questioned but it appears that it's absolutely essential right now with the various RFCs all showing that the criteria as being applied are simply out of touch with the community. Questioning that is vital to the integrity of the project and Wikipedia as a whole. Trying to obfuscate the major problems here by claiming this to be "disruptive" simply will not work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No-one has suggested a better guideline. Your suggestion to remove all the deaths wouldn't be an improvement. Jim Michael (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with my comment and nothing to do with this disucssion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Metadiscussion on collapse

I agree that comments to The Rambling Man should be collapsed, as he has stated he has no intention to reply. Howevern Davey2010 "hatted" a request for clarification of his comment, which I consider consent to "hat" his comment. We can discuss where there should be a collapse, if at all, but I think this leaves a coherent status.

As I said on your talkpage the discussion had more or less derailed and I figured hatting was better instead of allowing the argument below to continue, If I'm honest I don't agree with my reply being hatted however if it stops all of the arguing then I'll settle with it regardless, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I have uncollapsed it as it is a very good demonstration of the ownership of this project by a few individuals, including a number of assertions being made purely subjectively, e.g. Jim Michael's opening claim. [Citation needed]. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The uncollapse is yet another disruptive action by TRM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

No it's not. Firstly you're an involved admin, so you should be the last person to close this. Secondly, your claim was incorrect, I did not state anywhere that I had no intention to reply - please supply a diff to cover that precise claim. Thirdly, you claim this to be "another disruptive action", can you provide diffs for all the other "disruptive actions" please, or are you simply referring to the content disputes which you don't agree with, but the community most certainly do? Or is it the so-called "lies" that you continue to claim I'm making? Fourthly, please remember to sign your posts, and, finally for now, find someone competent to help you with diffs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 18 July 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.