Talk:Grenfell Tower fire/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fraudulent claims

You have no section regarding the mass of fraudulent compensation claims the fire attracted, which is perfectly relevant.

such as

Elaine Douglas and Tommy Brooks, who are Jamaican, falsely claimed more than £100,000 in accommodation and pre-paid credit cards before staff at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea realised the flat they claimed to live in did not exist.

Joyce Msokeri, who falsely claimed to have been a resident in the Grenfell Tower fire. She posed as a survivor in a bid to claim hundreds of thousands of pounds, and that her husband and sister-in-law had perished. In fact she was single and living miles away.

Anh Nhu Nguyen, 52, of Beckenham, south-east London, was also jailed earlier this year for 21 months for pretending he lost family members in the blaze. He claimed his wife and son were killed in the June 14 disaster and was photographed shaking the Prince of Wales' hand when he met survivors at a relief centre.

Abolaji Onafuye, 54, said Zainab Deen, 32, who tragically died alongside her two-year-old son Jeremiah in the blaze last June, was his sister. But his account was 'impossible' because he was born a year before Ms Deen's parents were.

Mohammad Gamoota, 31, told council officials that he had been living with his father on the 24th floor when the fire ripped through the building. The flat Gamoota claimed to have lived in never existed but he used the name of Abdel Salam, a man who died in the fire and had been named in the press, as the backdrop for his fraud. Gamoota pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud for his attempt to gain a total of £6,784.36, and was jailed for 18 months.

"Fraud investigators have been called in after 15 members of the same family received public aid worth up to £1m and at least three new homes by claiming they lived in a single flat destroyed by the Grenfell Tower fire. One of Britain’s most notorious “crash-for-cash” fraudsters, Masi Naqshbandi, is among the relatives rehoused in new properties, including flats in a luxury development in Kensington, west London, furnished by John Lewis. The Naqshbandi family insist their main residence before the fire on June 14 last year was a three-bedroom flat on the third floor of Grenfell Tower. However, only four names appear on the orginal tenancy agreement"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/01/student-becomes-fifth-grenfell-tower-fraudster-convicted/ https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/01/man-jailed-for-fraud-claiming-to-be-grenfell-tower-victim http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5925967/Grenfell-Tower-fraudster-claimed-brother-woman-died-son-swindle-32-000.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1m-fraud-probe-after-15-claimed-over-grenfell-flat-799l2v6x0 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/family-in-1m-fraud-inquiry-get-special-grenfell-tower-status-kv9scxtc9 http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/grenfell-one-family-got-1m-3-luxury-flats-not-even-genuine-tenant-mass-fraud-going-on/

or is wikipedia, the tool of the global elite, going to cover up these proven, factual, fraudulent activities, which are a significant consequence of the fire, the total fruad running into millions of pounds?

2A02:C7F:DA68:2600:4C20:C31B:B224:E6C8 (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Already covered in this article. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

We do now. Section heading will help users navigate the page. David Crayford ☎ 16:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I just ask, since we rightly aren't naming Behailu Kebede, why in God's name do we have a list of far less notable people convicted of fraud? Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. Vashti (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

- per WP:BLP (including BLP1E and BLPCRIME), we don't really need to name any non-Wikinotable person convicted. We could say "A 39-year-old man from Fooville was convicted of..." which would cover the situation adequately. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Name?

Not the most important part of the article but does anyone know who the tower was named after? Quite by chance I stumbled on a WW1 VC winner and noted that he was merely one of a very accomplished family. JRPG (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@JRPG: According to Wikipedia (cough) Grenfell Tower page claims Grenfell Road is named after Francis Grenfell, 1st Baron Grenfell. I flagged this - we need a better ref over there to prove it. Both are named Francis Grenfell. The fire itself was not started by Lord Francis Grenfell (d.1925) or Captain Francis Grenfell (d.1915). At least, not without borrowing @Mjroots:' Time Machine. :-) David Crayford ☎ 19:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone use Google? I found this: https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/14/grenfell-tower-named-know-man-7630481/ MartinezMD (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@MartinezMD: Thank you. Updated ref on Tower page.David Crayford ☎ 16:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It is also worth (sometimes) looking in the archives of the talk pages of this article. See Talk:Grenfell Tower fire/Archive 1#Grenfell namesake and Talk:Grenfell Tower fire/Archive 2#Origin of name. Not much more there, but it gives some insight into how easy it is to get naming explanations wrong without sources, and how places are often named after nearby roads or places (that are named after people) rather than directly after those people. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional BBC article and documentary

Grenfell Tower: The fires that foretold the tragedy (BBC News), and a BBC documentary, The Fires that Foretold Grenfell (being broadcast on Tuesday 30 October 2018 for those in the UK). May be of interest here, and for the articles we have on those fires (all mentioned in the article at present). Carcharoth (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Cladding removal figures

Government figures of 30 Nov 2018 show how far cladding has been removed, or not.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/762144/Building_Safety_Data_Release_November_2018.pdf

Could promote headings re cladding and safety reviews so they show on index and put this ref there. Safety review snippets up and down the page might be consolidated. David Crayford ☎ 12:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Support for GA Nom?

I have some interest (willingness?) to do the GA review of this article, but since the nominator ImprovedWikiImprovment is not one of the top 20 contributors to the article I wanted to follow the Good Article Instructions and somewhat after the fact follow, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." It would likely take me a while to do such a review given the length of the article and the number of sources involved and there would likely be some number of potential changes (for instance I've only read the lead at this point and would suggest that there is some degree of OVERCITE going on) so I think having editor support to embark on a GA review is particularly important. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you. I want this to be a Good Article. It is a significant event which deserves being well documented. The process itself will help improve it. I am too green to know the process and welcome suggestions. I agree that in our diligence to prove all the facts there is some overkill. David Crayford ☎ 12:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"injuries consistent with falling from a height".[92][93]

Have I missed something? I don't see the number 4 in this source, nor do I count four people for whom falling was related to their deaths. All I have found so far from the inquests are three records with victims' names (which I won't list here, but you can find them here [1] or here [2]). These links appear to be expansions on the sources in the article. Aside from the three named, who else is there? This can be seen as sensationalism, and I think we need to be mindful of the perceptions in the affected community. We can't exaggerate. Dcs002 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grenfell Tower fire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 00:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Detailed Review

Building

• Will come back and do a full comment on the LEAD at the end of the review, but for now there is too much citing of sources in the LEAD. In general only controversial statements and quotes need attributing in the lead of a GA - everything else should be a summary of what's in the body article (where it would then be appropriately cited). This is especially egregious in the second sentence - those basic facts are not, to my understanding, controversial and even if they are 6 citations is WP:OVERCITE.
• And while we're on the subject, OVERCITE is rampant in this article in general. The article needs a detailed round of editing to address this problem through-out - I will not point out other specific instances of this for now except to note that we should not have 6 cites where 3 might do and 3 where 1 might do (e.g. In the aftermath of the fire, members of the local community, including a residents group called Grenfell United.

Building

• Suggest re titling this section to "Background" or maybe "History", and making the first paragraph part of the next subsection which could be "Building and construction"
• A resident of the area is not a reliable source for the first sentence of this section.
• A source from 2009 does not verify that KCTMO was the largest TMO at the time of the fire.
• The Telegraph article "We are just as important as everyone else, say Tower homeowners" does not support all the facts in the two sentences it's support, notably that some leaseholds had been privately rented or under what purpose the building was initially built for.
• This source doesn't seem to be supporting anything in the sentence it's a cite for.
• What makes Emporis a RS? Also because it's behind a paywall taking on GF that it supports the facts in that sentence.
• Note 1 suggests that the building had 28 storeys (please accept my advance apologies if I end up using US spellings for anything as we go) but 4 of them were mezzinenes? How does this hold true with The lower four storeys were used for non-residential purposes.?
• I question whether the Guardian's live coverage of events is RS or if it's more akin to a reliable author tweeting about something? E.g. facts in breaking news can be wrong in a way that would get fixed through more normal editorial controls. In other words should what is currently source 34 be used?
• It seems like the total number of apartments could have a secondary rather than primary source.
• Does Like many other tower blocks in the UK, Grenfell had a single central staircase. Unlike in many other countries, UK regulations do not require a second. belong in building or elsewhere? Genuine question as single sentence paragraphs aren't great.
• Similarly the Whitebread quote could really be incorporated into the main paragraph rather than being its own one sentence paragraph Edit: It looks like this was removed altogether? Any reason for this?
• The sentence The tower received new windows, a water-based heating system for individual flats ... does not have a working citation
• Is there a secondary source for The purpose of the cladding was to improve heating and energy efficiency, and external appearance? Given how important the cladding is to the topic it seems best to have that be from a reliable independent secondary source rather than PRIMARY.
• Same concern for the next two sentences
• The sentence The original contractor, Leadbitter, had been... needs its own inline cite (repeating a citation is obviously fine)
• From source that's present it seems unclear if "The contract was put out to competitive tender" or it was put back out to competitive tender
• The sentence The cladding was fitted by Harley Facades... should have a secondary source
• Is there a reason for using this Italian source (as of now source #52)?

• In 2013, the group presumably this is the Grenfell Action blog/group?
• by a TMO Health and Safety Officer by a generic TMO or a KCTMO?
• I am skeptical about the GAG information in general on NPOV/OR grounds. We should only keep information that can be cited back to The Guardian and other secondary RS.
• Which Whitehall? In March 2015, at the request of Whitehall...

• However, the government suppressed the report until February 2019 is not supported by the source.
• There's another one sentence paragraph in Safety.
• The Lakanal House fire information needs better sourcing - not all of the information can be supported by the current BBC cite
• I'm not sure that the Barwell quote should be a quote rather than a summary
• What is the LFB? Guessing it's the London Fire Brigade but this should be clearly stated.

Discussion

Four months after first thinking about doing this review I'm actually getting to it. By way of process, I've read this article once (in December), and will not do a detailed read through, also checking sources. This will likely take me several days to complete given this article's size and so I will post as I go along. Feel free to begin implementing changes before the review is complete or responding with any questions/comments/pushback about any parts of the review as I go along. I will definitely finish this by Friday evening (US time) because starting Saturday I will be somewhat or entirely inactive, and to whatever extent I have Internet it will only be on mobile, for a week. If we haven't finished the review process by then we'll pick it back-up when I return to Wikipedia April 21/22. ​​Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I've completed the detailed reading for the Building section. As this took me considerable time, before I continue for the rest of the article (which I remain happy to do) could some editor or group of editors confirm that they remain prepared to do the work needed to bring this up to GA standard? Ideally this would be by actually starting to do some of the work suggested/needed above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm certainly able to implement improvements. I have addressed some of the points on the list above. Anywikiuser (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea: I am not sure that a mass reversion was particularly constructive- it probably would have been more constructive to have reconstructed the broken references- just a comment- it is a value judgement. It is noted that major improvements are not complete until they have been previewed and references fixed. ClemRutter (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

ClemRutter, as I mentioned on Anywikiuser's talk page, had it been one or two broken references, I would have mended them. As there were so many, and imagining what a reader would think, looking for the source of some bit of information and finding naught but a large red error message, I chose to revert the change. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the onus is on the editor not to break them in the first place, not for others to have to clear up a mess. ——SerialNumber54129 09:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I have now reinstated the edits (which took me a few hours to prepare) with the references fixed. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll note there is one broke citation now but that was present from before. We're nearly a couple of weeks out from the work I did on the review above. I've noted which items have been addressed so far - it's less than half. I am a firm believer that GA is a collaborative process and with willing and competent editors just about any article that is nominated can pass. However, this article is on the far side of the spectrum for "needing work" as there are substantial sourcing concerns, among other things, which remain. Given the slow pace of changes and the huge amount of time an article of this size would take to do in the way I like to do GA I am going to change course. My current plan, therefore, is to stop my detailed read and to address in broader strokes the state of the article below so that interested editors have a sense of what they can work on ahead of a potential renomination. There's far more good than not in this article but its scope and the fact that it was truly collaboratively written does mean that getting it to be GA will require more capacity than it seems like we have for this process at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an important topic. Perhaps it would be good to look at how the various sections stand up; some are definitely better than others. Anywikiuser (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary Review

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Prose: Overall this is well written
MOS: As noted above there are issues with OVERCITE and the lEAD might be too short given the length of this article
Ref Layout: Uses an appropriate reference layout. I am not as much of a stickler on this as some others so I haven't looked about things like consistent formatting of references. Since this is a concern for some reviewers editors might wish to look at this before any renomination.
RS: Not all content is appropriately in-line cited
OR: It's likely fine but since detailed review of the article was not completed, listing this as neutral.
Copyright: No discernible issues found.
Broadness: Covers whole topic
Focus: This is borderline in the current article and would need deeper review to adequately assess. Given that this page has been edited in "real time" as events have broken it seems like it is overly detailed in parts running into NOTNEWS problems.
Neutral: Similar to OR, it superficially seems fine but more detailed review of sources could indicate otherwise.
Stable: Has been stable enough for GA but listing as a question mark since this could be a problem before a future GA
Tagged Pics: All pictures are appropriately licensed for use
Relevant Pics: I see some potential issues here as there seems to have been an effort at including every picture we could find. I have also not checked captions for suitability.

Unnecessary sections

You asked me to discuss this on the talk page: there are two sections that I consider unnecessary. The first is "One year on". There will be memorials for this disaster for years to come, so we don't need to record them all in detail. The second is "Conservative Party survey". Given that the focus of this article is a series of deaths, injuries, trauma and bereavements, this type of insult is trivial by comparison. It also received coverage in only two national papers. Anywikiuser (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Should we instead have coverage, with a separate section header, of Theresa May being boo-ed from the scene by local activists, and having to shelter behind her henchmen? MPS1992 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

We need to maintain a neutral

Maybe it doesn't need a separate (sub)section, but the marking of the first anniversary is relevant, and should be covered. Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked at this last night, looked at the editors name and decided not to revert, or to tag this with take to the talk page. I have looked again this morning and decided that I should just have reverted. To remove the anniversary is a political act that needs to be discussed before it is executed- and the anniversary is important to the article. The issue about whether we should be open about Kensington Conservative Parties insensitivity and not attempt a politically motivated cover up- two days before UK Elections is interesting... no more needs to be said yet.ClemRutter (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

So you think I'm doing a politically motivated edit to give the Tories an advantage in tomorrow's local elections? For the record in the archive, I previously raised this issue in June and July 2018, 1-2 months after the last set of local elections, which included the one for RBKC Council. That would have been 1-2 months too late for the edit to affect those local elections – except it wouldn't have, because Wikipedia does not affect people's views on politics. If you're going to go ad hominem and ignore my argument, at least do it for reasons that might be plausible. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus was against you in June! I support Mjroots, don't personalise. The place to re-argue your case is here.ClemRutter (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

There wasn't any consensus, as only one person replied to me.

The issue I have with all the anniversary stuff is that there have been plenty of memorials to the disaster, and there will be plenty more the future. Do we really need to mention all of them? At the very least, do we really need to mention the fact the inquiry didn't sit that week?

The issue I have with the ward survey paragraph is that it's trivial in the long run. It received coverage from only some of the national news outlets. And if insults are indeed noteworthy topics for the article, then we need another subsection about the burning effigy video, which received far more media attention and has actually led to one person getting charged. And that illustrates the problem: that this article will start turning into a record of every insult that has been levelled that has some relevance to Grenfell Tower. For comparison, the Hillsborough disaster article mentions only 2 insults, and the Bradford City stadium fire one doesn't mention any. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems fine, no need to remove. Coverage of future anniversaries will be dependent on the level of coverage in secondary sources, and it may or may not be appropriate to rename or merge the section at that time. VQuakr (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The lead

Some time ago (editing as an IP, since I'm often logged-out these days) I added a paragraph to the lead that I notice isn't there anymore. Going through the article history, it looks like in was removed in March.

"Residents of Grenfell Tower had previously complained that the building was a fire hazard. In light of this, the fire caused significant public outrage over perceived negligence by the management company KCTMO. Kensington and Chelsea Council were also heavily criticised, especially for their handling of the aftermath of the tragedy. As protests and unrest grew in the local community, and concerns over fire safety spread throughout the country, Prime Minister Theresa May instructed central government to take over the response effort and ordered a public inquiry. Several grassroots action groups, such as the community-led Justice4Grenfell, emerged to lobby for meaningful change and accountability."

I don't care if this is reintstated word-for-word, but I definitely think the lead needs to mention the public outrage over Grenfell. It's a core part of the narrative that is completely excluded in the current version. WP:Lead of course says that the lead should be a comprehensive summary of the article. What do we think? --Loeba (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to avoid wording like "were also heavily criticised" or "was criticised", because this kind of wording states a negative opinion without giving an idea of how many people would agree with it. After all, Clement Atlee's government were criticised when they decided to create the NHS. I have a similar issue with wording that says there is "significant public outrage" over KCTMO. On the other hand, no-one can dispute that the council leader and its chief executive resigned within weeks of Grenfell, and that KCTMO was wound up as a council housing manager the following year. By mentioning these facts, the lede can show that there was significant fallout within the borough's local politics while still being neutral.

Another issue: the wording also implies that May only ordered the inquiry in response to the protests, but it may have simply been in response to the disaster itself. Anywikiuser (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Missing Persons (35309600156).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Photo still needed

We still need a post-renovation photo of the building before it burned, circa 2016-2017, i.e. what the building looked like before the fire. MartinezMD (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Stay put policy

At a recent fire at a retirement home in Crewe, a Fire Officer overruled the "stay put" policy and ordered a full evacuation. An action that is said to have save lives.

Is this worth a mention in this article? Opening for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO, no. Seems like WP:SYN. MartinezMD (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Grenfell inquiry report

The report has been leaked ahead of a Wednesday embargo and parts of it are available online. Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/28/grenfell-inquiry-finds-fire-brigade-gravely-ill-prepared-for-blaze

David Crayford ☎ 23:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably better that editors show a little restraint and wait until the actual report is published tomorrow. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Camden Council sues Rydon.

Robert Booth of The Guardian published this complicated story which was buried under election malpractice news. Has anyone evaluated how significant this is? Booth, Robert (28 November 2019). "Grenfell contractor being sued over blocks with similar cladding". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 November 2019. The crux appears to be the HMG paid 80m to oddset the cost of moving residents out of their homes in similar tower blocks. Camden reckined the true cost was far higher, the pfi contractor went into liquidation and Camden is trying to reclaim the money from the consortium that cladded Grenfell. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Too long

As per @FoxyGrampa75 's flag: what can we do to make this heavy page more manageable? I suggest hiving off the "Similar Fires" section or incorporating it into a more general article on firefighting. What else can be spun off? I know there is enough redundancy to compress paragraphs. David Crayford ☎ 16:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I am watching the comments- it is a distressing article to edit. Can I caution about being too hasty, as the major developments in the story are emerging slowly- some can be spun off-I think I created the .....Enqiry spin off page but sizeable chunks need to remain to catch ongoing and future developments.--ClemRutter (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@FoxyGrampa75, David Crayford, and ClemRutter: I'd at least like to split off the list of similar fires to a page like "List of fires that spread through exterior wall assemblies containing combustible components", although we might need a better name. It certainly does not belong on this page any more than an article on a shooting requires us listing other shootings. As for the rest of the article, I'm willing to delete cruft and go from there. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Brainulator9: What about "List of exterior wall assembly fires"? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@FoxyGrampa75: That'll work. Should I start the page at the Draft namespace or as an article? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Brainulator9: Draftspace would be more effective. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@FoxyGrampa75: I'll work at Draft:List of exterior wall assembly fires. Feel free to join me. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Brainulator9 for info, high-rise fire in Auckland, NZ, building similarly clad to Grenfell. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I am going to split off the aftermath of this fire into its own page in support of reducing the main page's length. BearGlyph (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Done, aftermath page is now live at Aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire. BearGlyph (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Guardian: Boris Johnson's pick to help lead Grenfell inquiry linked to cladding firm

This is important information to add but not sure where it should go.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/16/benita-mehra-grenfell-inquiry-boris-johnson-appoints-engineer-with-links-to-cladding-firm

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings I have added a section in Grenfell Tower Inquiry#Concerns about the impartiality of Phase 2 of the inquiry.ClemRutter (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

ClemRutter thanks very much, John Cummings (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire into Grenfell Tower fire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus not to merge. (non-admin closure) — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

---

It's probably worth having an Official Discussion(tm) on whether or not there needs to be a separate article talking about the aftermath.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 21:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, that was me. I did that (admittedly hastily) in the interest of reducing the length of the article, as article is, even after split, far too long to navigate comfortably, ref WP:TOOLONG. If consensus comes back negative on splitting off the aftermath, something else should be targeted for a split, since this page is already three times longer than recommended max length of 100 kb. Also, side question, I dream of horses, I noticed that there was a copyright violation invoked on the aftermath split, with a sizable amount of content removed following. Would that violation have applied to the content of this article before it was split off?BearGlyph (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

BearGlyph, most likely, yes, the copyvio was there if this is a 'split'. Perhaps you should request a rev-deletion of this page as well?  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 21:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: the source you gave is copying the Wikipedia article, there is no copyvio from that source. Hut 8.5 22:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)few years

Grenfell is long, and about to longer. After the Phase 2 inquiry, we expect police prosecution. After those there are international H&S implications. As of today we have got it about right, and are being sensitive while NPOV. I fully expect all these articles will be rewritten and rejigged over the next few years. Keep watching. ClemRutter (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's probably too soon to merge them. I'm hoping soon to write an article on the 'cladding scandal' that's now unfolding in the UK, which will also have a relationship with 'Aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire' -- but it's not clear yet precisely what. Alarichall (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - The main Grenfell Tower fire article is unnecessarily long as it already is. I applaud the user who created the split article. Love of Corey (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the article is overly long already, and I fully support the original bold splitting. By the same token, the new article is not so short, nor the sources so sparse, as to persuade me that a standalone article is not possible. ——SN54129 09:45, 4 April 2020 (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.

Guardian: Director at Grenfell Tower TMO describes how fatal cladding saved £800,000

Not sure how to include this

• https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/26/director-at-grenfell-tower-tmo-describes-how-fatal-cladding-saved-800000

John Cummings (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The manufacturer, Kingspan, "would be very surprised..."

It is ambiguous who is being quoted. Who said this? Someone clarify this pls.Createangelos (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Grenfell effect made our flats' insurance premium ruinous

Here is an interesting article from Guardian [3], my personal highlights:

• We have found a new provider, Aspen, but it insists that we first remove the cladding at a cost of around £400,000 and then pay a premium of £109,000, which is 600% higher than what we were paying before -- is this a general trend ?
• The Association of British Insurers (ABI) says insurers can no longer be certain that materials certified as safe in a laboratory would withstand a conflagration in a multi-occupancy building. -- So the ABI is not trusting the procedures in the laboratories anymore ? They will define the own standards ?

I have no idea what to make of this but it looks like that the aftermath is still interesting -- A1000 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Canary Wharf fire

The Metro is reporting that a tower block at Canary Wharf has caught fire. It is clad in the same material as Grenfell Tower and more than 20 appliances are attending. Nothing showing atm on BBC, ITV or Sky news websites. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 22:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)— Diannaa (talk)

Number of arrests

Hi, There is a number of arrests set at 6 but I cannot find a primary or secondary source.

At news media goes there was one arrest. It needs citation.

Thanks VariableDeclared (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Removed. The arrests refer to fraud using the fire as a pretext rather than about culpability for the fire itself.

David Crayford ☎ 20:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)