Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 28 days
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A news item involving Grenfell Tower fire was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 June 2017.
Wikipedia
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
I'm a bit chary about the "4000 x" although it is sourced to the Guardian. Three main reasons:
It's implying that it would have been financially cheaper to "do the right thing".
That's only true if we only take this particular risk and this particular building into account. There may be many risks that would have appeared to be of similar magnitude in many projects with associated savings. We would be required to analyse these risks according to a formula to establish if the mathematical expectation is positive. I don't believe anyone at the Guardian would suggest this is the way to make decisions.
It's also not true if the same cladding could have been fitted in a different way, safely.
The moral argument is not about saving money, it's about saving lives.
Our table seems to double count costs.
the £150 M settlement was partly funded by Aconix. It's not clear if this is double counting their liability. The same applies to the other 21 defendants.
Kensington's expenditure on new property is partly funded by their insurance. It's not a loss in any event, it's capital expenditure to acquire assets.
The article says: four victims were later found to have died from "injuries consistent with falling from a height".[78][79] These deaths were classed as 'suicides', despite being a direct consequence of the fire.[citation needed] The part about the "suicides" was added by an IP user in July 2021.[1] The "citation needed" tag was added by me a few minutes ago.[2] I cannot find a source for it. A Google search for "Grenfell tower" "classed as suicides" brings up two results (a Reddit post from 2022 that quotes Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia article itself). There are documentaries about this event that repeat the claim (one of which got me to check whether it was true), but they may all just repeat what's in the Wikipedia article. If this is real then surely we can point to a reliable source? Otherwise this stuff should be removed ASAP. I also want to mention that the rest of what was written in that July 2021 edit was later removed, and is now part of the Grenfell Tower fire#False accounts section. Renerpho (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can safely be removed. It was added in this edit and was unsourced then; the same user added A woman threw her baby from a floor into the arms of a man below, seconds before her window exploded in a fireball. The baby was caught and survived with a broken leg which "probably never happened" – macaddct1984(talk | contribs)15:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg?lang=en){kind=small}
