Jump to content

Talk:2017 Westminster attack: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 144: Line 144:


:::You offer no alternative word for a series of non-specific ''(ie not shooting/bombing etc)'', or mixed, violent acts. Words like 'savage', 'barbaric' etc. are inherently evaluative, and would only be used by us as quotes. I am not persuaded that the word 'attack' ''inherently'' carries the associations you attach to it. It is simply IMO one of those words ''(like campaign?)'' whose precise meaning is established by context. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 07:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
:::You offer no alternative word for a series of non-specific ''(ie not shooting/bombing etc)'', or mixed, violent acts. Words like 'savage', 'barbaric' etc. are inherently evaluative, and would only be used by us as quotes. I am not persuaded that the word 'attack' ''inherently'' carries the associations you attach to it. It is simply IMO one of those words ''(like campaign?)'' whose precise meaning is established by context. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 07:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
::: like [[Stonewall Attack]], and [[King's Indian Attack]] are clearly contrary to the [[Geneva Conventions]]. [[User:IdreamofJeanie|IdreamofJeanie]] ([[User talk:IdreamofJeanie|talk]]) 08:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:44, 6 July 2017

Perpetrator

An editor (WWGB) has claimed in an edit summary that word "perpetrator" is not used in British English and substituted the word "assailant". The BBC News service have used the term perpetrator (and attacker) for this terrorist attack and the more recent vehicular attack in Stockholm. I have not heard or read the word "assailant" used in this context. I think lots of UK editors have been editing or watching this article, so it is unlikely at this stage that there are systematic errors of this kind in the article. Mathsci (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assailant doesnt seem right to me from a British point of view and would expect the more usual attacker to be used for a UK article, perpetrator would be seen as an Americanism. MilborneOne (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with WWGB and MilbourneOne. Although the word is present in British dictionaries, it definitely carries an American flavour. - The Bounder (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perpetrator seems acceptable to me, since a lot of Americanisms have entered the British language. The classic one is jail vs gaol, both of which are used (though it tends to be the former rather than the latter). Assailant doesn't seem right to me. It would be appropriate in the context of a robbery, mugging, etc, but not here. We can't even use the term suspect in this case. This is Paul (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not better (and arguably worse) than "attacker". Just because lazy journalists use Americanisms, that should not affect the formal encyclopaedic English for which we are aiming. – The Bounder (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also thessaurus.com (which I always find helpful when writing) doesn't list assailant as an alternative for perpetrator. I don't think any of the other terms there would work either. This is Paul (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bounder: Attacker or offender are probably the two most usable words. This is Paul (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Attacker is closest to common Brit Eng, I find "assailant" strange and as US as 'perp', we understand all these words but they are not the "default terms". Attacker has the advantage of simplicity - a murder is done by a murderer, an attack by an attacker, why make it more complicated? Pincrete (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We had a long wrangle (now archived) as to the exact model of car used in the attack, and the main article tells us that it was a "grey Hyundai Tucson." I was able to work out, from newspaper accounts of his birth, that the driver was a Kentish Man rather than a Man of Kent, but that vital distinction has been obscured to merely saying that he was "born in Kent." NRPanikker (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "vital distinction"? Sorry, I just think it is pompous nonsense. What does his crime have to do with the side of the river on which he was born? WWGB (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motive update

@WWGB: Care to elaborate your reason for reverting me? Don't you agree that terrorist attacks motivated by Islamic extremism (that is, Jihadism, as the source states), is terrorism? --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 01:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. Masood's intention of "waging jihad in revenge against Western military action in Muslim countries in the Middle East" is not the same as terrorism, which is intent to provoke fear or terror. There is no evidence that Masood wanted to create terror, he just wanted to get even. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB: Politically motivated violence with the intent to cause harm to civilians (such as driving a car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge) is terrorism. The rest of the article also already describes the attack as a terrorist attack, and so do most of the sources talking about intent. The UK also has a clearer definition of what a terrorist attack is. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 05:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 7/7 bombers also had the same stated motives (which boiled down to Islamic extremism), but the act was terrorism in the effect that it had (most probably an intentional effect) and the way it was done (non-state actors, to civilians, for political reasons). If you revert me again, please escalate by also removing this article (and the talk page) from terrorist-related categories, and change the article to read as if the attack wasn't terrorism. Then it is clearer when one of us calls for an RfC. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 06:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not satisfied it meets the definition of Islamic terrorism, but I am happy to wait for other editors to weigh in. WWGB (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the article now says it is terrorism, and another part says the motive for this act (of terrorism) was Islamic extremism. Why not be consistent? --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 12:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorism isn't a motive, any more than murder or theft are motives. Pincrete (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete: Yes, that position agrees with my own. I think the dispute is over whether this fulfils the intent clauses in the definitions of terrorism. I argue that the new information present doesn't show that this isn't terrorism, and the security services (and the Independent) haven't released the full message. WWGB says there is not enough evidence to say that he did it to create terror - but the premeditated public killing of civilians is more than enough for me to say that the methods used, were used with the purpose of creating terror. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 15:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I disagree strongly, the fact that it is identified as terrorism, has no bearing on motive, any more that 'murder' has any bearing on motive. I think you are engaging in OR. Pincrete (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only engaging in OR as much as WWGB is. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 15:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete: I really don't understand the opposition to labelling it as a terrorist act, motivated by Islamic extremism. The sources align with that explanation completely. Is that really OR? --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 15:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about that this is an anon security source that doesn't mention Islamic Extremism? It also gets some other facts wrong. Pincrete (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the first point. On the second, jihadism against the state or against a free society, is a direct synonym to violence motivated by Islamic extremism. On the third, I wonder which. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 19:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does the source mention Jihadism, (which is not a synonym of Jihad) . Pincrete (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have an actual quote? It seems like if he'd said, "I am waging jihad in revenge against Western military action in Muslim countries in the Middle East", they'd have used that instead of paraphrasing. Sounds a bit unnatural to me, but maybe that's just how he wrote. Presuming it's exactly what he said, "waging jihad" sounds a little religious, but for the most part, it's simply vengeance. Tinged by Islam, but a universal concept and ostensibly the reason the West continues bombing in the first place.
That he chose to send this message encrypted to one anonymous person is about as opposite as it gets to the publicity a typical terrorist (or any sort of advocate) should seek, and he smoked more crack than a typical fundamentalist should smoke, but I suppose atypical disguises could be part of ISIS' master plan. It's not too farfetched for an outlet with a pro-coalition stance, but probably a stretch for Wikipedia to interpret The Independent's summary as suggesting anything more than retaliation. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:46, April 29, 2017 (UTC)
The security source is anon, some claims have already been rejected by police (such as Masood having been radicalised in prison), it's also unclear when the message was 'read'. Pincrete (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent refers to "eleven others", indicating the recipient was among those cleared as of April 1. Whether he was the 30-year-old held for five days isn't stated, but five days certainly jibes with "extensively questioned". It's possible the message was accessed through cyberninja after April Fool's Day, but it seems highly likely that would have prompted a rearrest. Barring secret arrests, it's fair to assume the message was read between March 26 and April 1. Less safe to assume it was nearer the beginning than the end, but I presume it was within twelve hours of arrest. Both because it's reasonable time for an innocent person to protest unlocking his phone and because it would turn this statement "ironic". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, May 2, 2017 (UTC)
Weird how "revenge" is too common to link, but "jihad" must be emphasized. Not enough that "terrorist attack" and "Islamism" already glow blue, I guess. Either both common terms should be linked or neither, I suggest. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:31, May 4, 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2017 Westminster attack. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 13:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London attacks again

In light of this shouldn't it rather be disambiguated with the month in which this occured?Walsak (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The newer attack is not Westminster (London Bridge/Borough Market).Pincrete (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it would make sense to move this to March 2017 London attack. There's no sense in using the area in the title of this one, but the month on the other. Jim Michael (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
support mentioning month. Many different google search lead to one or the other first, a month in the title would make which attack is which clearer, particularly to those whose London geo knowledge is vauge.Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Permanent naming on other attack is still undecided, with possibility of 'London Bridge' rather than month. Westminster and London Bridge are both fairly well known worldwide. Bear in mind that 'London' is bigger and more populous than some countries. Pincrete (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this article also starts with an attack on a bridge in London, namely Westminister bridge, that would be ambiguous for people who are not well versed in London's different bridges.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should we open a move request or RfC? Jim Michael (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2017 Westminster attack. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the noun "attack" to describe the event

I have questions about the widespread use of the noun "attack" to describe this event. These questions similarly concern other accounts of violence where the use of the word "attack" seems related to the country of origin or religion of the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators. I will therefore try to raise this concern elsewhere as well. (For this reason, please bear with me if you see this comment elsewhere and it seems repetitive.)

My concern is roughly as follows. First, calling such an incident an attack uses the register of war to characterize the event. (Consider for example the widespread use of the expression _armed attack_ in the UN Charter and in other instruments treating the laws of war.) This is a very specific move and seems to me to be one of consequence in our understanding of such an event. This is to say that the use of war as an animating backdrop into which to integrate our understanding of the event is a very specific choice, and by no means the only option at our disposal. Using the noun "attack" and the backdrop of war to characterize an individual event assimilates it to the plane of collective action. Assimilating an individual act to wider collective action is a very specific interpretive choice, and one that is not disinterested. For example, characterization of an event as a crime does not generally carry the suggestion of collective action. It might be objected that characterizing such an event as a crime is not apt because of the apparent political motivation of the violence considered. Options other than imposing a frame of either war or collective action onto our understand of an event are nonetheless available. Consider our understanding of the Oklahoma City bombing or the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, for example. No one doubts the political motivation underlying either event, yet our understanding of neither of these events is animated by the suggestion of either war or collective action more generally. If it is wished to indicate a wider conspiracy underlying an individual event, such a conspiracy should be indicated explicitly, not by means of suggestion or innuendo. In a dispassionate account with ambitions of being held out as a reliable encyclopedia article, collective action should be demonstrated by the evidence provided. Collective action should not be an unsubstantiated, hollow spectre that looms over every corner of such an account.

Second, even in the case that collective action--specifically, war--is chosen and adopted as the animating register for the discussion of this event, "attack" is a particularly odd choice in characterizing it. To repeat what's already stated above, both war--and more generally, collective action--are specific interpretative choices for our understanding of this event, neither is obvious or necessary. If such an interpretative choice is adopted, such a choice should be explicit and, ideally, demonstrated by the evidence--deserving a discussion of its own. Now, in the case that collective action and war is chosen as a rubric in which to understand this event, "attack" carries an added suggestion. "Attack" suggests the initiation of hostilities. Once again the claim being made is not explicit, but is glossed over by means of suggestion and innuendo. Again, one suspects that the claim comes by way of suggestion and innuendo because it would collapse if it were made explicitly. The Pentagon and Whitehall began bombing Afghanistan in October 2001, Iraq in March 2003, Syria in September 2014, and Somalia since at least October 2016. French and affiliated NATO forces began their occupation of Afghanistan in December 2001, and of Libya in March 2011. (France has also announced a bombing campaign of the Sahel region in August 2014, that includes parts of Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, Eritrea, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and Ethiopia.) One is by no means obligated to understand an individual act of violence in the United States, UK, or France in the context of "war" that includes these military campaigns singularly or collectively; as already emphasized, taking such an act to be one of war is the result of a specific interpretive choice. However, in the case that this route is selected--and an act in the United States, Britain, or France is taken to be part of a war--it seems highly misleading to further portray such an act with an incipient or initiating flavor that "attack" suggests. This portrayal is again glossed over without discussion and seemingly counter to all evidence: if an individual event is understood as a collective action that is part of a wider war, using language that suggests or attributes an initiating character to such an event seems highly dubious when that event takes place 15+ years into the supposed war. Characterizing such an event as an attack seems to want it both ways: to push an account of the event as a collective action that is an act of war, and to at the same time avoid any discussion of that wider war ("attack" with its suggestion that t=0; as opposed to "response," usually reserved for justifications of the ensuring state-violence).

Use of the word "attack" to describe such an individual act thus seems to me highly incoherent. It is an interpretive choice that on the one hand suggests collective responsibility for an individual act of violence, and does so by means of innuendo rather than explicitly (for doing so explicitly would seem dubious in the absence of specific evidence that is often simply not there to be found). And on the other hand, substantive discussion of the wider war being suggested as the animating context in which the event occurs is avoided; "attack" carries with it the suggestion (again, pure innuendo unlikely to survive serious discussion) that the event has an initiating character, glossing over the possibility that such an event could be the response to something.

For these reasons, this word does not seem worthy to form the basis of a discussion which aims to be neutral or dispassionate. Rather it seems highly politicized, and on even a moment's inspection, a tendentious characterization that summarily assimilates an individual event to a collective act of war, while at the same time denying the continuity of the very war being supposed ("attack" bearing the suggestion that event initiates, rather than responds to anything). Moreover, one wonders if the term carries slanderous suggestions; the spectre of collective responsibility cast by the word seems particularly given to scapegoating. "Conspiracy theorist" is a term of derision often used to characterize the speculations of those that suppose collective action or a plot in the absence of good evidence. Well, in addition to its being unthinking newspeak--in its current, and now longstanding, uniform use--"attack" is nothing if not a term of the conspiracy theorist. Collective action is supposed in the absence of evidence. The fear-mongering of supposed collective action gives rise to the war-mongering of suggested collective responsibility.

The innuendo and spectres that one might expect to litter Pentagon briefings should not provide the basis for an encyclopedia article that aims to be disinterested. Alfred Nemours (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Attack' is the common name for an event of this kind which (broadly speaking) dictates our usage. The word is neither inherently collective, nor inherently militaristic (an attack on Naom Chomsky, is not likely to be either). How should this event be described in your opinion? Such that the language is neutral and informative. Pincrete (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. But consider how the word is being used in the relevant context. If I raise caution about an account that claims to be fair and objective in advance of a trial in which an individual man accused of grisly violence is summarily described as a "savage," it might also be objected that "savage" can have many meanings, some of them positive. "Savage wit," it might be said, "means that someone is very smart." But clearly the article in characterizing such a man as a savage in advance of such a trial is not calling the accused man a genius.
Attack has an established meaning in international law. It at once (1) indicates an act of war and (2) attributes responsibility to the initiation of that war. It is certainly true that "attack" is used in other senses, among them figurative. ("An attack on Noam Chomsky" would indicate, for example, either a refutation of the views of Noam Chomsky, or a denunciation of the character of Noam Chomsky.) But I have never seen an example in English of the word "attack" coupled with a city or place where the word "attack" was not used in its international legal sense to (1) indicate a collective action, one of war, and (2) suggest responsibility for the initiation of such a war (usually in justification of ensuing military action, often deemed a "response"). Alfred Nemours (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You offer no alternative word for a series of non-specific (ie not shooting/bombing etc), or mixed, violent acts. Words like 'savage', 'barbaric' etc. are inherently evaluative, and would only be used by us as quotes. I am not persuaded that the word 'attack' inherently carries the associations you attach to it. It is simply IMO one of those words (like campaign?) whose precise meaning is established by context. Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
like Stonewall Attack, and King's Indian Attack are clearly contrary to the Geneva Conventions. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Westminster_attack&oldid=789251628"