Jump to content

Talk:2017 Westminster attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pincrete (talk | contribs) at 07:06, 24 November 2021 (→Short description of Perpetrator). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

This discussion has been moved to WP:VPM#Use of the word "attack" in various article titles in order to have all 20-30 discussions in one place. Please go there to participate. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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]
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.

Part of a "campaign"?

Sure we have attributed statements supporting the speculation that this attack was related to Islamic extremism, but can we, within the bounds of Wikipedia policies (WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:V & co) support the assertion that it was also somehow part of an implied centrally coordinated or organised campaign of attacks across Europe which started in 2014? I propose removing links and association to this notion (including the article Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)) until we have adequately attributed and reliably sourced confirmation that that is indeed the case, -- de Facto (talk). 06:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the problem(s) are with the linked article.Pincrete (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion pertinent to this at: Talk:June_2017_London_Bridge_attack#Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_.282014.E2.80.93present. --TBM10 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 08:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of conviction needed

The template presently says:

Perpetrator Khalid Masood

I believe the use of "perpetrator" rather than "suspect" means he was convicted at some point? I am not able to find a conviction date mentioned though. Am I overlooking this or have we not added it yet? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ScratchMarshall, Masood was shot by police during the attack and died at the scene, therefore there never will be a trial. The coroner's inquest is ongoing but is extremely unlikely to conclude anything other than his being lawfully killed and his victims being murdered. Pincrete (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pincrete: thanks for clarifying that, missed that detail skimming the article. WP:BLPCRIME protections would not apply then. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short description of Perpetrator

The latest edit war in this article is on how to describe the perpetrator in the lead paragraph. Is he to be called a "British citizen" or a "Briton," to revive the archaism favoured decades ago by the Canadian owner of the Daily Express? I propose that as a compromise we return to calling him a "Kentish Man." NRPanikker (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously folks? A person's county is not a nationality. "British" is good enough for any person born and brought up in Britain and holding British citizenship. Masood ticks all of these boxes. He was not one of those pesky foreigners with an Islamic sounding name. It's also unlikely that people outside Britain would have much idea what "Kentish man" means. Even in Britain this isn't a commonly used phrase.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Man of Kent would know what a Kentish Man (or Maid) was. NRPanikker (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The long-standing term is 'Briton', which implies someone born in Britain, rather than simply acquiring citizenship. Why would we change an established term? Do we call someone born in Edinburgh a 'Scottish person'? Someone from Dublin an 'Irish person'? Pincrete (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really keen on the word Briton and opted for "British man" which is used at Killing of David Amess. This comes about because some people think that foreign sounding name = foreign person. Khalid Masood and Ali Harbi Ali were both born and brought up in Britain. I'm not sure that the word Briton automatically implies that a person was born in Britain.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"British man" certainly doesn't imply 'native of UK'. To my ears it sounds unnatural and implies acquired citizenship. Pincrete (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A native"? I repeat, "British man" certainly doesn't imply UK-born. Briton implies British-born to the same extent that "Scot' implies something more than habitation. There is no single word that 'proves' one is UK-born and I never claimed this word did (ditto German/American/Frenchman etc). Pincrete (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no word that automatically guarantees that a person was born in Britain. None of the three definitions at the Free Dictionary says this. A Briton *may* have been born in Britain, but may also be an inhabitant.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the lede (and also the body of the article), why not switch the role of noun and adjective with a change in the order? Thus "52-year-old" would be used as a "noun" and "British" as an adjective. So instead of "a 52-year-old Briton", write "a British 52-year-old" (or even "British-born 52-year-old" to avoid any ambiguity). Just an idea ... Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, The Free Dictionary is a crap source. It’s about as basic as you can get, but even if it weren’t, NO dictionary is authoritative about the implications of words, which relate to common usage not literal meaning. The best that any dictionary will offer is to indicate “usually … “ or by the order that it offers meanings. Thus by putting ‘native of’ first, TFD is indicating that the most common meaning is precisely that - a native of Britain - someone born there. I think you would not find ’native of’ in the definition of the word ‘British’, which when applied to people simply means citizenship, however acquired. T S Eliot was a British citizen, he was not a Briton.
::::I don’t know what ‘inhabitant’ means in this context, unless perhaps they mean the ancient Britons. I defy anyone to find the word used commonly of people currently living in the UK, who are NOT British citizens. That’s WP:OR of course, but the arguments refuting this are equally OR and OR based on a truly crap source.
What is hoped to be achieved here? If the intention is to make clear that Masood was born in the UK, and not simply acquired his ‘British-ness’, then simply say that. If not not, then why use a tortured construction with the hope of implying ‘British-born’ (although the proposal doesn’t do this anyhow, ‘British man’ simply means male citizen, like Eliot) . Why not use the ordinary noun for a British person, regardless of whether I am right about the additional implications of the word? Which btw has been here since the event occurred. Pincrete (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Westminster_attack&oldid=1056902538"