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 InedibleHulk (talk | contribs) at 16:14, 29 April 2017 (→Motive update: Not smoking crack, per se. That's a dumb plan.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

UK reactions removal

That an attack took place in Westminster and at one of several entrances to the Houses of Parliament is significant. The reactions of the Mayor of London, the Prime Minister and the Speakers of both Houses are informative. I do not see how they could be described as "meaningless". In six months time, it will be helpful to have a brief but clear record of these reactions. Mathsci (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a strong feeling either way, the three block quotes seemed a bit excessive, maybe shorter and in text would work. Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians are quite used to making vacuous sound bites. It's part of their job (when they're not fiddling expenses, that is ). And it's not even a fine line between a valid expression by a political leader of shock and revulsion, and meaningless rhetoric calculated to make the morning tabloids, and I really have a problem seeing how what I deleted was in any way "informative". Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor the news. Is it not sufficient to write that Khan condemned the attack and May as saying Britain would "never waver in the face of terrorism"? -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong feelings, but it is fairly customary to include a statement from Mayor/Governer and Head of State, the justification for Speakers I guess is the location. Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Customary is well and good, but what encyclopaedic purpose would the inclusion of words of political bravado serve? , and would they not be more suited to inclusion in Wikiquote? Actually, I'm not targeting my comments at you specifically, but more interested in hearing from the person who reverted my change… before I revert. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statement from the speakers was significant both for being made jointly by both of them and for its prompt release. Quotes should sue quotation markup per HTML standards. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Cyrus the Penner, I fail to see how using British English can be described as "heartless". The use of the word "Attacker" is common in British English and has been present on the page for some time, and you trying to edit war in the more American terms "perpetrator" is perplexing and jarring in such a context. It's similarly jarring to see the American "stepfather" rather than the more British "step-father". It is a shame that despite my edit summaries explaining this, and the note on your talk page, you feel it more fitting to edit war to your preferred version, rather than accept the WP:STATUS QUO of the page and discuss it on the talk page, as WP:BRD advises. Is there a reason that BRD and ENGVAR are not applicable in this circumstance? I will only add that if you think the justification of "All the other articles use perpetrator" is acceptable, you really do need to read the ENGVAR guidelines again, and then have a look at WP:OSE. - The Bounder (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about 'perp' and 'assailant', I checked with OED, and they seem to find stepfather normal these days in BritEng. I'm someone who tends to hyphenate everything and can never understand why people refer to their colleagues as "female-bovine orkers", what's an "orker"? Pincrete (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh, I blame journalists and their love of copying horrible Americanisms for what I will always think of as sloppy grammar! Hyphens and definite articles should be protected against such neglect! (Maybe the orkers should join the movement?!) - The Bounder (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flags on casualty figure

In so far as this has been discussed here, my impression has been that editors find flags inappropriate, since these people are in no sense representatives of their countries. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Flags are entirely pointless when we are able to use words to say the same thing. The victims were not "representing" their country in an official sense, so the flag icons are not helpful. –. The Bounder (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decidedly so… Finally, some sanity prevails. Thanks, -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Title

Title needs to read "2017 Westminster Terror attack" Cllgbksr (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cllgbksr: It doesn't look like that's how these articles get named. See September 11 attacks, 2008 Mumbai attacks, and 7 July 2005 London bombings. But precedent set at other articles is generally not a compelling reason to do anything per WP:OTHERSTUFF so I'll ask: can you explain why this article needs to have "terror" added to its name? CityOfSilver 18:57, 9 April 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Westminster_attack&oldid=777838043"