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 Icewhiz (talk | contribs) at 04:04, 6 June 2017 (→London attacks again). 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]

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)
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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Westminster_attack&oldid=784042033"