Jump to content

Talk:2017 Westminster attack/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

"presumed"

Give me a break anti-brexiters, "presumed" should be taken out.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No opinion on Brexit, but we don't "presume" article content on Wikipedia. Until there is a source, it can just as well stay out of the article and I'm pretty sure the fate of the world will be just fine in the interim. TimothyJosephWood 15:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
What does this have to do with brexit? Is the attack claimed by an anti-brexit group? I'm confused. --Gerrit CUTEDH 15:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
People who start a discussion with such a segue are generally not taken very seriously. Just so you know. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

Resolved

The Death count for 1 have been confirmed rt news Noobkilervip (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Done (by someone else). Point in fact http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-39355505 confirms this One dead in Westminster incident doctors say -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 16:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Gregory

It's a stretch we've even got the Indian and Kabul national attacks. Adding an attack that occurred at a state legislature with no direct similarities (no bomb confirmed yet) is irrelevant. 77.96.196.47 (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC) ::The incident this IP repeatedly removed was a vehicle ramming of a provincial parliament. All incidents in See Also to which he refers are violent attacks on Parliaments in recent years by terrorists. A short list, thank heaven.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Does the date make the Brussels attack relevant? I ask primarily because the anniversary has been mentioned several times by various media outlets. 24.184.96.88 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

3 bodys 1 in river confomert rt news http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/one-hundred-terrified-people-seen-fleeing-westminster-bridge-as-car-mows-down-pedestians-a3496651.html

picuture of the event takeing place https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2017/03/22/15/parliament2203al.jpg Noobkilervip (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not an actionable edit request. Please give a more accurate description of the changes that you would like to see. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

Bomb Squad called 17 mins ago https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3152917/bomb-squad-suspicious-package-westminster-terror/

avoid The Met warned Londoners to avoid Parliament Square; Whitehall; Westminster Bridge; Lambeth Bridge; Victoria Street up to the junction with Broadway and the Victoria Embankment up to Embankment tube. Noobkilervip (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

See also section

Added list of 21st century violent, terrorist attacks on Parliaments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

These don't seem related to the Westminster attack in any way, so maybe we should just let readers access these articles via categories? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Update: The links have been removed (not by me). ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I added List of terrorist incidents in London to the "See also" section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Blank Sections

It would be good if people did not add in blank sections. Seddon talk 16:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure much discussion is needed here, though. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

U.S. reaction

Sean Spicer is currently delivering comments on the attack on behalf of the Trump presidency. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear - The Bounder (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I see editors are going back and forth about whether or not to include mention of Trump's reported phone call with May. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a reported "phone call" is a "reaction" AusLondonder (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree with AusLondonder. Wait for them to make a public announcement or something like that. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd suggest mention of the call between leaders as part of the US' response.
---Another Believer (Talk) 18:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

2 "confirmed" deaths???

Resolved

The only report I can find right now that there are two deaths are sky news, and they just say 'Sky sources'.

For it to be confirmed, it would have to be a report from a hospital or police. The BBC are reporting only one death, based on reports from the hospital, so far anyway.GliderMaven (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the BBC have been reporting the death of the policeman for the last five minutes on their website. - The Bounder (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It's being reported, but the police specifically say they cannot confirm it, nor to my knowledge have the hospital. Unless there's been a change, it's being reported that it's NOT confirmed.GliderMaven (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I cannot find any sources that state there are 3 fatalities. Edo6209 (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that. News sources are saying one woman and one policemen (at the moment). - The Bounder (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Four people have now been confirmed dead in a Metropolitan Police statement being made at the moment - a police officer, the stabbing suspect and two others. Timrollpickering 18:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the article has been updated accordingly. Thanks for noting here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

Resolved

only 2 deaths have been convermied Noobkilervip (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC) This is now inrelivent sky cleared it up

The article does not say otherwise. Marking this edit request as answered and the section as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Protected

Well that didn't take long! Yes, get rid of the IPs. They're a troublesome lot. Good old Wikipedia. 141.6.11.25 (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Pretty clear I didn't do it to get rid of the IPs.. please feel free to make an edit request -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 16:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
SP is ALWAYS to get rid of IPs. Why else would you do it? I don't see anything other than the normal sort of editing dispute - involving IPs - for fast moving articles like this. 141.6.11.25 (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Unprotected - have at it -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 16:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It's to ensure that edits can be tracked back to users Mindi Crayon (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Er.. no it isn't. 141.6.11.25 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Part of Wave of Terror in Europe?

Resolved

Currently, the infobox's "part of" parameter says "Wave of Terror in Europe", which links to Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present). Is this appropriate? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, someone else was thinking the same thing at the same time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It certainly should not, at least at this stage. We have zero confirmation this was an Islamist attack. AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've marked this section as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
My two cents: you^^ were correct in your handling of this. To be honest I was surprised to see a statement from the muslim council of britain in the 'reactions section when there has been no confirmation of anything about the perpretrtor(s) yet - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Even if it is Islamic terrorism in Europe, the idea of these incidents as a unified wave/scourge/cancer is (at best) unproven. Best to just call it what it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Map

Resolved

Is it possible to get a map for the info box showing the two locations within the Palace of Westminster? Mindi Crayon (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Great idea. I added the "map requested" template to the top of this page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I've added one based on OSM with annotations. Rcsprinter123 (note) 21:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A map was added with this edit, so I am marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Map in infobox?

Resolved

Should the map be moved to the infobox, which has a map parameter? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: The map has been moved to the infobox and given an appropriate caption (neither action by me). ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As the article currently stands, in the infobox. Next to the Attack section would also be a good location, but as things stand right now, the infobox stretches beyond said section. This may be different at some point in the future when there is more information known (and thus the lead may well be longer and there might be a background section preceding the attack section), in which case it becomes a feasible option. Straight below the infobox (where it was prior to being moved to the infobox) and thus in effect mostly next to the Response section doesn't seem the most sensible location. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

Resolved

Change "suspected terror attack" to "terror attack" Pallsopp (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Too early for there to be any evidence of motive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
+1 We need to wait for confirmation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Several IPs keep removing "suspected" now... ansh666 18:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@The Bounder: "treated as a terrorist attack" does not mean that it is a terrorist attack. Until the motives are released, we should not claim that it is, merely that it is being treated as such. I thought you would have learned from the perpetrator ID snafu below. ansh666 21:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Try reading the source I added at the same time: "Police confirm terrorist incident", from The Guardian. – The Bounder (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Identity of attacker

Someone's very keen to add "Asian". There seems to be no mention of this in the article. I have not checked all sources but if it were there I'd expect it to be mentioned and cited. I think this should be removed when added, unless it is properly cited. Or do others disagree? DBaK (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely needs reliable source. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It isn't confirmed if he is Asian or not. Edo6209 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator being "Asian"

There seems to be a number of editors determined to insert text alleging that the perpetrator, who is still not officially known at this stage, is "Asian". Is this appropriate? The person identified by some media as the attacker does not even appear "Asian". AusLondonder (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It is just blatant racist garbage used by nazis to stir up hatred against Asians. The "witness" is probably bullshiting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.67.176 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I think maybe it might be a linguistic thing for Uk English speakers. Like Asian meaning middle eastern/indian/'oriental'. I think that is where that is coming from. I don't know about the unattributed comment ^^ but there is a picture of the alleged attacker referenced on the page - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It's just speculative, no matter what, and should not be included in the article until properly confirmed and sourced. WP:NOTNEWS  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree, definitely need sources/citations- A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
MordeKyle is bang on - There's constant speculation at the moment and so until it's all confirmed and verified by Met Police, Gov etc etc then race etc shouldn't be included. –Davey2010Talk 22:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Glad we have clear agreement on this. AusLondonder (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator's identity

The BBC said about 30 minuets ago 1 was a white skinhead a 1 was a black with a go-tee.92.20.198.76 (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This is contacted by the police statement given on the last hour Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
As we have no names, I don't feel we should include this. Mindi Crayon (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
"Witnesses describe Asian man in 40s." Worth waiting for official details. [1] Jason from nyc (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There are photos, certainly he has a beard in a style plausibly ethnic, and lots of papers say stuff like "Witnesses describe Asian man in 40s..." (by Asian Brits mean native-of-former-Raj) but for the life of me I have never known how anyone can look at a man and tell a Punjabi from a Sicilian or a Turk.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention that the guy "identified" by someone and named in the British press for an hour or two was a Jamaican convert to Islam. Just sayin'.... we better not name ethnic identity before the perp is identitied..E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected perpetrator

I have removed the suspect as there is no source. Mindi Crayon (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It'll probably pop up in the article a few more times. There's a lot of speculation ongoing at the moment. The claim is made a lot on twitter and in not-quite-reliable (to say the least) sources, often along the lines of there "being reports" without further specification which reports and who made them. However, I have yet to see it in a reliable source. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
A number of non-British news sources are attributing the attack to Abu Izzadeen although it does not seem that UK-based news sources are doing the same. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, this information needs to be reliably sourced. Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Channel 4 News apparently just confirmed it was Abu Izzadeen. Waiting for it to appear on their site.--Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed it was, or confirmed there are people saying he was it? Because the latter I am now starting to see pop up in some reliable sources, but I have yet to see any reliable source stating it has been confirmed. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
De Telegraaf have confirmed it, now named and sourced. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
A translation of what the Telegraaf says here actually is "According to not-yet confirmed reports, the man who committed an attack in central London and was lethally shot after is the 42-year-old hate preacher Abu Izzadeen, a muslim convert of Jamaican origin." That's not a confirmation of Abu Izzadeen being the attacker but a confirmation of such reports existing. The single quotes in the headline are the Dutch convention for showing a headline is a quote: The article thus isn't named Identity of the London attacker known but rather "Identity [...] known", as in, there are people who say the identity is known. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
And of course the subheader (even if it's above instead of below the actual headline) "Dader zou islamitische haatprediker zijn", which means "Perpetrator supposedly is Islamic hate preacher". AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Removed again; there being a picture is irrelevant and none of the sources presented actually confirm the identification. ansh666 19:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@The Bounder: "named in reports as" and "believed to be" do not mean confirmed. We should wait until an official confirmation before putting this information in, per WP:BLPCRIME. ansh666 19:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Sadly since it went online only The Independent isn't what it used to be, and we'd be better waiting for other outlets to confirm this, and an official announcement from the Met. So if it hasn't happened already by the time I've finished this post I'm going to remove this information. This is Paul (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I know that very well. When a respected British newspaper describes the information as having been "confirmed by the police", I think it may be good enou for us to use. (Thus my comment above, "confirmed by the police) - The Bounder (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Channel 4 news also running with the name as confirmed by police. - The Bounder (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's wait for BBC News to confirm it. This is Paul (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Channel 4 stated live that they are no longer able to confirm it, that the named man might still be in prison. Keri (t · c) 19:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, there is no confirmation from police, and The Independent doesn't say they got it from the police. Everyone got it from Channel 4... Keri (t · c) 19:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, WP:BLP, applies to those recently deceased. If the perp is not who we were led to believe, then WP:BLPCRIME applies until we have concrete information. If the perp is who they said he was, then BLPCRIME probably won't apply. Everyone take a deep breath and slow down until we have something concrete. It may be a few days.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Nonsense, in notable crimes, once a perp is identified, we name names. User:MordeKyle has been pushing this interpretation in high-profile crimes where perp's name is all over the papers, the telly and the web. If this is the way BLP is being interpreted, we had better rewrite BLP. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Not nonsense. Every crime on Wikipedia is going to be high profile in nature, or else it would not meet WP:N. So then why was this policy written? If the policy needs to be change, then feel free to work towards that. But in this case, WP:BLP is not even the most relevant policy. WP:NOTNEWS is. Feel free to bring your objections to BLP to the appropriate place, so a discussion can be had and changes can be made. Because to be quite frank with you, I agree with you, but that is not what the policy says. I have argued for inclusion plenty before, as you are probably already aware.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Once identified". Yes, once actually identified. Which isn't the case here. What's the case here is claims that--from what I can tell--started mostly in speculation became "factual" mentions in the twitter-sphere and the other usual places, were then repeated on news aggregrate sites, which got repeated by news sites that each got one step closer to generally being reliable until mentions of those reports ended up in the reliable sources. Other than Channel 4, which retracted its confirmation, not a single reliable source I've seen ever outright stated the perp was identified as such, though—it was all 'alleged to be', 'not yet confirmed reports state', 'according to reports', 'may have been' and the likes. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
A good example of why it's best not to seize on every unverified second-by-second sepculative report in the media and shove it in a page about a moving story in a desperate attempt to be up to date. N-HH talk/edits 20:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, his officially serving in prison doesn't mean that he couldn't have been the attacker, for a simple reason. See this 2009 article: [2] Lumidek (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
His solicitor and brother have said he is "in prison" which could not possibly mean they think he is out of prison on parole. AusLondonder (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Naming

For the time being I have used the same naming convention as 2016_Berlin_attack. Seddon talk 15:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ehm, it would be nice if other editors would discuss the name before renaming... Or should we just slap move protection on this for a couple of hours ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Except my rename was acceptable.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our policies.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess I should have asked y'all first.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and as I had already created an article under that title, you deleted all my contributions to ram-rod your move instead of simply copy/pasting without controversy. Thanks for that. -- Veggies (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It should be named 2017 Westminster terror attack, this this is known, except denied by cultural Marxists and the alt-left.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That is insulting to anyone who's not what you're claiming to be, I've issued you a template warning since you clearly don't play heed to rules. Don't keep it up. Furthermore, I've requested page move protection already. --QEDK (愛) 15:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The current name is fine, and definitely so for something that happened all of fifteen seconds ago. If the article is moved again I will request move protection. TimothyJosephWood 15:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Current title seems appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Commonwealth but not Uk, was surprised that parliament was not in the title.From what I gathered that is where it happened. Is westminister the region? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Westminster is technically the borough (district of London), it is also the common metonym for the UK parliament (like 'Capitol Hill' in US?). Westminster is also the name of the bridge and 'Palace of Westminster' is the name of the whole building complex, including the two houses of parliament. Therefore the title is fairly appropriate. Pincrete (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification^ in that case I would say that the current title is apt - A Canadian Toker (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: French president's quote incomplete

President Hollande said (according to Le Monde, March 22) (my highlight in bold - this should be added):

Le président François Hollande a réagi en marge d’un déplacement à Villepinte, en Seine-Saint-Denis : « Nous exprimons au nom de la France toute notre solidarité et tout notre soutien au peuple britannique et à la première ministre Theresa May. » « Le terrorisme nous concerne tous. La France, qui a été si frappée ces temps derniers, peut savoir ce que le peuple britannique a comme souffrance aujourd’hui », a ajouté M. Hollande, soulignant que « c’est au niveau européen qu’il faut s’organiser » pour affronter la menace terroriste.

En début de soirée, le chef de l’Etat s’est entretenu avec la première ministre britannique. Il « lui a adressé ses condoléances à la suite de l’attaque qui a endeuillé le Royaume-Uni aujourd’hui et lui a fait part de la solidarité de la France dans cette tragique épreuve », a précisé la présidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.122.207 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason he should be saying anything in this article. He has nothing to do with the topic. The news includes him in every terrorist angle for reasons which don't apply to encyclopedias. Things here must be sourced, but things in sources mustn't always be here. He was generally against this sort of thing before, and merely continues to be.
If all (or any) of his similar statements were notable, they'd be most pertinent to him, and so noted in his article. They're not. It just goes without saying that someone on an anti-terror platform would say things like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily true that he has nothing to do with the topic of the article: it has been confirmed that at least three of the wounded are French. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, not literally nothing. But a pretty flimsy connection. There are a hundred million French people on Earth, they're all interlinkable that way. This statement is specifically one of support for suffering British people. If he made one domestically, that would be a bit more relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hence the 'not necessarily' part, rather than merely 'No' or the likes, much less me actually putting it in. It's a stronger connection than some of the other quotes that have previously been put into the article, but not quite enough to justify quoting. (Certainly enough for a mere sourced mention the way it is now, though) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I like the way it is now. If people want to read the full thing (or at least translated snippets), it's easier to find the country they want and click the footnote. And if they don't, it's easier to skip over a single sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Might an encyclopedia try a 1 day moratorium for "Disaster Management" articles?

We'll know infinitely more tomorrow than we do today. We're not a news service, we're an encyclopedia. I just read all the usual stuff one reads the same day-- politicized guesses about identity and sarcastic discussions about whether this was "terrorism" or not. Tomorrow it'll all be junk cluttering up the pages. Is it so hard to impose a moratorium and start tomorrow?Profhum (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a perennial discussion. Suggestions such as yours have never found consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I think readers expect to come here on the day of the event. This is the internet age. Of course that does not mean we should abandon caution. AusLondonder (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
No, let editors edit. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, never gonna happen. This is the song and dance every time a new tragedy occurs. Editors are, for some reason, in large numbers always extremely enthusiastic to contribute to the latest news, despite the fact that most of their edits probably wont survive a month. TimothyJosephWood 21:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Or a minute for that matter. The flurry of activity around these articles is frustrating. A month from now, you won't find anyone to help you edit this article.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that. The advantage is that the article ends up on a lot of watchlists in a short amount of time, which helps many users monitor content changes after the initial rush has died down. TimothyJosephWood 22:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, ending up on a watchlist isn't quite the same as editing the article to include new information. It's quite good for removing vandalism and BLP vios and such, but not quite as helpful in following the criminal inquiries and trials long-term. ansh666 07:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It's unfortunate, but the best we can do is just monitor and remove anything false or unverified the moment it appears. ansh666 21:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. At least this time there seems to be a fairly sizeable group of editors doing exactly that. (It's the main reason I'm hanging around the article even though it seems things are well in-hand atm) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Same here.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Because to paraphrase a famous quote an untruth has circled the globe before the facts have awaken90.194.115.50 (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC) I started this section, made the suggestion, because I believe Wikipedia has become the newspaper of record. If I turn to the American newspapers it's all going to get politicized. Perhaps we editors can develop a code of ethics, as we become more and more experienced at this. It isn't going to stop, so at least we're refining our techniques. Good luck, all. Profhum (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

International reactions section

Could we please, on grounds of taste and avoiding wasted effort, please not add dozens of international reactions here with anodyne quotations and little flag icons? There's a consensus nowadays that these are not encyclopedic. Just summaries of the very few significant ones. Thanks. --John (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please. --joe deckertalk 18:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The international section has been deleted, however it may be necessary to put it back. Edo6209 (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The comma after "deleted" is really incorrect; it should be a semicolon, and then a comma after "however". Also, no. Here we go again with the unencyclopedic drivel that disfigures so many "events" articles. And John, I'm almost completely with you, though I wish we had something other than the judgment of the anti-NOTNEWS editors to decide what's significant. "Significant", to me, is when someone actually does something, like close their borders, send medicine, engage in military action, etc. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Reactions

Drmies removed the international reactions section, I restored it. His reasoning is that it is irrelevant, mine is that such a section is standard practice for these sort of incidents (q.v. Charlie Hebdo shooting, 2017 Dutch–Turkish diplomatic incident and others). Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed Mindi Crayon (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Disagree. Most responses are rote, and not significant. See section above re: unencyclopedic nature of this type of content, which only gratifies some deep list-making urge in most wikipedians. The international section should be removed, unless some international person makes an actually significant reaction. 68.175.141.8 (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess I can see the reasoning in removing the Trump phone call bit (because a phone call isn't really a reaction) but I think the quote from the Dutch Prime Minister was relevant and should be included. --Druddigon (talk | contributions) 18:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@The Bounder: would you please restore the section while it is being discussed, per WP:BRD. Thank you. Mjroots (talk)
Why is the dutch response significant though, or different from the sorts of things people always say in such quotes? 68.175.141.8 (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, now international reactions is flooded with nearly identical rote statements with little flags next to them. I can't imagine any reader ever caring about these statements years from now. Could @John: please provide a link showing examples of the consensus you mentioned, that these things aren't worth putting in the articles? Maybe it will convince people not to bother. 68.175.141.8 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm with John and Drmies: scrap the lot and have one line to say 'international leaders condemned the events' or something similar (and even that is a debatable one). If it is going to be included, please do it as text, not bullet-pointed with flags. – The Bounder (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest the obvious compromise: the creation of a Reactions to the 2017 Westminster attack article? That would match the November 2015 Paris attacks, which also has a Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks article. That would prevent this article getting swamped, and enable those who want flags and quotes to fill out the other article as required. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anameofmyveryown: a split is usually done for size reasons. Should the reactions section begin to dominate the article, then it can be split out. Mjroots (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Although I suspect that is exactly what will happen. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It would probably just be best to add reactions that are WP:DUE. Not everyone's reaction is relevant.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Totally agree with those arguing against detailing reactions/condolences, especially if they come in a list with flag icons and are simply boilerplate text of the sort that governments etc always issue after events like this. If any stand out for whatever reason, this can be explained in text. N-HH talk/edits 20:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I also agree that any reactions included must be in the form of prose and explain why they are relevant to the incident and must add encyclopaedic information that is not present elsewhere in the article. Collections of quotes belong at Wikiquote. See WP:QUOTEFARM. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Anameofmyveryown, a separate article is neither obvious nor, more importantly, a compromise. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I want to hear from the Queen. Public officials and police in the area are fine, too. Everyone else just talking can take a hike. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed a linked video of someone called 'Spicer', who as far as I know is not only not British, he isn't even a head of state. Pincrete (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I was going to do this myself, thanks. He's the press guy for the President of the United States, and his reaction is quite irrelevant.  {MordeKyle}  ☢

Khalid Masood image

This image showed up on Commons, which we might use in the suspect's section... however, it is a cropped version of [3] found on The Telegraph's twitter feed. If Chris802 (talk · contribs) is the photographer, I think it might need OTRS, since there's no EXIF data listed -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the image from this thread since it's fairly apparently copyrighted and used without proper permissions. While this user may be the uploader, it seems unlikely that they are the photographer, and I have tagged their only two commons contributions (both variations of this image) for deletion there as copyright violations. TimothyJosephWood 18:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Would we be able to use one of the two (with a reduced resolution) with an WP:NFUR under WP:NFCC due to the person being dead? (not likely new free content will be created) -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't expect it would pass WP:NFCCP on multiple grounds:
  1. No free equivalent: It seems fairly likely that images of the decidedly public event may surface with an appropriate license given a little time, although I would keep an eye on Flickr, or it's likely to get dumped by a bot onto Commons with a less-than-relevant category and simply lost.
  2. Respect for commercial opportunities: Whoever actually did take this photo seems to be currently selling it's use to multiple news outlets.
  3. Contextual significance: Hard to argue that it would be outright detrimental to the reader if this photo was missing. TimothyJosephWood 19:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Attacker(s)

The early reports that there may have been more than one attacker, and the subsequent police denial have been tagged "page needed". I don't think that that is possible on an online BBC rolling news page, but for reference, the time stamps are (17:19 22 Mar) and (18:09 22 Mar) respectively. Perhaps there are alternative sources. Davidships (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

How many groups of people?

Resolved

We know there was at least one on Westminster Bridge, but the lead went on to say "..and then drove into a crowd near the palace gates." I've improved the second half of that, but that particular "crowd" doesn't seem to be mentioned in the main body of the article - it mentions only "railings". Harfarhs (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to User:DeFacto for clearing that one up. Harfarhs (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Location Map

So, I have noticed that this article could maybe use a few location maps. Maybe one to show where in London and in the United Kingdom. (Cass)

Good idea. The map in the infobox of the Westminster article would be a good one to use, but I can't work out how to do it! Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I've added one. It's not the best view of London (it could almost be any city at the size it is), but it's better than nothing and it may prompt someone else to replace it with a better one. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It was removed by an admin, I replaced it with the comment that they should see the talk page: they left a threatening note highlighting their admin status (in a content matter) which I find threatening and inappropriate. - The Bounder (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree The Bounder, did he say why they didn't want it? ((Cass))

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2017

The attacker, identified as 52-year-old British-born Khalid Masood, to The attacker, identified as 52-year-old British-born Khalid Masood of Pakistani ethnicity, Feminfuriator (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that confirms that? (I'm not saying that it will definately mean it is included, but without such a source, it won't even reach the level of a discussion). - The Bounder (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:ISIL terrorist incidents?

I hope I'm not asking something that's already been discussed, but should Category:ISIL terrorist incidents be added? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No. There is no evidence linking them to the attack, other than their own claim. They're hardly a reliable source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
There's not even their own claim. Just Amaq's. ISIS has never claimed to be behind that account. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Many news services have reported ISIS claimed credit for the attack.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
They always do, since 2014. And then a paragraph down, they attribute their conclusion to Amaq's statement, which is always about "a soldier of the Islamic State". Never about "our soldier" or anything suggesting ISIS is talking. Never any non-public detail. Never a byline. Just something on the Internet. But blaming ISIS for anything is just too sexy to pass up, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Not unless the attack is reliably sourced to them. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

more videos available here

http://www.voanews.com/a/police-identify-britain-parliament-attack-assailant/3778843.html

Victor Grigas (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

How many dead ?

Yesterday, and today, non-UK sources are speaking of 5 dead, AFAI can see, UK sources still say 4 (inc perp.). Can anyone confirm that I am correct? The article and linked articles currently say 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 2017-03-23T22:55:05 (UTC)

It's currently 5, following the death of the 75-year-old an hour or so ago. I think most UK sources published within the last hour or so will have 5. - The Bounder (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
BBC now gives 5, thanks for answering The Bounder. I have to go to bed, but there is also other new info there. Pincrete (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Privacy concerns for injuried victims

Anyways, so I am wondering if it is a privacy concern if someone's name was mentioned that was injured. (Cass))

Their names should not be included per WP:LPNAME. There is no loss of context by not using their name.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, that only applies to living victims.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2017

Resolved

Expressions of shock, support, solidarity and sympathy were offered by the governments of Argentina,[49] Australia,[50] Canada,[51] China,[52] Czech Republic,[53] Denmark,[54] Egypt,[55] France,[11] Germany,[56] India,[57] Iran,[58][59] Ireland,[60] Israel,[61] Italy,[62] Jordan,[63] the Netherlands,[64] New Zealand,[52] Pakistan,[65] Romania,[66] Russia,[67] Saudi Arabia,[63] Sweden,[68] Turkey [67] and the United States.[69]

Please add Armenia http://www.president.am/en/condolence/item/2017/03/23/President-Serzh-Sargsyan-sent-condolence-letter-to-Teresa-May/ Ushuaya (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Individual countries are currently not mentioned in the article. If you disagree with this, please discuss it elsewhere on the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done - @Thryduulf: They are mentioned in a note. Added. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 00:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

identity of individuals

The Guardian's live feed reports a 75-year-old man died in hospital on Thursday, no other details.[4]. Fences&Windows 08:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

New Scotland Yard (Mark Rowley) and BBC News have described him as Leslie Rhodes, a pensioner from Streatham. Mathsci (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Plainclothes officers

There are unconfirmed reports that Michael Fallon's bodyguard shot the attacker, not plainclothes polices. As it's unconfirmed, obviously, the article should remain unchanged until it is. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Fallon's bodyguard IS a plain clothes policeman.[5] Davidships (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I found a picture from The Gaurdian.

Hi, I found a picture from the Gaurdian that might help out knowing about him and is worth uploading and could be considered vital. (Cass) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/mar/24/london-attack-police-terrorist-khalid-masood-live

Do you mean the one of him from school? If so, I'm not sure how it helps explain to readers anything about the attack. Maybe I've missed the point, or I'm looking at the wrong photo? - The Bounder (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The images are owned by Getty Images, and do not appear to be usable on Wikipedia at this time. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Not jailhouse but gaolhouse conversion

Neither jail nor gaol is in the article and has not been for a while. "Prison" has been there and does not need replacing. - The Bounder (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

Conversion to Islam in prisons currently leads to Conversion to Islam in U.S. prisons, but there is no evidence that he was in U.S. jail, he probably was in a gaol in England, so the link is invalid and evil, and therefore must be destroyed or changed. The british spelling of prison is gaol, not northern american jail. -- 07:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.248.180 (talk)

Thanks IP. I've removed the link and put the spelling to "prison"; "gaol", while better than "jail" is an archaic term nowadays. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Jail is in common usage in British English. Darmot and gilad (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
No: Gaol (in British English) is in informal or slang use, but it's not encyclopaedic, whereas "prison" is. "Jail" is American. - The Bounder (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It's confusing. Gaol is archaic and written media in the UK these days would generally not use it, except perhaps in a historical context. Reports of court cases tend to use phrases like "He was jailed for three years", but the actual penal institutions themselves tend to be referred to as prisons in the media (and in everyday conversation). Neiltonks (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Put better than I managed to! There is a difference between the noun and verb, but "prison" is far better for an encyclopaedia. - The Bounder (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree that Gaol is archaic and has fallen out of common parlance in British English example of modern usage of jail. Sport and politics (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I hardly think the inability of a gutter press journalist to spell properly is a good example! - The Bounder (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I hardly think the Guardian is 'gutter press' as was so pejoratively used to refer to the Mirror. Please therefor see this guardian article using the term jail. A third article, one from the spectator, directly references the dictionary, to state jail is correct Sport and politics (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The spelling 'gaol' died out years ago. It seems to be mainly a myth that us British still use it, perpetuated by the Americans. You'll occasionally find it for archaic effect in modern documents, but that's it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's nonsense. The spelling has not "died out" at all, and I suggest you do a search of the BBC, Times, Guardian and Telegraph websites for a start. Although there is a modern rise in the use of "jail", "gaol" is still very much in use, and not only when part of a proper noun (i.e. Reading gaol). - The Bounder (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It really has died out. I read the BBC and Guardian every day and I am yet to read a recent article that uses the word gaol in anything other than an archaic use. Instead, words such as "imprisoned", "jailed" are used. If you disagree I'd be very interested and surprised to see articles that use such vocabulary. Calvin (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
If it is used in the mainstram press, I struggle to comprehend exactly how it has "died out". As to the use of the word "jailed", if you had actually read the thread, you will see that it has already been clarified that there is a difference between noun and verb use. - The Bounder (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(outdent) The Guardian is hardly to be considered 'gutter press' as was so pejoratively used to refer to the Mirror. Please therefor see this guardian article using the term jail. A third article, one from the spectator, directly references the dictionary, to state jail is correct. This is though a discussion going nowhere, the overwhelming consensus here is 'gaol' is archaic and not to be used on this article. the term jail is a modern spelling of the word. With the term prison being the formal usage when describing the matter at hand. This is getting very silly, and should be moved on from. Please also be aware that a formal Victorian name for a place which has not been updated for historical heritage reasons does not demonstrate any form of modern parlance usage. Sport and politics (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

a. No-one is is confusing the proper noun, as has already been said above. b. More importantly, neither spelling has been used in the article for hours, as one of the earliest posts in the thread makes clear: "prison" replaced it nearly 8 hours ago. I agree that this is going no-where, and there really is no "consensus" to be settled on in such a moot discussion where the term does not even appear. - The Bounder (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
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.

4chan morse code

Currently, the article talks about a 4chan post which showed the coordinates of a place in the area of the attack. It's tagged as {{dubious}} but no discussion was started. So I guess I'll start one. To me, it looks like it could be a complete coincidence. It's technically possible for someone to be posting coordinates like this every day (or few days) of major landmarks, and then the post gaining notoriety after something happens there. Nothing about the post hints at the methods used in the attack (the attacker didn't use pistols, the note in the image was clearly edited, etc -- although the timestamp is close (14:54:05 UTC)). --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 14:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: 4chan speculates about the post on /pol/thread/117779029 (direct 4chan URLs are blocked by a filter). Be aware that /pol/ is not the most savoury of boards. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 14:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I've removed it at least for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Forums are unreliable sources, although some can be useful for finding reliable sources. This particular forum is particularly unreliable and should be steered well clear of. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The forum was not the source used - it was Gizmodo. Also covered by:
for example.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
Many of those sources would fail a reliability test in their own right. (Not sure about all of them) - The Bounder (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Farage

I have removed this addition of Farage's opinion. He's not the leader of a party, or a head of state, and is uninvolved in day-to-day politics or the police investigation. As no official sources have outlined a motive, then it's little more than political posturing from him, rather than an educated or informed insight. I suspect someone will try and put the information back in, but I think it's worth examining it and whether it is encyclopaedic enough for inclusion on this article. - The Bounder (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, he's still an MEP, but no more influential in real terms (that is, not considering public opinion) than all the other MEPs. I think a "controversy" section or whatever can be added much later, once the dust has settled and everyone knows much more about the subject of the article. Until then, all opinion pieces are rather like rumour. He said this while most people didn't know Masood was radicalised in jail (and that is also rumour at this stage). --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 17:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Vehicle details

Do we need to mention that the vehicle was a grey Hyundai? Keeps being added and removed, so figured I'd start a discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say yes it is of relevance, what kind of vehicle was used.  — Calvin999 17:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_attack#Hijacking Seddon talk 17:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

add Hyundai i40 to Weapons Four–wheeled vehicle and knife Noobkilervip (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide sources for content you would like added to or changed in the article. TimothyJosephWood 17:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There is currently inconsistency: Hyundai i40 vs Hyundai Tucson. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I have made changes to recognize the differing reports. TimothyJosephWood 17:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Now reduced to "grey Hyundai vehicle", which seems appropriate especially given conflicting details. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The reg of a car was quoted as "EX66 RWO" which is to my research a Hyundai i40 Edo6209 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I should have come to this page sooner, and I apologize. I've listed SEVERAL reliable sources of the vehicle. I've contacted at least two WP users who seem to think it's otherwise yet they cite no sources. At least two other users also seem insistent. Finally, I found someone in this talk page who provided a photograph which appears to contradict the news reports of the model of vehicle, although this could be another vehicle at the scene. see:

and contradicting sources, for example:

  • Mansfield, Katie. "London terror attacker PICTURED? Dramatic first pictures of man taken into custody". Daily Express. Retrieved 22 March 2017. The attacker mowed down several pedestrians as he drove a grey Hyundai i40 across Westminster Bridge before crashing it into railings then running through the gates of the Palace of Westminster....

--SidP (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The car is not a Hyundai i40 - if you look at the rear of the car in this article London attack: Police officer and shot terrorist among four dead after car ploughs into pedestrians near Parliament it is different from an i40 - If you look at this picture of the Tucson Hyundai Tucson you can see that car's rear is the same as that used in the attack.OptiMegaCell (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Vehicle Listed

Vehicle listed is incorrect, see http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/03/22/15/3E86A92900000578-4338998-Armed_Police_have_opened_fire_and_shot_a_person_outside_the_Hous-a-63_1490196071189.jpg vehicle number plate can be looked up against public sources in the UK and reports a Hyundai i10 2016. This vehicle is not described as a four-wheel drive vehicle and is instead classified as a front wheel drive city car. 80.7.165.100 (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/vehiclecheck http://www.eurocarparts.com/car-parts https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/ViewVehicle 80.7.165.100 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The edit warring back and forth is not helpful. I've tried to use a general term, then just Hyundai, but for crying out loud - stop flaming edit warring between two different models: it doesn't bloody matter whether it's a Tucson, i40, iPhone 6, or a Ford Galaxy at this stage! - The Bounder (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

the car was a Hyundai i40 and not a Hyundai Tucson Noobkilervip (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:2017_Westminster_attack#Vehicle_details above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I am marking this section as resolved in an effort to keep discussion in the above section related to vehicle details. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rcsprinter123: and others. The registration of the vehicle is EK66 RWO, which is a grey Hyundai Tucson, this vehicle description matches the vehicle shown in the photographs and TV news coverage. Twitter discussion (OR) suggests ITV News and from there, various others incorrectly reported that the vehicle was EX66RWO, a black Hyundai i40. The Daily Mail, who are reporting the vehicle as a Hyundai Tucson, are the correct source to use for this (ironically). Nick (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What happened to verifiability not truth? Lots of sources vs the not entirely reliable DM points to us putting i40. Rcsprinter123 (warn) 22:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
How do folks feel about going with the verifiable and true and simply putting Hyundai there at least for now? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rcsprinter123: You don't publish something you know to be untrue, just because you can verify it. It's clear looking at the photographic evidence that the vehicle isn't a Hyundai i40. The correct approach, until this slight fuck up by the press is resolved (pity the poor bastard who owns EX66RWO) is to default to Hyundai without mentioning the model designation. Nick (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There is way too much edit warring over the vehicle model. I changed the article's prose and infobox to say "Hyundai vehicle", which I hope we can keep until consensus is reached. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: We're thinking the same way and I've already made this change (see above comment). ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I've caught one as well. It's a suggestion I made earlier, but the edit warring rolled over me. - The Bounder (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I put in an edit notice to look at this section of the talkpage before changing it to either Hyundai i40 or Hyundai Tucson? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Its a Tucson. I work for the company and know the difference between a black I40 and a grey Tucson SUV. Buckers (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The car is 100% a Tucson and not a Hyundai i40 - if you look at the rear of the car from this telegraph article London attack: 'Sick and depraved' terrorist kills three including police officer before being shot outside Parliament Car in attack it is different from an i40 - If you look at this picture of the Tucson Hyundai Tucson you can see that car's rear is the same as that used in the attack. I mentioned this above but it seems to have been missed. Hope this clears some things up.OptiMegaCell (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem isn't whether or not we can personally verify, or work for the company, or the likes. Wikipedia simply requires reliable independent sources, not WP:original research, for this. Right now, the choices are going with "Hyundai i40"--because that is what the majority of reliable sources is reporting, no matter how wrong they may well be--a slightly less precise "Hyundai vehicle" or maybe if we can scrunch up at least one or two reliable sources also saying Tucson against the majority saying i40, maybe "Hyundai i40 or Tucson" with a reference after either and a footnote explaining the conflicting sources. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Does it really matter? We have Hyundai, which everyone agrees with, and the really, really minor details like the exact model can wait until the main sources start agreeing with one another. – The Bounder (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • It matters enough, otherwise editors wouldn't be going back and forth so much. Do we need to have a request for comment or other poll of sorts to help decide how to best display the vehicle model, given original research vs. conflicting reporting? How can we come to a consensus here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

year old Hyundai Tucson

[7] on the 6th position is blog howto remote control this car. Blog may be kind of ill source. So add only the info this car is a new "year old car" from thesun.co.u.

see also m y. 4 old source[8] way back archived. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible options

Let's try to find a form we can all agree with. Separating out into a separate subsection to make it easier to find and not stuck halfway edit requests. As I see it, staying in line with the various relevant wikipedia policies, guidelines etc., we have the following three options:

  1. Hyundai i40
  2. a Hyundai vehicle EDIT: (or other more descriptive variation, nonetheless without name of the model, such as the one proposed below by Thryduulf)
  3. a Hyundai i40 or Tucson (see below)

3 is only an option if we can find at least one or two reliable sources (that is, not twitter messages, not the Daily Mail, not original research, not common knowledge, not news aggregates, etc.) outright stating Hyundai Tucson. Even then, it's somewhat iffy on the grounds of WEIGHT. I suspect it would also simply invite folks to remove whichever part they don't agree with, thus not solving the edit warring one iota, but that's a different matter.

The edit warring shows pretty clearly there is no real consensus for Hyundai i40. It also shows there is no consensus for Hyundai Tucson, but with a majority of reliable sources stating i40, listing merely Tucson isn't an option anyway. I think the edit warring also shows no consensus for the 'a Hyundai vehicle' option, but as far as I can see, that one has only been employed in the middle of actively-ongoing edit warring so far, so it might have simply been rolled over.

Can folks please state which of the three possible options they prefer, whether they can support another version, which concerns they may have with other version and why, or if they see an actual option in line with Wikipedia's rules, policies, guidelines etc. that I have overlooked? The sooner we establish some form of consensus or compromise, the sooner we can stop this friggin' edit war that keeps popping up every other hour. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I support option 2 or "a large Hyundai car" as the size is the only relevant part of the model in this context and an SUV is just a type of large car. Saying "a large vehicle" would be misinterpreted as being something on the scale of a lorry, which it clearly wasn't. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
You missed an option: If the photos in the press are of the car involved, then it is a Hyundai Tucson. -- de Facto (talk). 23:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure it still requires a reliable source to identify the car in the picture as a Tucson, especially with the number of reliable sources saying i40. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Even the sources that are calling it an i40 are showing the photos of a Tucson. So do we go by what they show or what they write? -- de Facto (talk). 07:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It is OR to interpret the photograph, particularly is a large number of sources are saying something different. - The Bounder (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
No it's not OR, the photos themselves are clear sources of the fact - there is no synthesis or opinion involved in reading them. -- de Facto (talk). 07:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
If there is confusion in the reliable sources, then yes, if we interpret one model over another, that is OR. - The Bounder (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd support option 2 or similar to Thryduulf. We know the i40 is wrong, so we should refrain from including it at all, and stick to doing what we can to ensure accuracy, so stating brand, approximate size and the colour of the vehicle. Nick (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I think you meant Tucson rather than i40 there? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed I did, thank you. - The Bounder (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course WP:OR, but several of the photos actually show the rear of the vehicle clearly enough to see "Tucson". How you can look at that and get "i40" (which isn't even the right size) is beyond me - but since that's what most of the sources say, let's go with option 2 until/if they start caring enough to realize the collective error of their ways. Reliable sources my azz, this entire episode with the false accusations and all reflects really poorly on the media nowadays (as if we didn't know all that already). ansh666 07:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I added a comment into the page to note the dispute, to avoid others adding this "missing" detail as I did before I saw this discussion. Fences&Windows 08:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the mistaken identity of the car is due to someone looking-up a mistaken reading of the registration number rather than looking at the picture of the car. The reg number is "EK66 RWO" which resolves correctly as a grey Hyundai Tucson, if the "K" is replaced with an "X" you get a black Hyundai i40, as incorrectly reported in some of the sources.[9] -- de Facto (talk). 17:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Keith Palmer (police officer)

There's a page for Keith Palmer which was created a couple of hours ago. I've moved it from the original title of Keith Palmer (policeman) to Keith Palmer (police officer), but I'm wondering if we should redirect it here. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely redirect. Notable for one event, and didn't even cause it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
ok it's done. This is Paul (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


Should we have an edit notice advising on how to reference live threads?

I would like to have the following notice added to 2017 Westminster attack, to help editors comply with WP:VERIFY. A notice like this would be shown to editors (and only editors):

When referencing to live threads from newspaper websites, please link to the specific element of the thread. For The Guardian's live threads (e.g. this one), click on the timestamp next to the element, and then copy the URL. For the BBC's one (e.g. this one), click on the "Share" button in the bottom of the specific element you want to reference, click on "Twitter" (it won't tweet unless you confirm) and copy the URL given. This is to make verification possible or easier for readers.

This is justified by how often editors are referencing the live threads without mentioning the timestamp, title, or URL, of specific elements. If we manage to get consensus on this page (that is, consensus that a message fulfilling this purpose is required), a request can be made here. I'm open to having the message amended. Thanks. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 17:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll suggest recommending first finding a regular story with the same information. If that fails, then timestamp the live one. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Breaking news is more likely to appear on such pages first. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
And the first reports are more likely to be wrong. But that's another problem for another day. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Then we fix them when they do. Nonetheless, a lot of good material in this article came from such sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@BurritoBazooka: I recommend putting your guidance on a stand-alone page (it was new to me; thank you for it), and linking to it from the edit notice. It will serve us well in future cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Photo of terrorist nowhere in article

greetings. Was just wondering why (at this point) there is no image of the attacker anywhere in the article (particularly in the "Attacker" section), even though I see a number of photographs of the assailant in a simple Google search. Can a photo of this Khalid Masood (aka Adrian Russell Ajao) be placed somewhere in this article? What are your thoughts? Namarly (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The rest of the Internet has it easier than Wikipedia, with freedom to buy or steal images as it pleases. We have to either choose a freely-licenced or public domain one, or succesfully argue that an owned one meets all of these criteria (and fill out a form). If either of those sound like something you're up to, we can have a picture.
Personally, I say just Googling him if you want to see his face is much easier. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

9:33

Why has information about the 9:33 silence, observed in Parliament and by Met Police, been removed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't know, but it should be in there, particularly if we have the UN's minute mentioned in the International section. - The Bounder (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I've restored it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
is a bit confused about the 9.33 thing. Because it also says in the article that PC Palmer's shoulder number 4157U was retired as a mark of respect. Does this mean he had 2 shoulder numbers, the other being 933? 2A02:C7D:B9B6:9B00:7932:E869:C5D4:15EF (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I think 933 was his warrant number - that does not change during an officer's career (within a force), the shoulder number will change depending on an officer's posting (Palmer would have worn a different shoulder number in his previous roles with the TSG etc) David Underdown (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know but, I do think it was notable. ((Cass))

Requested move 24 March 2017

WP:SNOW - never going to happen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

2017 Westminster attack → Westminster attack – There's been a rather bad habit for page titles of incidents such as this one to be prefixed with a year, even if the subject is the only one of its kind, and does not need any disambiguation. There hasn't been any "Westminster attack" before this, as far as I can see, discerning search results from prior to March 2017 and from information present on the Westminster Bridge article. The Palace of Westminster article mentions a few incidents of violence throughout its history, but here's where I play the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE and WP:COMMONNAME cards – no other event prior to this one has been labelled as the "Westminster attack", and this one has been called such by many sources, some of which I will name here...

-- Philip Terry Graham 02:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Alcherin:Except it is being called "London attack"...
[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 03:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
To be more specific, the article at present, and the proposed renames, don't use "London attack" in favour of "Westminster attack". Alcherin (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose there have been many Westminster attacks, notably by Guy Fawkes; or the bombings from the BLITZ; the proposal is completely lacking in acknowledgement that Westminster existed before 2017. "Westminster attack" should be a disambiguation page, considering plots to attack it during the World Wars, Civil Wars, etc -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
As an aside, the London attack of 2005 is in WIkipedia as 7 July 2005 London bombingsMeropeRiddle (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
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.

Mullah wrongly identified as the attacker by some reports

I saw some earlier reports where a cleric previously accused of hate speech was wrongly identified as the attacker. Should this be added? It was notable enough but of course it might also lead to undue victimization. Hate speech is one thing, attack is another. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's no secret that Abu Izzadeen was named all over some parts of the media for a while.[21] However it was just a media cock-up and not really notable. His article currently does mention it, but it doesn't really deserve a mention either here (for the reasons you mention) or there. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd have to concur with zzuuzz, but for me, it is given duly to the fact it was speculative and, as we know now, false. The fact that he was mentioned is notable like you said in terms of undue victimization, but this I don't feel is the place. GlueManGoop, 16:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Masood's death

The lede stated that he died in hospital. The Attack section said he died at the scene and has citations to state so. However, I have seen images of him being loaded on a stretcher and into an ambulance which suggests life at that time. I have changed the lede as it was uncited but him dying at hospital may be correct. The joy of all things (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Information from CV acquired by the Sun

Details reported in the UK press and the BBC concerning Masood's periods in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia (2005-2006 and 2008-2009) seem to come from a CV of Masood acquired by The Sun newspaper. The BBC and the Guardian do not name their source, but other newspapers like the Daily Telegraph and the Independent mention that these reports stem from the document acquired by the Sun. More careful qualification amd explanation is required for the statement in the article about Masood's periods abroad in Saudi Arabia. Mathsci (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill

We have 109 separate sources saying far fewer than 109 things, yet some are still reused repeatedly. Claims that aren't controversial get 2-6 footnotes each. This isn't how it's supposed to be. But I don't want to trim it back. It's tedious. If anyone else sees it as a problem, and enjoys a challenge, it's something to consider. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

"Citation overkill" has got to be one of the most ridiculous non-issues Wikipedians with too much time on their hands have bitched about in recent years. That essay (not a policy or guideline) talks about extreme cases of fifteen notes on a point; at no point are more than three used here. Time to stop wrinkling your nose at footnotes. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Better to have too many refs than not enough. Anyway, 110 refs isn't much. I know of a list with over 1,300 refs. Mjroots (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Fallon in lede

"Masood was then shot by a close protection officer assigned to Defence Secretary Michael Fallon" is too much detail for the lede. I've shortened it, and removed an accompanying citation. Details and citations belong on the body, not the lede. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Notes to keep in mind

We have a lot of editors working on this article and I thought I'd drop a few words of advice:

  • When wikilinking, there's no need to use aliases if the article title fits into the context.
  • Amaq News Agency is not ISIL-associated, it's an unofficial media apparatus.
  • Don't use aliases for locations unless direly needed (the common name is already the title of the page). It makes what you're talking of harder to find.
  • Use commas to terminate phrases when moving into next section of sentences.

This is not in context to anyone's edits but just some things I noticed in the article. --QEDK (愛) 05:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

These are riddles. Please give specific examples of what you mean, in each case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

"Background" section

Anybody could in principle write their own essay here. Please could we make sure that all content included in this newly created section is sourced to reliable media reports? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Last time I looked (around 12 hours ago), it was; since then, good, relevant cited, information (such as the threat from Islamist extremists, the date being the first anniversary of the Brussels bombing; and the recent truck attacks in Germany and Nice) has been removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

attacker's birth name

" Adrian Russell Ajao " per London's anti-terrorist people. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Not his birth name, as pointed out by more recent sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Merging of Masood's page

If we were to merge Masood, do you think a infobox would be necessary? Any thoughts about it? (Cass) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassini127 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Organizing the Attacker section

Hi, I have came across the attacker section and it is very confusing. I think a bit of organization might be needed and it would be great if was organized like a biography going from beginning to end. (Cass) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassini127 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Position of references

I see that in this edit the references in the Domestic section have been moved to before the information that they are supposed to be supporting. Is there a guideline that supports having them before the information, rather than after, which is what I thought was the MoS? – The Bounder (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... not entirely sure where Pigsonthewing is getting that notion. In fact, Template:quote even includes it's own parameter for the source of the quote. TimothyJosephWood 19:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
That parameter was not used. Refs are not part of the quote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You have still not explained why, in opposition to the MoS, you have moved the citations to leave the quotes unsupported? The citations need to go AFTER the information they are supposed to be supporting. - The Bounder (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes I have: "Refs are not part of the quote.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I will also add that the template documentation states the opposite to your claim that refs are not part of the quote:
  • At the end of the quotation, when a quotation is given without |author= or |source= (e.g. because the material before the quote makes it clear who is being quoted):
    According to Pat Doe, in "Underwater Basketweaving Tips" (2015): {{quote |text=Quoted material.<ref>...</ref>}}
    • The Bounder (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    Then the MoS is wrong. Read the HTML specs section on the <blockquote> element. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    So you're right and the MoS is wrong? Hmmmmm..... - The Bounder (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    In that regard, yes. Furthermore, the first list item in Template:Quote#Reference citations contradicts your assertions. In that regard, both the MoS and I are right, and you are wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

    What a rather unpleasant an uncollegiate manner you have. And no, there was no justification for you to undo the edit that I mentioned to open this thread: despite your claims, the MoS is entirely correct, and you saying otherwise does not mean that magically you are right. Life is too short to have to deal with he likes of you, but whatever the MoS states, it now looks like those citations are unsupported. – The Bounder (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

    Unpleasant? Uncollegiate? Get the beam out of your own eye. Once again: "Read the HTML specs section on the <blockquote> element". Once again: "the first list item in Template:Quote#Reference citations contradicts your assertions". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    Deleting some nonsense on my talk page? That's not unpleasant, just housekeeping. Pointing out that you think you are some higher force than the MoS? That's not uncollegiate, just a normal reaction to something rather arrogant. I'll leave you to keep talking to yourself. I doubt there is anything I say that will do any good here, and I have little wish to discuss anything with you any more. – The Bounder (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    For whatever it's worth, I think putting the reference before the quote is pretty stylistically awkward, taking the time to add hidden comments on every blockquote is a touch WP:POINTY, and taking such an authoritative and argumentative position on the whole issue is silly. TimothyJosephWood 12:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I think putting the quotes where I did, as supported by the Mos is not awkward, but correct; adding a comment to prevent people from repeating a mistake, albeit one encouraged by an error in the MoS, is sensible; but yes, The Bounder's falsely authoritative and argumentative position was indeed silly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    Please do not malign what I have said simply because it differs from your opinion: I have suggested placing them in a position supported by the MoS. – The Bounder (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    So much for not wishing to discuss anything with me any more. I have not maligned what you have said because it differs from my opinion. I have pointed out - with a citation - that your claim was false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    My claim that the MoS states it is acceptable to put refs after the quote? No, you have not provided any evidence other than your claim the you are right and the MoS is wrong. I'm out. You seem incapable of seeing anything other than your own way of doing something, which is unhelpful in the extreme. – The Bounder (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    Your claim that " The citations need to go AFTER the information they are supposed to be supporting", which is refuted by the template documentation to which I have more than once already referred you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    Oh Christ. Template guidance is not MoS and it's not policy. And for the record I was referring to your approach as silly in its argumentativeness and faux presumed authority. And while you're at it, you can probably drop the pretense of what is and is not "false", since we're talking about highly subjective stylistic differences of opinion, and not issues of epistemic certainty. As I have stated, I think your approach is awkward and risks separating the citation from the quote over the course of several years of subsequent editing. I will never use it in those dark corners of the project where I happen to be the principle architect of an article, but I patently don't care enough about something so inconsequential to revert it. TimothyJosephWood 13:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    There is no "faux presumed authority"; I do not rely solely on "template guidance"; I have cited sources with impecibble authority, not least the W3C HTML standard. The idea that you, in your first post, complained that my argument was "authoritative" (definition: "able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable") is laughable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    Well, to be fair, I was using the term a bit ironically, but since you feel the need to quote a dictionary definition to me, if it suits you you can replace "authoritative" with "petty and pedantic" and that should probably suit just fine. Overall, your attitude leave much to be desired. TimothyJosephWood 15:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

    Interest in jihad leadworthy, or relevant to terrorism?

    Somebody read jihad and wrote jihadism when crafting the sentence about non-existent links to terrorism. I fixed that, but now it doesn't make a lot of sense. Jihad encompasses much more than yelling "allahu akbar" and exploding to Muslims, and it seems rather normal that one would have an interest in it. Combining it with terrorism just perpetuates narrow thinking. Probably best for the Investigation section only. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

    Agree that the distinction should be made.Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    How so? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    I mean, beyond just changing the word and Wikilink. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    a) What you've already done b) being aware of the difference, (ie you'd already done the right thing and I could have just shut up and been grateful. Pincrete (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

    Where Masood died

    There seems to be confusion as to where Masood died. the coroner's inquest says 'pronounced dead' at hospital 50-ish minutes after attack. I suspect this is the difference between dying and being formally pronounced dead, which must be done by a doctor, since no one seems to suggest he was alive at hospital. I've fixed the lead by removing 'at the scene', but perhaps someone can rephrase the main text (don't have time right now). Pincrete (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

    I believe fixed, the sources confirm 'at the scene', but prononced dead approx 40 mins later at hospital. Pincrete (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

    Tautology

    I have again changed "shot by an armed officer" to "shot by another officer", in the lede. Unarmed officers don't shoot people, so the former is a tautology. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

    Andy Mabbett, it may literally be a bit tautological, and I would agree with you were the term 'soldier', or were this most countries apart from UK, however armed officers are fairly rare in UK. The effect on me as a British person of reading "shot by another policeman", is to ask "with what? where did he find the gun? He's police". If it's a tautology, it's one that British media seem to find acceptable/necessary, "The attacker was shot dead by armed officers" (BBC the next day), "he was swiftly shot by armed police" (New Statesman, on the day). These were the first two 'initial accounts' I read, but fully expect that others would be the same.
    There was previous discussion and several editors, voiced similar views to mine, that UK context requires it. We could perhaps make 'armed' more educative, by linking to an article about which police are armed in the UK, if one exists.Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I agree there was tautology, but I also agree that armed police are the exception and not the norm in the UK, so it would be helpful to specifically mention that the officer was indeed an armed officer. Perhaps we can rejig that sentence something like this: "A nearby armed officer witnessed the stabbing and challenged Masood before shooting him. Masood died less than an hour later in hospital." -- de Facto (talk). 19:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    I also agree with the mention of armed officer as it is not the norm in the UK.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 19:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    I agree as well. We need to differentiate because the majority of UK officers don't carry arms. This is Paul (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    I think saying he shot someone draws that distinction clearly, but don't feel strongly about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    They may be the expception; that's a matter for the body, not the lede. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    Why? When 1 byte makes the distinction easily in the lead? Pincrete (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    Beacsue it's a tautology. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    Actually, it's possibly redundant, it isn't really a tautology. BBC, and most other UK sources use it, they clearly don't know how to write English! Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    I don't agree that there is tautology. If it said "…was shot by a police officer who was armed…" that would be tautology. But in the UK and in the context of this article an "armed police officer" is a distinct entity - a compound noun if you like. It's a fine but significant point which adds clarity to the lede and which was discussed and settled previously. Removing "armed" brings no benefit. Captainllama (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    Well, you seem to be in a minority of one. Have you ever heard of anyone being shot by an unarmed officer? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

    Jihad and "Islamic fundamentalism"

    Andy Mabbett Tautology bad, Pure Synth OK?, thankyou for explaining 'Jihad' to our readers. Can you point me to where the Police say Masood had an interest in "Islamic fundamentalism" ?Pincrete (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

    I'm not sure why this is nested under discussion of the ridiculous "shot by an armed officer" tautology. But since you ask, the cited source refers to "the rhetoric of IS leaders in terms of methodology and attacking police and civilians". It's not synthesis to paraphrase that as "Islamic fundamentalism". But perhaps you think it's OK that the lede currently suggests that the Met ascribe to Massood behaviour consistent with "striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim... or efforts toward the moral betterment of society". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    I am happy that the senior policeman concerned knew the meaning of the word 'jihad', and knew that it had a range of meanings, in the way that 'crusade/r' does. I am also happy that if he meant to say "Islamic fundamentalism", "Islamism", "Jihadism", or some-such, he would have said it. I believe he chose his words with care, and does not need either of us to explain what he really meant, doing so is an almost perfect definition of synth. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    The rhetoric is the tiny snippet from Adnani's roughly 100-page November 2014 speech that has been cherrypicked in dozens of languages and thousands of stories since. It simply advises killing anybody in the anti-ISIS coalition (over a billion of us) by any method. He throws out a half-dozen examples, includings cars and knives. One predates ISIS by over a century, and the other predates Islam by about two million years. Maybe Masood got the idea from Adnani, but it's also very plausible he simply realized cars are heavy and knives are sharp, as countless killers have on their own.
    In any case, that's just the methodology. Nowhere do police say he shared the same ideas as Adnani, or any Islamic fundamentalist. It's precisely because they don't see more damning stuff in his browsing history, journals and whatnot that they need to resort to "clear interest in Jihad", which sounds a lot sketchier than it is, by looking like "Jihadism". Remember that all of us who regularly pop up on Talk Pages like these can be said to show a clear interest in mass murder and/or terrorism. If that interest doesn't drive us to do what we do (beyond Wikipedia), why should it be so prominently hinted at driving Masood? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

    Last sentence in the lead

    "Police stated Masood had an interest in jihad, but they had found no motive, no evidence of radicalisation nor any link with a known terrorist organisation." This just happened, its inappropriate to use it in the past tense as if the case is closed. Neil Basu actually said "His methods appear to be based on low sophistication, low tech, low cost techniques copied from other attacks, and echo the rhetoric of IS leaders in terms of methodology and attacking police and civilians, but I have no evidence or information AT THIS TIME that he discussed this with others. I know when, where and how Masood committed his atrocities, but now I NEED TO KNOW WHY. Most importantly so do the victims and families" This would indicate that they are currently researching this. The lead is supposed to be a summary of its most important contents. Since that information is still being investigated, it shouldn't go in the lead. MeropeRiddle (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

    It actually isn't past tense, it's past perfect (had eaten not ate), which always carries with it an implicit "up to that time", and says nothing about beyond then. Would a date helps clarify the point at which they said this? I'm sure they're still looking, and sure they will eventually disclose anything substantive they find ... or not if they don't change their 'interim' conclusions. Pincrete (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

    "Self-radicalised"

    An editor has twice tried to insert sentences stating that "investigators" have suggested that Khalid Masood was self-radicalised. The investigators in question are New Scotland Yard and exact transcripts of the (oral) press briefings have been posted on their news website, the Matropolitan Police News. None of those statements refer to "self-radicalisation", a phrase that has appeared in the Sun and the Daily Mail, both unreliable newspapers. Reliable news sources in Britain, including BBC News, the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Independent and the Times, have so far reported any time Scotland Yard have made a statement, giving the name of the commissioner or other official who made the statement. The Reuters report seems to be a summary of news and in this case, since it is not borne out by quality media, is not reliable. Unless the phrase can be found in a quality source, it should not be included, even with attribution.

    The Metropolitan Police News has already been used several times in the article. It is misleading to readers to include the phrase "investigators", when there are no other investigators than Scotland Yard, who have made a number of non-committal and cautious statements. This can be contrasted with the demands for mosque closures mde by Paul Nuttal, leader of UKIP, and the recent demonstrations in Westminster by the English Defence League and Britain First. Mathsci (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

    One of the 'Met Police news' statements I saw actually thanked the press for their restraint so far. There's a first!
    I don't have a problem with using 'investigators', as it saves us explaining each time who 'Scotland Yard', and the individual officer are, though I agree that we need to use authorative sources. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

    Briton as archaic

    This phrase looks very archaic in the introduction, since "Briton" more readily refers to the Iron Age (ie - Celtic) population pre-Roman times, rather than the modern citizenship (subjectship, whatever they prefer to call it). Or has a Dad's Army/Kitchener poster vibe. British citizen reads a little less oddly, or perhaps British man. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

    The word is in common current use in British English to mean a British native. Check these recent news links: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph. -- de Facto (talk). 21:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    Briton? I personally dislike "British (or other country) citizen" because it sounds grudging, they've got a passport, but they are not really XYZED-ish.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    I feel the same way about Egyptians. Can never tell if they mean they were born in modern Egypt or simply didn't die in ancient Egypt. At least there's a hint in "52-year-old Briton". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    If I work in window dressing and regularly enjoy pastries during my breaks then seeing the words "Venetian" and "Danish" might have particular resonance for me. That does not mean using those terms for people from Venice or Denmark is in any way confusing to others. Captainllama (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    A Danish person is a Dane. A Danish is strictly food. Cnut the Great was not a Great Dane. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    You just can't trust Johnny Hun, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

    I think some of the virtue signal brigade are slightly missing the point. Regardless of this man's ethnic background, even if he was 100% ethnically English, pale as the driven snow and called John Smith, "Briton" is still an unusual archaicism and reads jarringly. Brit-ish tends to refer to the modern Empire/Kingdom and any madness contained there-within, Brit-on is more commonly used in academia studies of the Iron Age. I supposed the nearest I can think of, is if we starting using the term "a Frank" and "Frankish" on articles about the modern French Republic. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

    But it IS the proper noun for someone from Britain, and is still generally used, unlike 'Frank'. It may be less used because we can normally say British writer/footballer/whatever, but we can't add a noun to Masood Brits can't help it if they share a name with an ancient people, so do Greeks, Romans etc. Pincrete (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    And there is a distinction with the old ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

    "Islamist related"

    Let's be clear, AFAIK, the nearest the Met police have got to tying this to Islamism/Islamic terrorism, is that on the very evening of the attack, before any investigation had taken place, Rowley said, in answer to a reporter's question, that they were "working under the assumption that it was "Islamist-related terrorism"." towards the end of this video. This info is in the motive section of the article, but one cannot interpolate anything more from that, unless editors know more than the Police do. Pincrete (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

    Rhetorical question! Why is it that WP editors believe every word that AMAQ exudes on behalf of ISIS, but senior British police don't know what they are saying? Pincrete (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Westminster_attack/Archive_1&oldid=1257495756"