The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2017 Westminster attack. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2017 Westminster attack at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2017 Westminster attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 7 days

A news item involving 2017 Westminster attack was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 March 2017.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Ian Drury (23 March 2017). "Blunders that saw C4 and Wikipedia name the wrong man (who is currently in jail) as the Westminster attacker". Daily Mail. Retrieved 25 March 2017. While highly embarrassing for the broadcaster's flagship programme, naming Brooks as the killer was especially humiliating for Wikipedia, whose pages can be written and edited by anyone in the world. Despite being renowned as a byword for inaccuracy, the website last month sparked outrage by banning the Daily Mail as a source in all but exceptional circumstances for allegedly being 'generally unreliable'. Claims that Brooks was the Westminster terrorist appeared on his Wikipedia page at 6.14pm on Wednesday – four hours after the attack.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British crime ( defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force. London Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Terrorism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: March 19 to 25, 2017 (18th)

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

IMO the problem(s) are with the linked article. Pincrete ( talk) 06:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

There is a discussion pertinent to this at: Talk:June_2017_London_Bridge_attack#Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_.282014.E2.80.93present. -- TBM10 ( talk) 19:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2017 Westminster attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170324085336/http://en.aps.dz/algeria/17415-algeria-condemns-terrorist-attack-in-london to http://en.aps.dz/algeria/17415-algeria-condemns-terrorist-attack-in-london

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The template presently says:

Perpetrator Khalid Masood

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

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

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

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

Seriously folks? A person's county is not a nationality. "British" is good enough for any person born and brought up in Britain and holding British citizenship. Masood ticks all of these boxes. He was not one of those pesky foreigners with an Islamic sounding name. It's also unlikely that people outside Britain would have much idea what "Kentish man" means. Even in Britain this isn't a commonly used phrase.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

A Man of Kent would know what a Kentish Man (or Maid) was. NRPanikker ( talk) 17:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The long-standing term is 'Briton', which implies someone born in Britain, rather than simply acquiring citizenship. Why would we change an established term? Do we call someone born in Edinburgh a 'Scottish person'? Someone from Dublin an 'Irish person'? Pincrete ( talk) 18:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not really keen on the word Briton and opted for "British man" which is used at Killing of David Amess. This comes about because some people think that foreign sounding name = foreign person. Khalid Masood and Ali Harbi Ali were both born and brought up in Britain. I'm not sure that the word Briton automatically implies that a person was born in Britain.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

"British man" certainly doesn't imply 'native of UK'. To my ears it sounds unnatural and implies acquired citizenship. Pincrete ( talk) 19:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• The Free Dictionary says that a Briton is "A native or inhabitant of Great Britain". This confirms my theory that the word Briton does not automatically prove that a person was born in Britain. I think this is WP:OR by Pincrete.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

"A native"? I repeat, "British man" certainly doesn't imply UK-born. Briton implies British-born to the same extent that "Scot' implies something more than habitation. There is no single word that 'proves' one is UK-born and I never claimed this word did (ditto German/American/Frenchman etc). Pincrete ( talk) 20:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

There is no word that automatically guarantees that a person was born in Britain. None of the three definitions at the Free Dictionary says this. A Briton *may* have been born in Britain, but may also be an inhabitant.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

In the lede (and also the body of the article), why not switch the role of noun and adjective with a change in the order? Thus "52-year-old" would be used as a "noun" and "British" as an adjective. So instead of "a 52-year-old Briton", write "a British 52-year-old" (or even "British-born 52-year-old" to avoid any ambiguity). Just an idea ... Mathsci ( talk) 22:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Firstly, The Free Dictionary is a crap source. It’s about as basic as you can get, but even if it weren’t, NO dictionary is authoritative about the implications of words, which relate to common usage not literal meaning. The best that any dictionary will offer is to indicate “usually … “ or by the order that it offers meanings. Thus by putting ‘native of’ first, TFD is indicating that the most common meaning is precisely that - a native of Britain - someone born there. I think you would not find ’native of’ in the definition of the word ‘British’, which when applied to people simply means citizenship, however acquired. T S Eliot was a British citizen, he was not a Briton.

I don’t know what ‘inhabitant’ means in this context, unless perhaps they mean the ancient Britons. I defy anyone to find the word used commonly of people currently living in the UK, who are NOT British citizens. That’s WP:OR of course, but the arguments refuting this are equally OR and OR based on interpreting what a truly crap source fails to say.

What is hoped to be achieved here? If the intention is to make clear that Masood was born in the UK, and not simply acquired his ‘British-ness’, then simply say that. If not not, then why use a tortured construction with the hope of implying ‘British-born’ (although the proposal doesn’t do this anyhow, ‘British man’ simply means male citizen, like Eliot or tens of thousands of others who moved to the UK) . Why not use the ordinary noun for a British person, regardless of whether I am right about the additional implications of the word? Which btw has been here since the event occurred. Pincrete ( talk) 07:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary says that a Briton is "a person from Britain" I think you would be hard pushed to find any dictionary which said that "Briton implies British-born". Pincrete seems to be stuck in WP:OR mode here. Saying that it has been in the article since 2017 is a WP:UNCHALLENGED argument and proves very little. I was interested in this edit summary by HJ Mitchell. There is a tendency to assume that crimes like this must be committed by foreigners, but Khalid Masood was not foreign and chose this name after converting to Islam.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)

btw, from later in the TFD entry ‘for ‘Briton’ : In writing, an individual British person can be referred to as a Briton. - The youth, a 17-year-old Briton, was searched and arrested.

I admit my OR, and say it isn’t relevant anyway. You continue OR-ish arguments based on what dictionaries fail to say. The very best dictionary would not be expected to state explicitly all the implications that attach to a word. More importantly, it doesn’t actually matter much whether ‘Briton’ implies ‘British-born’, because ‘British man’ certainly DOESN’T imply ANYTHING - it states sex and citizenship ONLY.

Did you actually read my posts? If you want to tell readers that Masood was born in the UK, the only way of saying it AFAIK is by clearly saying it. He adopted his ‘foreign-sounding’ name only on conversion. Country of birth, ethnicity and religious ‘status’ (whether inherited or adopted) are frequently relevant to terrorist events, and we shouldn’t shy away from including them explicitly- though not in sentence one of the lead of course.

So, even if I admit that the implications I attach to ‘Briton’ are wrong - or at least unproven - what is the objection to ‘Briton’ as the normal word for ‘a British person’ and what are the advantages of avoiding it? Even TFD endorses its use in that way. Pincrete ( talk) 07:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Why use the word terrorist to describe this attack? I thought wikipedia stood for npov 94.174.60.160 ( talk) 16:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Terrorism reply

NPOV does not mean ignoring (almost) universally used descriptions. Driving a car into pedestrians to kill them and then knifing an unarmed policeman to death for quasi-political reasons is terrorism. Terrorism is a method of affecting change using terror as your weapon, it may be justified sometimes perhaps, but it's still terrorism. Pincrete ( talk) 18:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply