This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Give me a break anti-brexiters, "presumed" should be taken out.-- I'm on day 4 ( talk) 15:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Death count for 1 have been confirmed rt news Noobkilervip ( talk) 16:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
One dead in Westminster incident doctors say-- There'sNoTime ( to explain) 16:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Added list of 21st century violent, terrorist attacks on Parliaments. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It would be good if people did not add in blank sections. Seddon talk 16:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Sean Spicer is currently delivering comments on the attack on behalf of the Trump presidency. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
I cannot find any sources that state there are 3 fatalities. Edo6209 ( talk) 17:41, 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)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
only 2 deaths have been convermied Noobkilervip ( talk) 17:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC) This is now inrelivent sky cleared it up
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)
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)
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)
Should the map be moved to the infobox, which has a map parameter? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "suspected terror attack" to "terror attack" Pallsopp ( talk) 17:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
It isn't confirmed if he is Asian or not. Edo6209 ( talk) 17:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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 s ome media as the attacker does not even appear "Asian". AusLondonder ( talk) 21:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
I have removed the suspect as there is no source. Mindi Crayon ( talk) 18:54, 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)
For the time being I have used the same naming convention as 2016_Berlin_attack. Seddon talk 15:12, 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)
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)
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)
Because to paraphrase a famous quote an untruth has circled the globe before the facts have awaken 90.194.115.50 ( 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)
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)
The international section has been deleted, however it may be necessary to put it back. Edo6209 ( talk) 18:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
http://www.voanews.com/a/police-identify-britain-parliament-attack-assailant/3778843.html
Victor Grigas ( talk) 22:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
Anyways, so I am wondering if it is a privacy concern if someone's name was mentioned that was injured. ( Cass))
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add Hyundai i40 to Weapons Four–wheeled vehicle and knife Noobkilervip ( talk) 17:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There is currently inconsistency: Hyundai i40 vs Hyundai Tucson. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:47, 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:
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 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)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the car was a Hyundai i40 and not a Hyundai Tucson Noobkilervip ( talk) 20:33, 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)
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)
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)
[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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
We have a lot of editors working on this article and I thought I'd drop a few words of advice:
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)
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)
" Adrian Russell Ajao " per London's anti-terrorist people. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 10:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"Refs are not part of the quote.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
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>}}
<blockquote>
element.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 21:38, 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)
"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)
" 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)
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)
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 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 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)
"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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Give me a break anti-brexiters, "presumed" should be taken out.-- I'm on day 4 ( talk) 15:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Death count for 1 have been confirmed rt news Noobkilervip ( talk) 16:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
One dead in Westminster incident doctors say-- There'sNoTime ( to explain) 16:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Added list of 21st century violent, terrorist attacks on Parliaments. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It would be good if people did not add in blank sections. Seddon talk 16:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Sean Spicer is currently delivering comments on the attack on behalf of the Trump presidency. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
I cannot find any sources that state there are 3 fatalities. Edo6209 ( talk) 17:41, 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)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
only 2 deaths have been convermied Noobkilervip ( talk) 17:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC) This is now inrelivent sky cleared it up
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)
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)
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)
Should the map be moved to the infobox, which has a map parameter? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "suspected terror attack" to "terror attack" Pallsopp ( talk) 17:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
It isn't confirmed if he is Asian or not. Edo6209 ( talk) 17:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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 s ome media as the attacker does not even appear "Asian". AusLondonder ( talk) 21:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
I have removed the suspect as there is no source. Mindi Crayon ( talk) 18:54, 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)
For the time being I have used the same naming convention as 2016_Berlin_attack. Seddon talk 15:12, 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)
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)
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)
Because to paraphrase a famous quote an untruth has circled the globe before the facts have awaken 90.194.115.50 ( 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)
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)
The international section has been deleted, however it may be necessary to put it back. Edo6209 ( talk) 18:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
http://www.voanews.com/a/police-identify-britain-parliament-attack-assailant/3778843.html
Victor Grigas ( talk) 22:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
Anyways, so I am wondering if it is a privacy concern if someone's name was mentioned that was injured. ( Cass))
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add Hyundai i40 to Weapons Four–wheeled vehicle and knife Noobkilervip ( talk) 17:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There is currently inconsistency: Hyundai i40 vs Hyundai Tucson. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:47, 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:
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 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)
This
edit request to
2017 Westminster attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the car was a Hyundai i40 and not a Hyundai Tucson Noobkilervip ( talk) 20:33, 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)
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)
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)
[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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
We have a lot of editors working on this article and I thought I'd drop a few words of advice:
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)
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)
" Adrian Russell Ajao " per London's anti-terrorist people. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 10:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"Refs are not part of the quote.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
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>}}
<blockquote>
element.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 21:38, 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)
"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)
" 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)
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)
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 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 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)
"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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)