Talk:2017 Finsbury Park van attack/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

ours IS NOT THE ASK THE REASON WHY

Ours is but to quote quoting what the attacker claimed was his motive, Any RS done this yet?Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait... what? Sorry but I don't follow your request or question here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Has it been reported what the attackers motivation is yet, has he made any statement?Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Try looking it up, I cant really dive too deep into sourcing right now as I am at work here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstanding, I am asking those who claim to know what his motivation is to provide a source supporting this. We do not speculate, we quote. If no one can provide any source laying out the attackers agenda then we cannot use why he carried out the attack as an argument to support (or oppose) any edits.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well yeah this goes without saying per WP:V and WP:OR. If you find editors are continuing to include unsourced info then start giving warnings. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not ours, it's theirs. As far as directly quoting goes, anyway. The point's still good. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

[1] He turned against Muslims after London Bridge. He said "this is for London Bridge" and "you deserve it". How clear can he be. RustlingLeaves (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well did he say it, or is this just what some people say he said?Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It's witness statements. I don't think there's a recording to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is being widely reported and perceived as retaliation for the recent Islamist attacks, particularly London Bridge. But it may transpire the witnesses were lying and he actually said "Should've gone to Specsavers", we'll see. RustlingLeaves (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

What people say people say is generally the standard here. Even when there is a recording, we typically require a secondary source to say what the primary we can hear for ourselves said. Second-hand accounts are fine, so long as they're attributed to someone. According to InedibleHulk, if he said it's for London Bridge, a relation to Manchester or Westminster shouldn't be automatically inferred, despite the news' tendency to group things into waves. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the current background section is fine - and matches media reports. We don't claim that all of these are a motive - but they are the background to this attack (and just about every media account - starts out with these 3). In terms of motive - we mostly have various witness statements - from the attack itself - [2] from his pub & neighbors - [3] , and some leaks from the investigation - [4]. We don't have anything really solid to say why he did it - it is all leaks and an amalgamation of various witness accounts which may not be reliable ("kill all muslims" from the scene (and variants - multiple accounts/reports) - probably relatively reliable. The account from the pub or his Muslim neighbors - possibly fishy (these people were canvassed after the attack to recall what they knew of the attacker's motive)). The non-official investigation leak is not great either. I would leave the background as is - and not state a clear motive - wait until he's actually prosecuted, there is a more official statement, or he says something on-record.Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

His very short court appearance - [5] - didn't tell us much beyond confirmation of his name.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ancillary to this

What did he say

It seems there is lack of agreement between sources as to what he actually said, so maybe we should not be including any alleged quotes by him until it is confirmed what he actually said?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

In terms of comments on the scene, there actually isn't that much of disagreement. It is just that he spoke alot - IIRC he was pinned down for at least 20 minutes until the police arrived - and he made some mocking gestures/statements also as he was handed over and arrested. Different witnesses provided slightly different quotes, and the media also pared down some of the statements. It is pretty clear he said "kill muslims" with various additions ("kill all muslims", "I'm going to kill all muslims") multiple times. It is also pretty clear he said "kill me". There are also reports he shouted "for London Bridge". [6] [7]. He had a long time to speak when he was pinned - you wouldn't expect a witness to remember all the things he said exactly - but rather the general gist of it - and even if someone has 20 minutes of this recorded - it all really boils down to "kill muslims", "kill me", and "for london bridge".Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If different witnesses provided slightly different quotes that is what I mean, we do not know what he said. What we have is a vague gist. Nor do I agree it is clear what he said, as saying "kill Muslims" and "kill all Muslims" is not quite the same (but at least "I want to kill all Muslims" is close). Moreover we should not

A' Alter direct quotes.

B' Use sources that do not agree over a quote to support a quote.

So we either quote sources exactly, or do not use a given quote. (I would rather we did not quote "ear witness" claims as they are clearly not in agreement.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

We could quote a particular source. Frankly (I've made this comment on this before - this is a discussion we already had - in the archives) - I think this is a case of all is true. He probably said "kill Muslims" in various formulations multiple times as he was pinned down - and I wouldn't expect him to be too analytical when he said it (just after carrying an attack, some beating, and then pinned down with force until the police arrived). I don't think we have to repeat all variants - just choose one that represents the rant and state that "he said variously" or something similar.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

And which one do we pick as "authoritative"?. As to what he probably said, the fact you are not sure reinforces my view that sources do not agree, and thus this is dangerously like OR, picking a source to use because it accords with what we think he may have said (rather then one that slightly disagrees). As to an archived thread, maybe there is. But that was before an edd tried to alter a direct quote to crate a synthesized quote that tried to match two sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The variations are not that significant between the sources - they all contain permutations of kill+muslims. He was pinned down for 20 minutes - [8]. I don't think the exact phrasing really matters here - you'd expect RS to do some editing on multiple accounts of a long rant. You could roll with Guardian's “I want to kill all Muslims – I did my bit” and attribute it to the Guardian.Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I don't understand what you mean by "confirmed" in this context. What do you think is going to happen that would "confirm" what he said? Possibly a recording will emerge, but if it doesn't, we have these different versions. I think what I did with the brackets was the most accurate. "(I want to) kill (all) Muslims". This means he variously said "I want to kill Muslims", "I want to kill all Muslims", "kill all Muslims" and/or "kill Muslims". The core quote is something to do with killing Muslims. The only other quote that has different versions is "I did my bit" vs "I did my job". RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A trial. And (again) we do not alter quotations, that is against policy. Either you quote accurately or not at all. You certainly do not create composite quotes. Either he said X or he did not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

All the quotes currently in the article are attributed to RS. It's not zero sum, maybe he said "kill Muslims" AND "kill all Muslims" AND "I want to kill Muslims" AND "I want to kill all Muslims". RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe is not an integer. And again, you do not alter quotes, do you understand that?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Number of injured

Several RS report nine injured. Some ambiguously just tell us nine were hospitalised. Which could mean nine were injured, or nine were injured enough to go to hospital and one got an insignificant injury. RustlingLeaves (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well I am seeing 11, 2 treated at the scene 9 taken to hospital, maybe you could provide some links? [9].Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

[10] "nine were taken to hospital". [11] "eight were injured" [12] "nine were injured" [13] "nine taken to hospital" [14] "nine injuries"

There might be some confusion on whether the dead victim was taken to hospital or not (despite being pronounce dead at the scene according to some reports) - which might account for the 8 vs. 9 reports. Regarding the 2 treated at the scene - minor injuries & psychological damage are always "loose" and might grow (Manchester Police just revised their injury count for the bombing from 119 to over 250 due to these) - it is important to keep how many were actually taken to hospital in the article - this is the "firmer" number and contains the more definitive and serious injuries.Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Or may just be a reflection of what I have contemned on before on "live update" pages, the closer to the even the story the less accurate. This is why I say before listing the number of victims lets wait a few days until the rumors and speculation have died down. What is the most recent (conformed by authorities) figure we have?Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The charge (on the 23rd) didn't include the amount of injuries (just multiple attempted murders - without a number - so reports specifically saying no number was given by authorities) - so we're basically left with rehashing of the same initial tallies by media - from what I could tell by looking through media reporting today. In any event - the disagreement here is really down to approx. 1 injury, which isn't significant on ~10. It probably will settle in a few weeks.Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Our lede still says "at least ten". It's eight in one above RS. So it should say "at least eight". RustlingLeaves (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"three attacks by terrorist groups"

This is just a roundabout way of saying "three terrorist attacks". Were they by "terrorist groups"? Two were solo attackers. IIRC they weren't directly commanded by ISIS. I would be happy to describe the London Bridge attackers as a "terrorist group" because there were three of them, but the other two were "terrorists". RustlingLeaves (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Terrorists demand things, and use terror to scare government into complying or scare the public into choosing a government who will. Calling every terror attacker a terrorist waters down the whole concept (good for governments scaring the public into complying with counter-terrorism demands, bad for encyclopedias). But yes, it's still much closer to reality than calling a person a group. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I dispute your definition of terrorist. Since when does someone have to make demands to be a terrorist. Darren Osbourne didn't make demands, but he's still being called a terrorist. RustlingLeaves (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes - we should say they were terrorists - this has been clearly stated by UK authoritied. I'd leave out the non-specific and plural inaccurate groups. It is possible to state ISIS inspired terrorists for all 3 - if we want more than just Muslim terrorists.Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Re "It is possible to state ISIS inspired terrorists for all 3", it's possible to state it, but not to find a source for the first two words. The only people claiming that any of the 5 perps had any relationship with ISIS are ISIS connected agencies and an unnamed retired 'Egyptian intelligence officer' (Manchester)! Pincrete (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

So we're back here again... I still think the best approach is to attribute any use of the word, so that we are not making our own determination of whether an event fits any particular definition. Nonetheless, it is as well to be aware of the definition used in the Terrorism Act 2000, which can be found here. It is similar to, but not the same as, that given by User:InedibleHulk above. In particular, where it says "intimidate the public" it does not add any stipulation that this need be aimed at influencing the public. It does say that it needs to be to advance a political/religious/racial/ideological cause, but if the intention is to advance such a cause merely by the act of intimidation itself, without necessarily aiming to achieve any particular public response, then that is still covered by the Act. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Intimidation, by definition, aims to influence through fear. Explicitly stipulating this would be redundant. There's no doubt Abedi and Masood caused fear, but no indication it was intended for any purpose whatsoever, rather than merely existing as a natural product of suddenly and loudly killing people in a crowd. People were scared by yesterday's nightclub and hospital shootings, as well. The latter is described as "spreading terror", yet "terrorism was not involved in the attack". The former speaks of "terrified youngsters" in a an incident "not related to terrorism". If this distinction exists for non-Muslims, it exists for Muslims. When it doesn't, that's a reflection of politics, not reality. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

lede

Hi, regarding my recent revert, firstly just to say that the reason for my earlier edit was simply that, as mentioned in the edit summary, the facts that it was suspected terrorism and that the suspect is called Darren Osborne are both already mentioned in the following paragraph, so it seemed unnecessary to duplicate material in what is meant to be a short introduction. The recent edit by User:Winsocker undid this change, but it also described the suspect as a terrorist, in violation of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I do not wish to edit-war and would prefer to discuss everything slowly here on talk, but because of sub judice concerns, this unfortunately needed to be reverted on an emergency basis. Now that I have done this -- and hopefully the word "terrorist" will not be restored without the qualifier "suspected" -- let's talk about whether we want the suspect named twice in the lede. @Winsocker: If you want to reinstate "your version" as an interim measure pending further discussion, in the sense of reinstating the name in the first sentence -- but, while doing so, being suitably careful about the wording in relation to the above concerns -- then I have no problem with this. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please also note: the reason for any difference in approach regarding the description of this incident and the earlier attacks mentioned in the "background" section (which are under discussion higher up on this talk page) is that in those attacks, there are no living suspects and hence no active criminal proceedings -- so Theresa May, whom we have quoted as source, was able to describe the attacks in a less guarded way than would have been necessary if sub judice rules applied. It is emphatically not a matter of taking sides as regards attacks by Muslims versus attacks against Muslims. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Over and above any sub judice/BLP concerns, the article is about the event, not the accused, which makes the case for your revert stronger IMO. This happened, then this person was arrested and charged. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Describing this as "The suspected terror attack" in Background

I have twice reverted this edit today because, although the statement is sourced from a Telegraph article, I believe it to be unnecessary to labour a point. The article makes it clear elsewhere that this incident is being treated as a suspected terror attack. However, since the editor concerned has argued that there is consensus for this change, and to avoid unnecessary drama, I'm throwing this open for a discussion. Do we need to add the words "suspected terror" to this section? This is Paul (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep it at as 'terror attack'. There was no drama, this has already been discussed and users agreed. Nevertheless rather than check the archive you for some reason contributed to the edit war and used passive aggressive language such as 'do not do this again'. That is not helpful and dramatic, not to mention it just bullies people out of contributing to wikipedia by creating a very unwelcoming atmosphere. So please, do not do that again. There is no issue to having terror/terrorist attack mentioned several times in one article. No issue at all. --Erzan (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@This is Paul I agree with you, the article says it right there in the lead that it's a suspected terrorist attack. The reader already knows. So we don't have to keep typing out "suspected terrorist attack" every time we refer to it. A suspected terrorist attack is a type of attack, that's why it has the word "attack" in it. The person who kept changing it said "It wasn't just an an attack, it was a terrorist attack". It's the same attack no matter what you call it. I also note that the background sections of London Bridge and Westminster attacks both start with "the attack". Is Finsbury Park more of a terrorist attack? RustlingLeaves (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I note the first line of the Westminster article "On 22 March 2017, a terrorist attack took place in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster in London, seat of the British Parliament.", So if we are going to use that as an example maybe we need to reword the lead of this one to say that it was a terror attack in the first line.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

We need to be careful here due to BLPCRIME. If we state in wiki's voice that this is terror, we may be voicing an opinion (widely held) of the outcome of judicial proceedings. The difference from London Bridge and Westminster is that the suspect is alive this time. Suspected terror should be preferred.Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Then the lead sentence should say suspected terror attack.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• The way to avoid speaking in WP's voice is... don't. If the Telegraph has decsribed it thus, great; 'The media soon began describing it as a 'terror' attack' and then cite the ref. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

On the 9/11 and 7/7 pages terror/terrorism has been mentioned over 7 times. So having 'suspected' terror/terrorism mentioned more than 2 or 3 times on this page is keeping in line of the official position that is backed up by several credible sources and not overdoing it. If so, might as well go edit all the other terrorist attack pages because they have the phrase/word mentioned plenty of times over and over. @ ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} Agreed. The previous edit 'suspected terror attack' had several very credible sources for example the London Metropolitan police. Erzan (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The difference between those attacks and this one is that criminal charges are currently laid against the perpetrator, and under sub judice rules we need to be careful how we describe this incident, so as not to potentially bias any future criminal trial. In truth we do not know why the perpetrator carried out the act. We have some press reports on it, but we won't know the full story until any criminal proceedings are at an end. This is Paul (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And in this case this is further muddled by some reports regarding his mental state - e.g. [15]. The previous discussions (in Archives) ended with agreement on "suspected terror".Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Having mental illness does not stop someone from carrying out a terrorist attack or being a terrorist. Plenty of terrorist have had poor mental health. @This is Paul the description is of the event, which is being treated by credible sources as a suspected terror attack against Muslims. The page does not treat the person on trial of being a terrorist, that is for the court of law. Which is a separate issue. This would be like refusing to edit a page as a suspected murder, despite the person being on trial. It is not bias to describe the event as a suspected murder. This is why the UK authorities, politicians and press are allowed to describe events as suspected murder even if the person/s on trial are not yet found guilty. Calling an event a suspected terror is not biasing Wikipedia or the trial. Calling the person on trial a 'terrorist' would be. Erzan (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples of cases in English law where we've deliberately not described the deed as a murder until the jury came back with a verdict. It certainly happened in the Lee Rigby case, and I can think of countless others as well. This is Paul (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@This is Paul. If the threshold to describe an attack as a terrorist attack has to wait for the case to brought to trial and await a verdict. Then please explain how pages on Wikipedia can be edited as terrorist attacks when the suspected person is dead and cannot face a court of law? The Manchester bombings for example. The person is dead, yet I yet to see you or anyone wishing for the page to be reverted to 'suspected' terrorist attack. That is inconsistent. Your argument rests on the very notion that one must face trial first, if so then no suspected terrorist who is killed should ever be called a terrorist and the event they have been suspected of causing terrorism. That is the train of logic of your argument. I am not suggesting I agree or disagree, merely pointing out what your view concludes. The reason why users are happy to have the Manchester bombing page and other pages where the suspect is dead for whatever reasons. Is because the legal system cannot trial the person and thus they are happy to follow the view of various credible authorities like mainstream media organisations, police authorities and so on. Despite again, the suspected has not been found guilty in the eyes of any legal system in the UK (7/7 bombers) and so on. If the threshold to describe a Wikipedia page in these events is set at this standard, that not requiring a guilty verdict in an English court of law. Then the same standard cannot be argued to be unfair on this case. Which is to say, to refer to credible sources like the London Metropolitan police or the Telegraph. That is treating suspected Islamic and far-right terrorism fairly Erzan (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This has already been explained above. However, to sum this up in a nutshell: The perpetrator of the Manchester attack is dead, so no criminal proceedings can ever be brought against him. However, the perpetrator in this case is alive, meaning he can be arrested, charged, put on trial, and so on. Our job is not to influence those proceedings. Can I put it any more simply? This is Paul (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You cited needing a jury verdict in order to call an event a murder. Using that logic you cannot then describe the Manchester bombing as a terrorist attack because you cannot trial the person who carried it out. Can I put it any more simply? Erzan (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This indeed has been discussed. Terrorist is to terror attack is to terror suspect as murderer is to murder is to murder suspect. The first requires a conviction, the second and third do not. The first says "this person did this thing", the second says "this thing happened", and the third says "this person may have done this thing". The first is true (verifiably) if and only if the act is correctly categorized and the person is convicted. The second is true if the act is correctly categorized without respect to #1 and #3. TimothyJosephWood 15:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, terrorism is the illegal thing. Terror is just a scary word. The first word in "suspected terror attack" is just extra, but in "suspected terrorist attack", it's important. The whole reason anybody started saying "act of terror" or "terror attack" in the first place was to avoid having to say "suspected" or "alleged". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Meh. I don't think the legalese argument holds water. "Stealing" or "shoplifting" aren't crimes either. But we don't say Kim Richards or Winona Ryder were suspected or convicted of "theft by unlawful taking". TimothyJosephWood 19:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not legalese, it's just English. Stealing and shoplifting both mean illegal taking, and little else. Creating terror doesn't mean committing terrorism. Police create terror to stun or disarm suspected criminals every day, in various ways. Parents terrorize their children to prevent future misbehaviour. Rollercoaster operators do it for minimum wage. It's only when used to persuade government that it becomes the thing we're trying to say buddy's suspected of doing, and that thing's terrorism.

Even if you can't see it, you can surely admit three extra letters isn't a lot to ask for the sake of being clear to readers who do. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I think you've probably reached a level of nuance that is beyond common language, and I don't think the average reader is going to "get" the distinction. The best way to gauge this is what language the sources themselves use. TimothyJosephWood 00:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Reading all of this from scratch, "suspected terrorist attack" reads quite well in the background. The lede should always use language borrowed from other sections of the article, so it would be strange if the subsequent sections did not use this language, and Background is naturally the first opportunity. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

We've told the reader it's a suspected terrorist attack in the lede. So everyone knows how the attack has been labeled by those who label these things. I think we can then say "the attack", reasonably assuming the reader understands that we're talking about the same attack we just told them was a suspected terrorist attack, which is what London Bridge and Westminster do. But if others really want to repeat "suspected terrorist attack" in the background too, whatever. Can we at least agree to drop it from there on in? Otherwise we're bloating the article. There's lots of categories we could keep repeating. For example, it was a vehicle-ramming attack. Do we keep calling it "the vehicle-ramming attack"? RustlingLeaves (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely with Inedible that terrorist is definable, whereas terror is (intentionally) vague journal-ese/PR-ese and should be avoided by us. An earthquake can create terror, but it clearly isn't terrorist. We should be clear which term the source is using and not treat them as synonyms. No country has 'anti-terror legislation' or 'anti-terror police'. Events are described as 'terror attacks' in the media when the clearer term cannot be reliably used. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why we're calling Finsbury a terrorist attack, and the previous three terror attacks? RustlingLeaves (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

We're calling it a suspected terrorist attack, because detectives and prosecutors currently suspect this. The others started that way, too, but further investigation either found nothing or found revenge instead. I get that their articles call them terrorist attacks, but that's a result of Wikipedian compromise, not reality. While consistency is usually good, the tendency toward it has created a snowball effect, and many things are called terrorism simply because many things are called terrorism. Here, I'd suggest just calling them attacks by Muslims; they were inarguably that, and that's the important thing in the context of a guy (allegedly) attacking ordinary, non-violent Muslims in revenge. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspected or not, if we're describing Finsbury as terrorist, we should describe the others as terrorist. They were terrorist, right? If it's important to call things terrorist, then let's have some consistency and perspective. Call them all "attacks", or all "terrorist attacks", as long as it's consistent. RustlingLeaves (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Call them all attacks. Their articles only call them terrorist attacks because they were initially investigated as terrorism. This gives police extra powers that they wouldn't in investigating a "normal" crime, so it's always in the interest of efficiency to do so. This is in the beginning, before sought facts are found. In Abedi and Masood's cases, after the counter-terrorism investigation produced arrests, raids and computer examinations, the evidence indicated no terrorist links and no demands. The current idea is that they were angry about Britain's role in the war and simply hit back. For reasons unknown, some editors cling to descriptions in sources from the early stages, despite the new evidence, and "terrorism" stays in the lead for longer than makes any sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your premise is they have to be linked to an organisation and have demands to be a terrorist. What's that based on. There are lone terrorists, and there are terrorists without demands. When was the last time a terrorist made demands? RustlingLeaves (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

June 12, 2016. Tell America to stop bombing. I have never said people need to be linked to a terrorist organization to be terrorists. Only that membership in a terrorist organization and terroristic demands are both strong indicators of a terrorist attack, and when neither are found, that's a strong indication of a non-terrorist attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Back to the original question

Just to point out that the discussion has gone off-topic about the difference between terror/terrorist. The original question was is either description necessary in the background section? I think not, the text of 'Background' mainly concerns the three recent attacks in the UK, which Finsbury Park is widely seen as a response to. If 'equality of treatment' is a consideration, I would suggest removing the description 'Islamist' and simply naming the three recent UK attacks. I want to emphasise that I am suggesting this primarily for reasons of readability, the article must and does make clear that this event is being treated as 'terrorism' by UK police. Previous discussion here. "This suspected terrorist attack followed three Islamic terror attacks" is just clunky phrasing IMO, suggest "This attack followed three recent terrorist attacks" which are immediately therafter named, Westminster, Manchester, London Bridge. Pincrete (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"Equality of treatment" would mean removing the word /terrorist/ from the previous three, not /Islamist/. The fact that they were Islamist attacks is important to the context of this "revenge" attack, as you say. Otherwise we're just saying there were three other terrorist attacks, and someone with no prior knowledge wouldn't understand the connection. An Islamist attack is not necessarily a terrorist attack. My feeling is call them terrorist attacks once and then drop it. Like I said earlier, we're not repeating "vehicle-ramming attack" over and over. RustlingLeaves (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That the previous attacks were Islamist is much more important than whether they were terror/terrorist. Sorting out which side to a conflict initiates what action is much more important than POV labels such as terrorist (one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter).Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

There aren't 'sides to this conflict', the people run down in Finsbury park are no more on 'the other side' than Osborne is on 'my side'. What conflict? It's called murder whoever does it. Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

When ISIS goes out and kills people - they have a reason. You might not like the reason. You might think the reason is crazy - but they have a reason. When Brekvik or allegedly Osborne ("kill all muslims" he allegedly said at the scene) - go out an kill people - they have a reason. You might not like it. You might think they are crazy. But they have a rationale. At present, we have ISIS on one side, emerging anti-Islamists on the other (emerging - as this is the first major anti-islamist attack in the UK in this cycle), and the large majority of the public who wants peace - so you have three camps if you may. As a student of history - these situation often polarize in that the large peaceful majority is pulled to either end as violence escalates - but that is CRYSTALBALL. When the authorities characterize these incidents as terror - they are doing so because there is a political motivation behind the murder - the violence is an end to achieving a political goal. Thus - not all terror is equal - as the goals behind them are vastly different - they all kill people, but they target different groups of people in an attempt to achieve a wider societal goal. The end-goal is different. And often there is a back and forth between the different opposing groups (with the peaceful non-aligned trying to calm things down). See for instance List of bombings during the Northern Ireland Troubles and peace process (or any other list on wiki with one than terrorist side). In short - the moment this become terror - then who committed the act of terror and why is highly relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't teach your grandfather to suck eggs, I'm UK and was working in N Ireland in the early 1970s and living among Irish people for most of my life. You might meaningfully talk about Islamists being in conflict with UK society, somehow pitching Osborne as 'the other side', is fantasy-land. Pincrete (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Osborne, quite obviously, attacked Muslims for reasons that are quite different than the motivation behind the ISIS attacks. I was offering the Troubles listing as an analogy here due to the locale - one could look at coverage of any environment in which there are terror attacks for different motivations (i.e. not just minor variant groups within a defined umbrella (be they Jihadist, Anarchists, Left-wing terror, Right-Wing terror, environmental terror, sectarian groups by nationality/ethnicity/religious affiliation)) - but a number of different causes). Whenever you are covering terror - the underlying motivation is important.Icewhiz (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete There ARE sides in the eyes of the people involved. The fact that the people run over in Finsbury weren't personally the people who did the London Bridge/Manchester/Westminster attacks is beside the point. He did it in retaliation for those attacks. He attacked the identity group. That's the background. If we are going to remove/censor the fact that the previous three were Islamic, then there's no point in even mentioning them at all. The whole reason they are part of the background is that they were Islamic. If we're just going to say "there were three mass-murders in the UK before this single-murder", then what's even the point. The reason they're connected is because of the ideologies involved. RustlingLeaves (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

They weren't Islamic, they were just committed by Muslims. Much of what Muslims do is Islamic, but much is just plain human. Masood was already well on the way to dying a short-tempered, knive-wielding crackhead's death before he converted. His final rage (apparently) came from the horrors of a war that can be viewed from a religious angle, but one that can be also seen as territorial, political, financial or emotional, and still seem just as infuriating. To put this career criminal on the same "side" as these ten who obey God is a vast oversimplification. The other four killers also had their own distinct earthly perversions, no doubt. We should call them three previous attacks by Muslims, if we want to illustrate why this van steered toward any old Muslims, rather than violent Islamists. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so this wasn't an Islamophobic attack, it was just committed by an Islamophobe? No True Scotsman is still a fallacy when you replace Scotsman with Muslim. Rephrase "Islamic" to "Islamist" if you like. That London Bridge was committed by Muslims is why he attacked Muslims. I know the Muslims he attacked were not the same individuals who did the attack, but you'll have to take that up with him. RustlingLeaves (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I never said this attack wasn't Islamophobic, just that (at least some of) the others weren't Islamic or Islamist. He can still reasonably be pissed at all Muslims if he believes the religion itself is to blame for five people's decisions, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should adopt this rationalization to explain it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

His rationalisation /does/ explain it. RustlingLeaves (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, so it's fine for us to convey it. By adopt it, I mean pipelinking "terrorist attacks by Muslims" to Islamic terrorism. This makes it seem as though Wikipedia agrees Islamism (and consequently Islam) is the common and main drive everytime a Muslim kills people in public (despite the individual articles not supporting this), thus legitimizing his concern with defeating Muslims rather than druggies, outcasts, anti-war activists, aggressive men with knives or any other recurringly alarming type. This sort of thinking is dangerous. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Besides a history of radical Islam, the London Bridge attackers said "This is for Allah", which is enough for me to label it an Islamist attack, which I define as "an attack by an Islamist motivated by their Islamism". I can't recall off the top of my head if the Westminster and Manchester attackers left any explicit statements as to their motive. RustlingLeaves (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If you re-read your first sentence, I think you'll find that it constitutes WP:Original research. TompaDompa (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

All 3 attacks were claimed by ISIS and done by people with ties to ISIS. Theressa May also stated in relation to the 3 (after London Briedge) that they - "are bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism" [16].Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not true. Amaq (which has never claimed to speak for ISIS, and vice versa) claimed the Palace and Bridge attackers were Islamic State soldiers, and police said they'd found nothing to corroborate this. The Arena attack was the only one that got a reaction from an account claiming to represent ISIS, and it didn't claim any direct involvement, only positing that Abedi acted in response to transgressions against Muslims. The British government is an active enemy of ISIS, so it's natural that it should want to pin atrocities on it, or at least tie them together, and natural that the media supports the government. This conflict of interest means it should always be taken with a grain of salt; police and security agencies are more objective and trustworthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As this isn't true, I've reverted this falsely-reasoned edit. If you really feel like adding it again, for the same poor reason or another, I won't remove it again or argue further, but I'll remain disgusted by it. Not you, just it. You're alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I have now put a version where the description of those attacks as terrorism is attributed to Theresa May rather than stated in Wikipedia's own voice. I hope this resolves this particular disagreement. For what it's worth, the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism in a way that is not dependent on any organisation being involved but can also be committed by an individual acting alone, and I suspect that May was going by this definition. (She also said that they were not connected by "common networks", although technically this statement doesn't in itself rule out a claim that there were disconnected networks.) I suppose that it might be possible to define terrorism in such a way that it cannot be committed by someone acting alone, and if there is a sourced quotation to the effect that the attacks were not terrorism, said by somebody notable and relevant, then this could be mentioned for sake of balance. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that works. The bit about acting alone was only in response to Icewhiz' "aligned with ISIS" edit summary, not to imply it precluded terrorism. There are other, better reasons to discount terrorism in two of the three articles (at least in the traditional sense; this post-2013 "terror attack" stuff redefines itself as it happens). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If they're not terrorist because they acted alone, then why is Darren Osbourne a terrorist? RustlingLeaves (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll try again: Icewhiz had called the bunch Islamic terrorism, reasoning that ISIS is an Islamist terrorist group and all the attackers were aligned with ISIS, therefore all the attackers were Islamic terrorists. But since police have said Abedi and Masood apparently acted alone, this fact kills that argument and only that argument. The other, better reasons for discounting lone wolf terrorism include the lack of demands, and statements (from Abedi's sister and Masood's phone) about these being revenge instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

His charge sheet.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I echo what Slatersteven says about 'charge sheet'. Ultimately there is no absolute definition, therefore I think it important that we say clearly in what sense and who describes an act as terrorist. For reasons that don't make a huge amount of sense, the public thinks that someone killing X people in the hope of making some political point is badder than someone just killing X people. Also the public gets upset if the badder charge is not laid, many people in the UK were upset when Jo Cox's murderer was not charged with a terrorist offence, although for police and prosecutors, the decision is probably a technical, rather than a bad-ness one, ie which charge is more likely to get a conviction. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Back to the original question again

Re: This suspected terrorist attack followed three terrorist attacks in the UK since March 2017—at Westminster on 22 March, in Manchester on 22 May, and at London Bridge on 3 June[7][8][9][10]—described by Theresa May as terrorist acts bound together by Islamist extremism.

The present phrasing is more neutral than before, but is still very clunky phrasing IMO. Three 'terrorist attacks', one of which is 'suspected, I suggest:

This attack followed three terrorist attacks in the UK since March 2017—at Westminster on 22 March, in Manchester on 22 May, and at London Bridge on 3 June[7][8][9][10]—described by Theresa May as "bound together by Islamist extremism".

That Finsbury Park is being treated under terrorism laws is already said twice in prev. para, that the three recent attacks are all terrorist is adequately said once. Plus May's words should be quote marked on the key phrase. Pincrete (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather they be described as terrorist acts by May and called attacks by Wikipedia's voice, like it was before this foolish edit prompted this understandable response. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I like the current version where we have Mrs May describing the events as terrorist attacks. Also, as I've stated previously, we don't need to keep labouring a point. This is Paul (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

One point of criticism I have is that it wasn't just Theresa May. We could quote all sort of police chiefs and newspapers saying the same thing. When we single out Theresa May it implies she's the only one who said it. RustlingLeaves (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. You are pointing your own point of view on an event. It is a terror attack and described as such by a wide array of credible sources. The only disagreement are individual wiki editors, which is not a source of credibility. I've set up a Dispute resolution as I think it would help to clarify whether calling this a 'terror attack' is good practice, in respect to the many credible sources that are not even calling this a suspected teorr attack but simply a 'terror attack'. Such as the BBC, Telegraph, Independent, UK police force, national politicians like the UK Prime Minister and London Mayor. To quote May, the UK Prime Minister to reduce this event to a matter of opinion of the UK Prime Minister. When in fact, it's not her opinion. It is what the event is being described as by every credible source apart from individual editors on Wikipedia. Justifications for this have ranged from there needing to be a trial, which then puts into question if a trial and conviction is key to deciding if an event is a terror attack or not then the standards met by other Wiki entries are different for example Islamic terrorist since suspects are sometimes dead. This then allows the Wiki editor to use their opinion and not apply an objective standard. Erzan (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Theresa May is being quoted on the three previous Islamist attacks, not this Finsbury attack. RustlingLeaves (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

RustlingLeaves (talk) Is it possible you could actually address my point regarding the sources please, which was the main point of my comment. Erzan (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Erzan, you are not supposed to comment on content matters while the dispute resolution discussion is open. This is Paul (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Motive still under investigation?

I don't know when investigation reaches a conclusion on motive, especially as Osborne has said very little in court, but today's press release from the Met Police [17] says "From our investigation, it was clear that Osborne had planned to come to London with the intention of carrying out an attack against the Muslim community". That is an authoritative source, I believe Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

However, it's how to phrase it. "Osborne's motive was to attack Muslims" seems superfluous. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)