Talk:2018 Westminster car attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Car/driver details

• numberplate FL 10 CWZ
• registered in 2010 in Nottinghamshire?
• African (driver or registered owner?) from 31.53.53.192
• Religion of the driver (naturalised Sudanese migrant) is Islam, but he was not classed as "fervent", according to Religious sources in Birmingham.
• Drivers Destination was to get travel visa from the Sudanese embassy to the Court of St. James, in London — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.58.177 (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

British car numbers do not record the ethnicity of the car driver/owner.Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Although Africa is a very large continent with hundreds of ethnicities, there would be a log of establishment details if payment was by foreign credit card, or international or foreign drivers licence or insurance was affixed or attachêd , no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.2.7 (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Excuse you, there are THOUSANDS of ethnicities and tribes in Africa, but that is besides the point; the chap has been reported to have been in receipt of "UK nationality", it is not ethnic, as he could also be of dual-nationality, etc. Essentially a simple task to cross-reference records, but there are no "reliable newsmedia sources" to be cited, and if somehow it is crossreferenced it would likely be chucked out by the narrator(s) and narratrice(s) of the anti-terroritism shpiel. The DVLA perhaps does not record ethnicities, but the police most certainly do. Majority of UK newsmedia have reported the car being registered in Notts, showed images of a rather well dark-skinned male, and are waiting in halls to report anti-islamophobic-scarey-attacks or somesuch. Could be he is a UK Incel, but too early for that until someone can dig up his facebook akamai.126.209.47.215 (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The police only record ethnicities of people arrested, and then only if the arrestee is stupid enough to disclose it (that's if it's not obvious). 81.153.101.174 (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The police may force you to open your mouth (not only to talk) and gain a record of your haplotype by way of a cotton-bud (swab) DNA sample, as well as the other standardised form recording procedures, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.7.228 (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

They would not. Kingsif (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Salih Khater of Peveril Street, in Nottingham, has been mentioned. He seems to be from the Sudan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.192 (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The house number in Peveril Street is about 46. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.192 (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

White van pursueing prior to sudden approach by pedestrian and ambulance behind him

Great, there are better videos out there, indicating misuse of DRM and crooked reporters/editors. The Telegraph is quoting an MP after recording his reaction to a video they played him.

Unbiased reflection of concurrent investigations

What we know from the wikipedia article is that the car-crash is currently under "investigation" by antiterror squad, without mention it is under road traffic "investigation", involving delicate manuevering about the roundabout and other road users, pedestrians, and men armed with machineguns. Without waiting for POLICE or CPS (official) sources, the article should not be biased (nor should the official sources be biased).

Road Traffic

• proper use of turn-signalss y/n
• speeding in the roundabout y/n
• give way to emergency vehicle ambulance within roundabout y/n
• consideration of other roadusers cyclists pedestrian WITHIN roundabout y/n
• obey traffic signs and traffic lights within roundabout y/n
• obey posted policemens at roundabout y/n

• entering wrong lane/exiting roundabout into oncoming traffic
• panick-influenced driving/due care and attention
• causing injury or death whilst operating vehicle

Terror

• politically active y/n
• religiously active y/n
• active in illegal group y/n — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.58.177 (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

What actual content is this section discussing? We can all speculate all day about what circumstantial evidence might/might not point to. That is not the purpose of a WP article, which is to present in a coherent form what is KNOWN from WP:RS. Not to play Sherlock Holmes games. Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC) … ps, British police don't carry 'machine guns', so I've no idea what that is referring to. Pincrete (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Traffic-Cam footage shows someone suddenly approached his car before the incident

The CCTV released from Traffic Authorities shows the following; starting clearly showing;

   *driving very slowly (as if considering whether to complete leaving the roundabout southbound)
   *continuing within the roundabout
  *a person (pedestrian, cyclist, policeman, unidentified security agent, etc.) wearing highvisibility vest suddenly jumps out towards the vehicle
   *the vehicle drastically changes course, drawing the attention of several heavily-armed security, enters northbound lane
   *attempting to get out of the northbound lane back into southbound, driver hits other non-vehicular traffic (cyclists)
   *crashes into barriers erected betwixt public-realm thoroughfare, fullstop

but not clearly showing;

   *turn signals/indicators/blinkers of the car
   *traffic-code or highway-code compliant roadsigns, traffic-lights, or temporary diversion signage

The driver was going slowly until an ambulance came into his view across his right-wing-mirror and the person jumped/rode out towards his left-passenger/rear door. If that was "intentional" terror-attacking, the speed could have and would have been exponentially greater, along with subsequent fear thereof. This apparently seems more of a sensationalistic chance to report terror rather than terror itself, and the article should reflect that it is being "investigated", the prisoner remained silent (uncooperative), and was likely terrified.126.209.47.203 (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Sky news ex-policeman source now has reported that police ackowledge there was an ambulance just behind the driver before the traffic violation. There has been no acknowledgement of the dispatched destination of the ambulance, and whether the high-visibility-vest-wearing person was attempting to GUIDE the ambulance in. Scarey126.209.47.203 (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Reference on injuries section

I've just added more info on injuries and made an error with the reference could someone fix it?195.29.86.210 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Done as requested. Operator873^talkconnect 22:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Great Scot! Yard to Yard

Can someone confirm reports that the vehicle was at an African embassy nearby Great Scotland Yard, before coming to a stop at the Old Palace Yard? Also, the City of Westminster clearly shows the public access (to the Yard) without such hindrances that most certainly contributed to the crash. Lets have a proper map up.126.209.7.228 (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Sky news has reported (15th) that he drove down to London to get his visa from the Sudanese embassy, but sky news (as with most Rupert Murderoch media), although often cited in wikipedia articles as good sources, can often be dubious. If the embassy or the FCO come out with it, you could say it has been "confirmed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.58.177 (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

reason for travel to London/ Sudanese visa/ FCO checklist?

Sky news has reported that he drove to London to get a visa from an African embassy before the car-crash incident. I would like to include a reference to the current FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) checklist for traveling to the region, because I heard reports that there has been some sort of oil conflict or scarey men openly toteing machine-guns, etc. 126.209.58.177 (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The BBC is reporting this as the belief of those in his home town, so very much speculation at present. Pincrete (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Move?

This incident has not been confirmed as an 'attack'. Should the article be moved to '2018 Westminster incident', and only moved back if it is confirmed as an attack? 81.153.101.174 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think so too. There are no sources supporting it as an attack, they are calling it an incident. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I really hope someone comes up with a better proposal. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If you amended it to "2018 Westiminster Vehicular Incident", I would consider it.126.209.7.228 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that a just a fancy way of saying "car crash"? Similar members of Category:2018 road incidents follow that sort of pattern. Of course, we don't know if it was just that, especially considering the (counter terrorism) police response. It may be something of an understatement, but as observed before, it seems we will never find the 'right' title for these types of articles. 72 (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

We still don't have a motive, but an analogy might be 2017 Times Square car crash. "Car crash" is being used in media. I just hope we don't conclude that it's the "Westminster incident". That may be a suitable label for politicians and the news media today, but I don't think it'll be good in the long term. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I should have rephrased, I don't agree necessarily with the target title but I specifically disagree with the current title. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think both are quite problematic. After all, "incident" is hugely ambiguous and does just mean "an instance of something happening". I think it could easily refer to a political scandal or other unrelated event. At least in the long term we'll actually know the cause of today's events to reach a conclusion. For the time being, the back and forth about what is most appropriate is only for what might be a very temporary fix. 72 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

But in any case, it should be moved to something less controversial as attack is not something it has been defined as. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "Old Palace Yard Vehicular Incident" should do it. It seems the bus-stop had already been given a bit of extra room and removal of obstructions of sight-lines, according to improvements to ease of access as required by the Lords, according to the commissioner`s delegate. The only thing controversial here is the anti-terror industry profiteering, and subsequent infringements on the rights of members of the public and the public realm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.5.114 (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "vehicular incident" is commonly used in British English though - I'd go for "traffic incident" or "traffic collision" as the common terms used for a crash in the UK are "road traffic incident" (RTI) and "road traffic collision" (RTC). -- DeFacto (talk). 06:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Or "car crash" as discussed above, since that, or that pattern of wording has been used before, it is used by the media over "vehicular incident", and it appears that that is the most simple and accurate description at this time. 126.209.5.114, in light of the above, why do you feel specifically that "vehicular incident" is a better title? 72 (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I've boldly moved it to 2018 Westminster car crash. Feel free to continue to suggest improvements to the title. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

So this title - a blatant euphemism - suggests, that it was only a car crash instead of an attack? This is strongly misleading indeed. Why do the authorities treat it as a terror attack then? The article has to be moved back immediately.--Greywin (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

How can you so confidently distinguish this from someone having medical issues, taking a wrong turn, or a mechanical failure? Who would attack a security barrier of a parliament which isn't sitting whilst carrying no weapons and taking no further action? Until things are clearer the authorities are going to treat almost any incident around Whitehall as a potential terrorist incident. Only one thing is really certain at this time, and that's that he crashed his car. Attack implies a motive and intent, and we do not currently have that. Maybe things will change if or when he's charged. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The incident is only notable because it is suspected of being an attempted terrorist incident. If you want to remain neutral, add 'suspected' or similar to the title. No source describes this as a 'crash' and it is misleading to do so. I'm all in favour of holding fire until we know more, but not anondynely misleading titling. Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the BBC are currently referring to this as a "car crash" [1]. He is only being held on 'suspicion' of terror offences, so remains just a crash at this time.[2] If necessary, we can easily move it back when police officially conclude their investigation. 72 (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I've moved to "suspected terrorist attack", which I hope satisfies all parties until there is official confirmation of what the event WAS. Pincrete (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The current title is too long and no other WP articles have a similar title. It's ambiguous as to whether it means that it's an attack that's suspected of being terrorist-motivated, or whether it's suspected of being an attack. We know it was a crash. Surely the title should say what it is, rather than what we suspect it to be? Jim Michael (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Article title and content seems to have been cleansed

The event was an attack and that is what the police have arrested the suspect on - attempted murder and terrorism as opposed to driving with negligence. They have also raided homes in connection with this terrorist attack. The article needs to be reverted to the old title. Also one of the first reactions - by Trump - has been deleted from the article for some interesting reason I can't understand. Reaper7 (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed the Trump tweet - in general 'reactions' sections get bloated with predictable content from every local (ie UK), European and International leaders. If editors think his tweet notable "These animals are crazy and must be dealt with through toughness and strength", before it was even known who was responsible or what the incident was, so be it.

I think the present reactions (May, Corbyn and Khan), pretty predictable and anodyne (the police did a wonderful job, our thoughts are with those injured etc). They tell one nothing about what happened. I would be perfectly happy with just Khan (responsible for London), or none.Pincrete (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

As with Trump, and others who are "quoted", these are not reactions to the incident, rather they are reactions to NEWSMEDIA questions or newsmedia reports. Thant opens up a whole new can of whoopy-worms, and should be made more relevent to the incident proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.58.177 (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation as to why you deemed it necessary to remove Trump's reaction to the attack. I have reinstated his tweet response along side Theresa May's tweet response as I think it was legitimately put there and enhances the article - along with all the other reactions. Reaper7 (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Reaction sections are a perennial on 'incident' articles (do they/don't they add anything?) - I'll bow to the majority, but have re-ordered to put UK reactions before US ones. I think that a reasonable solution until others wade in. Pincrete (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Salih Khater named

The alleged perpetrator, Salih Khater, has now been charged with attempted murder. His name is published in reliable sources around the world. He no longer passes the test of being "relatively unknown". Wikipedia will look foolish and out of touch if it continues to redact his name from the article. WWGB (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

However, Wiki's policy, which "applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN", says that "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." He is not a public figure and no conviction has been secured here, so why the rush to name him here? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Policy on this matter is not entirely fixed. Many previous discussions have confirmed that we usually mention the suspect in such cases. It is a high profile incident, he has been formally charged, and he will inevitably undergo a very public trial. His name is widely used in connection with the case in even the most conservative media, and we are careful in the article to not imply any guilt. Where is there any harm in naming him? After seriously considering not including the name, I've no objections to including it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• The individual has been not only named, but formally accused of attempted murder. It is customary on WP to then include the name (per WP:RS), and it is important to remember that WP:NOTCENSORED. The name needs be included. XavierItzm (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @XavierItzm:, so how do you reconcile that with WP:BLPCRIME (a Wikipedia policy) which suggests waiting until a conviction has been secured.-- DeFacto (talk). 10:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:BLPCRIME applies to those who are not well-known. Khater's name has been published by BBC, The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, Sky News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, CNN etc etc. To suggest he is relatively unknown is nonsense. WWGB (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @WWGB:, no, it applies to those who weren't well known before the incident that put them in the news. It's easy to follow the policy and wait to see if there's a conviction. I cannot understand the impatience. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
        • I am following the policy, which asks that "editors must seriously consider". Well, I did seriously consider the matter but I decided that, since reliable sources around the world are publishing Khater's name, then Wikipedia would look archaic and out-of-touch by withholding his name. Taking such a stand here, when suspected perps are named right across Wikipedia, is arbitrary and inconsistent. There is no suggestion in the article that Khater is guilty of anything. Why do you want to hold back his name when it is widely available everywhere, and Wikipedia is not censored? WWGB (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hundreds if not thousands of articles cite the name of non-famous people who have been accused of crimes, yet not convicted of anything. Do I see people rushing to delete those names based on WP:BLPCRIME? Not! Selective application of policy inherently fails WP:NPOV. In any event, this policy says "consider". As this thread shows, the item has been "considered" and the prevalence of facts calls for following what the BBC is doing, which is to repeatedly put the name of the suspect out there. Are we to follow the WP:RS or not? XavierItzm (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@XavierItzm:, that it may happen in other articles (perhaps the recommendations of BLPCRIME have never been discussed in those) does not imply it must happen here. You need to provide a reasonable excuse why the advice of a Wikipedia policy must be ignored in this particular case. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Policy says to consider. It's been well-considered. See WWGB's response above. XavierItzm (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think he should be named in the article for the reasons clearly stated above. Reaper7 (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

+1. He is treated as a terror suspect by the authorities and thus a person of public interest.--Greywin (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

References