DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

The Attack type in the infobox should be listed as Vehicle-ramming attack not Car attack

[edit]

The infobox for this page under Attack type, keeps getting changed to Car attack from Vehicle-ramming attack both of which lead to the same page. The term Vehicle-ramming attack is used in the infobox in all articles about similar attacks in England, including the 2013 Murder of Lee Rigby, the 2017 Westminster attack, the 2017 London Bridge attack and the 2017 Finsbury Park attack. Even articles of similar instances in other countries with car attack in their titles, list the term Vehicle-ramming attack in still used in the infobox. Recent examples include 2025 Munich car attack, 2025 Jinhua car attack, 2025 Vancouver car attack, 2024 Changde car attack, 2024 Zhuhai car attack, 2024 Magdeburg car attack, 2023 Guangzhou car attack. Nightmares26 (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but you need to do this as an Edit request. There's a button near the start of this talk page to do just that. 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:21B0:1F:E0B0:E69A (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am an extended-confirmed user so i can make edit myself, this post was just to get others opinions on it and to try to reach a consensus before I make another edit on the same issue, as well as to avoid an edit war. Nightmares26 (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written in British English and as "car attack" is far more common in BrEng sources than the US English term "vehicle-ramming attack", I cannot see any reason to change it, especially wrt WP:RETAIN.
Also, per WP:OTHERCONTENT, "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether similar content exists on another page". -- DeFacto (talk). 16:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"car attack" is far more common in BrEng sources than the US English term "vehicle-ramming attack"
@DeFacto: I personally disagree. I think "car ramming" is being used in BrEng sources too.
Sometimes sources are referring to it as a "car and knife attack", and other places it's simply described as "a car driven into a person"
The reason for "a car being driven" would be avoiding asserting intention as the situation was unfolding (ditto with how the 2025 Liverpool parade incident uses "incident" in the title), as for "a car and knife attack" i think it's simply that you can't describe it as "a knife and car ramming", so if you're merging the two parts into one then you have to describe it as an "attack". 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:21B0:1F:E0B0:E69A (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you say or have found shows that "car attack" is not more commonly used than "vehicle-ramming attack", the subject of this discussion, though. In fact, you didn't show any use of "vehicle-ramming attack", so no justification to use that US term in the article at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interpreting the page we have on "vehicle-ramming attack" as using a more generic name for the title as someone using a lorry as a weapon for instance, isn't strictly a car-ramming attack. Worth pointing out that car-ramming attack also redirects to the same page.
I'm disputing that the phrase "car attack" in particular is intrinsically a BrEng feature. I think where "car attack" has been used in sources, it predominantly is as part of the phrases "car and knife attack" or "knife and car attack" for the reason I explained above.
I suppose if we want to be explicit about splitting hairs I would personally suggest car-ramming attack as the use of the word "rammed"/"ramming" is used in BrEng sources, and the phrase more closely reflects the redirected page's title, and I think it's just generally a more clear phrase (a car bomb could be described as a car attack, but not as a car-ramming attack).
It's also worth pointing out (although it doesn't necessarily make one position or the other correct) that other BrEng articles such as 2023 Nottingham attacks, 2007 Glasgow Airport attack, 2017 London Bridge attack, 2017 Westminster attack, and the Murder of Lee Rigby, all use "vehicle ramming attack".
Also, to offer a counterpoint that "vehicle" as opposed to "car" is a more American English term in this sort of context, here is a Time Magazine article (thus American English) on "Car-Rammings" https://time.com/7288733/liverpool-car-vehicle-ramming-attacks-trend-prevention-what-to-do/
And lending some evidence to the idea that our use of "vehicle" in the page title over here is less an AmEng matter and more a case of a generic title to include multiple types of vehicles, a Department of Transport page on "Countering vehicle as a weapon" attacks - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/security-guidance-for-goods-vehicle-operators-and-drivers/countering-vehicle-as-a-weapon-best-practice-guidance-for-goods-vehicle-operators-and-drivers and also The Spectator (loathe as I be to use it as a source) talking about the subject matter and using both "vehicle ramming" and "car ramming" in it's article https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/britain-is-not-prepard-for-car-ramming-terrorist-attacks/2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:64F8:5055:98B:4213 (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concepts are the same, hence they link to the same article, it's just that the name of that article is not the term commonly used in BrEng - that is one of the reasons for having redirects - you wouldn't need those redirects if all articles used the same variety of English for the terms. There is no good reason to reword this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the term "ramming attack" compared to "car attack" is more common in en-GB sources and is more accurate. Many headlines and news articles describe the incident as some type of "ramming attack" and the term "car attack" is usually used as a secondary description compared to the main headline phrase. The term "vehicle-ramming attack" is also not inherently an en-US term, the US use "car attack" as well and the term vehicle is generic for any type of motor vehicle. If you don't won't "vehicle-ramming attack" then how about "car-ramming attack." Nightmares26 (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightmares26, can you give us some examples of British English reliable sources calling it a "vehicle-ramming attack" and not a "car attack" in the body of their article. We need that, because headlines are never considered to be a reliable source for anything per WP:HEADLINE. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to this, using the term ramming also adds context and when looking at most news reports on the incident, the attack is usually referred to as a ramming attack or some variation e.g. ramming and stabbing attack or car ramming. Nightmares26 (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most? Or should that be a few, not many, or even hardly any? We need to see a selection of them from reliable BrEng sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is DeFacto, I don't agree that it is a BrEng matter.
I'll throw it to you, do you have something evidencing that "car-ramming attack" or "vehicle-ramming attack" is not proper BrEng, but "car attack" is. For instance, is there any style guides for media publications which state that is the phrasing to use, or a dictionary entry describing one as "British English" and another as "American English"
As for the fact that Vehicle-ramming attack has multiple different titles redirecting into it, that's not because those alternate phrases are necessarily representative of another form of English, but rather that even within any given variety of English there are multiple ways to refer to something. Sure sulphuric acid might be how we Brits refer to sulfuric acid, but dihydrogen sulphate is another term which redirects to the page while still being BrEng (dihydrogen sulfate being another American term for it), and oil of vitriol well predates the emergence of American English as a dialect.
There are major BrEng publications which have referred to it as a ramming. That I'd take as sufficient to say "car ramming" is valid British English.
An additional point I'll add: an article being written in a specific dialect of English doesn't mean we have to necessarily use the most common phrase for something too, particularly if we can make a reasonable case for another phrase. I think describing it as a "ramming attack" is useful as it disambiguates it from car bombings (which if you note the top of the vehicle-ramming attack page, it does say "Car attack" redirects here. For the event of a car being used for a shooting, see Drive-by shooting. For the event of a car being used as a bomb, see Car bomb.).
---
my point basically: this isn't about something being correct/incorrect under BrEng, both "car attack", "vehicle-ramming attack", and "car-ramming attack" would all be correct under BrEng. Rather it's a case of which phrase we prefer, and which might most accurately describe the nature of the incident. 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:7DBA:8850:1199:85A4 (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree, why don't you just support your case with the evidence that "vehicle-ramming attack" is used at least as often as "car attack" for this incident in British English reliable sources? That's what the discussion is about - read the title above. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of en-GB sources that use the term ramming attack or some variation e.g. ramming and stabbing attack, car ramming or rammed a car;
1. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd63p1djgd7o - a car ramming and stabbing attack
2. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1ed5g99zx7o - a car ramming and stabbing attack
3. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly09x107e8o - rammed the gates with a car
4. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8jl45x5ggo - rammed a car into people
5. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgqek191neo - a car ramming and stabbing attack
6. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/08/manchester-terrorists-final-journey-to-synagogue-captured-o/ - a car-ramming and knife attack
7. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/05/manchester-synagogue-attacker-cannabis-smoking-drop-out/ - carried out a car-ramming and knife attack
8. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-manchester-attack-suspect-member-36002509 - car ramming and knife attack
9. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/family-manchester-synagogue-terror-attacker-condemn-jihad-al-shamie-b1251065.html - car ramming and knife attack.
10. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/09/man-rearrested-at-manchester-airport-after-synagogue-attack-detention - ramming his car into congregants
11. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/manchester-attack-minute-minute-timeline-36003053 - a car ramming and knife attack
12. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/islamic-state-manchester-london-british-jewish-b2841849.html - after he rammed a car into pedestrians
13. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/manchester-police-britain-israel-london-b2839248.html - after he rammed a car into pedestrians
14. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/met-two-greater-manchester-police-metropolitan-police-manchester-b2838828.html - attacker ramming into people
15. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-manchester-united-manchester-city-manchester-arena-england-b2839279.html - a man rammed a car into pedestrians
16. https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/sport/manchester-united-sunderland-silence-synagogue-attack-victims-video-b2839622.html - carried out the attack by ramming a car into the synagogue and stabbing people
17. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/police-greater-manchester-police-jewish-manchester-england-b2838537.html - rammed a car into pedestrians
18. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/08/manchester-terrorist-called-999-synagogue-attack/ - ramming his car into worshippers
19. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/06/synagogue-attack-last-words/- ramming his car
20. https://news.sky.com/story/manchester-synagogue-terrorist-attack-the-day-in-pictures-13442934 - ramming a car and stabbing worshippers Nightmares26 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what we're discussing though, we're choosing between "vehicle-ramming attack" or "car attack" for the infobox.
Out of curiosity though, how many sources did you find that used "car attack" or some variation? Or do you want me to list those? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the original comment from Nightmares26 may have mentioned "vehicle-ramming attack" and "car attack" as options, there is no reason our discussion needs to be confined to those two options.
You seem to be dismissing the suggestion of "car-ramming attack" as "well that wasn't originally mentioned in this talk page section". Ok? And? If it was mentioned before or not is irrelevant. I've brought it up as an option, and now Nightmares26 has brought it up, I think we can consider it part of what we are discussing.
This talk page section covers a dissatisfaction with the phrase "car attack", originally proposing "vehicle-ramming attack", okay so the majority of BrEng sources we have at hand use "car" as opposed to "vehicle" when describing the event, while I don't believe it's a particular case of BrEng vs AmEng as you assert, I agree that most of the sources are using the word "car".
But...most of the sources also describe it as a "ramming", the exception is if it is being described with the noun phrase "knife and car attack" or "car and knife attack", presumably because while "knife attack" does describe part of the event, "knife ramming" isn't a valid descriptor.
So why should we use "car-ramming attack"?
  • It more closely reflects the title page of the article we are redirecting to. - This is a more minor consideration and should only really decide between two equally appropriate options in my opinion, it is desirable, and yes "car-ramming attack" is more similar to "vehicle-ramming attack" than the latter is to "car attack".
  • It is more specific, descriptive, and less ambiguous. - You might note that on the page for Vehicle-ramming attack it says at the top ""Car attack" redirects here. For the event of a car being used for a shooting, see Drive-by shooting. For the event of a car being used as a bomb, see Car bomb." - A "car attack", while most commonly referring to a car-ramming attack, could easily refer to any sort of attack where a car is utilised, two examples are given there.
So why doesn't the Wikipedia article use the phrase "car-ramming attack", and uses "vehicle-ramming attack"?
  • Precisely because it is more generic (in a different way) - Describing an attack where a vehicle is used as a weapon by ramming objects or people, is basically the same regardless of if said vehicle is a car, motorbike, truck, lorry, bulldozer, or any other such vehicle. It makes sense to have one singular page describing the type of attack regardless of which vehicle is being used.
  • Not because it is AmEng - I think you may have assumed that because Wikipedia has a default bias towards American English, that the "vehicle-ramming attack" might have been used for the page because of that, however focusing on the "vehicle" vs. "car" difference here (i.e. "car-ramming attack" vs. "vehicle-ramming attack"), see on the page where it says "also known as a vehicle as a weapon or VAW attack", the source is pointing to the ProtectUK part of the UK Police website. Again referring my above point, they likely use "vehicle" here because its more generic, so a single "Vehicle" task force can handle truck, car, or any other vehicle as a weapon attacks.
In light of this, I'll reiterate I think we should be changing "Car attack" under "attack type" to "Car-ramming attack", as it is still a concise phrase, it more closely reflects the title of the article we are redirecting to, and it is more specific and descriptive as to the nature of the event, providing more information to a reader. 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:D0BE:99E8:ACBC:94BB (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to change the vocabulary when it is not broken. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it is better rephrased (at least in the opinions of myself and Nightmares26), and there is no rule against tweaking wordings for small improvements. Also, one could say to same back to you about changing it to "car attack" previously. 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:D0BE:99E8:ACBC:94BB (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of antisemitic attack and antisemitism categories

[edit]

User:DeFacto, can you explain what you wrote in your edit summary about the article not supporting the inclusion of "Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents in Europe" and "Category:Antisemitism in England". You wrote: "we need findings from the investigations confirming this in the article before adding these per WP:CATVER". Can you expand on this, maybe provide some quote from the WP guideline?

Isn't it enough that more than 60 sources cited in the article discuss antisemitism when they talk about this attack? Isn't it enough that the Greater Manchester police chief, the UK prime minister, the deputy prime minister, the home secretary, the deputy home secretary, and several scholars and commentators have labelled this as an antisemitic attack? AwerDiWeGo (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AwerDiWeGo, as with any other content added to Wikipedia articles, the implication made by adding a category has to be verifiable through reliable sources. For categories, this is done through the article body content. WP:CATV says "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories". Given that adding a category is equivalent to saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that the article is a member of that category, we need that to be said in the article and supported there with reliable sources.
Sure there are many sources giving their views about this and the opinions of various other people, but where in the article does it say that this was proven to be an anti-Semitic attack? Opinions, even those of the prime minister or of the chief constable are still only opinions and cannot be asserted as fact in Wiki's voice. The usual way for this to happen is with a guilty verdict at a trial, but, as here, with no trial possible, the best we can hope for are categoric conclusions from the official police investigations into the event. When we get those, we can write a section summarising them, and from that add any categories that are appropriate and are supported by the reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're right, then we should remove the categories related to terrorism (there are five of them) and also "Category:Violent incidents in reaction to the Gaza war".
But I don't know if you're right. I didn't think that WP categories should be seen as equivalent to a guilty verdict or, with no trial possible, then they should be taken as equivalent to "categoric conclusions from the official police investigations" (do these even exist?).
Categories shouldn't be seen as that in articles that are not biographies. If most reliable sources discuss antisemitism when reporting on this topic (and many of them directly label the attack as antisemitic), then I think that's enough, and no one should infer from WP categories that there is a guilty verdict or the next possible equivalent (which I don't know what that is, if you discard reliably sourced analyses... of course we can't reproduce the entire analyses, only cite them with some short text about them). AwerDiWeGo (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:DeFacto, in the article you've kept objecting to the antisemitism-related categories (re-added by another editor) without having answered my implicit question: Why doesn't your reasoning apply to the terrorism-related categories or the Gaza-related categories? I'm just trying to understand and maybe learn something about Wikipedia's categorization policies or guidelines.
Also, an additional observation: Category:Attacks on synagogues has already as a (grand)parent category Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents, so WP's categorization tree already implies a connection there (within that parent category, we would have to choose its subcategory Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents in Europe). Then, further up on the category tree, another parent category is Category:Antisemitism in Europe (again, WP's categorization tree also implies something there), and there we would have to choose its sub-sub-category Category:Antisemitism in England. You tagged both categories as unreferenced based on your reasoning above. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AwerDiWeGo, if a category isn't verifiable, then it shouldn't be added, that applies to all categories (even the ones I missed!). If you've found others, feel free to deal with them. WP:V (the policy covering verification) says "each fact or claim must be attributable to reliable, published sources". Read WP:CAT for more guidance on the use of categories. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the policies or guidelines you linked (...well, more or less); it's your interpretation of them that's not clear to me. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favour of removing the templates at this point. The attacker seemed to be targetting random Jews in retaliation for Israel's actions- pretty much every definition of anti-semitism covers this.
Many reputable commentators consider it anti-semitic- it is certainly being included in discussion about anti-semitism in the UK and is relevant to the study of antisemitism, even if the consensus hypothetically shifts against labelling this attack antisemitic in the future
I don't think the logic is much of a synthesis at this point. Furbybrain (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The King’s visit

[edit]

The King visited Manchester on October 21st, meeting with survivors and families of victims. This visit should be added to the "aftermath" section.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzrd3x1pro KGOO510 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sophisticatedevening(talk) 16:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2025

[edit]

Add Category:2025 road incidents in Europe ~2025-31396-09 (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sophisticatedevening(talk) 15:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]