Talk:2023 Brussels shooting

Title
Not a move request, but this article should be moved to 2023 Brussels shooting, since most sources are describing this as a "shooting." In addition, we (almost?) never label these attacks/shootings as "terrorist" in their titles. Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Prosecutors are treating it as terrorism as the attacker linked himself to the Islamic State group in his own uploaded video during the shooting.
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67129117
 * Gold333 (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is less about whether it was a terrorist attack and more about precedence. I haven't seen any Wikipedia article describing a single event with "terrorist" in its title. E.g., no "September 11 terrorist attacks", "7 July 2005 London terrorist bombings", "2011 Norway terrorist attacks", even though they were all terrorist attacks. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 02:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Nythar here, and would support a move to 2023 Brussels shooting if a move request were to emerge. Fats40boy11 (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Change the title in to "2023 Brussels attack" or "2023 Brussels shooting". Any page about a terrorist attack is title with "terrorism". Gianluigi02 (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this should be moved back to its original title. Shooting is more precise than attack. We don't usually include terrorist in article titles. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to move it but it said that a page with title 2023 Brussels shooting already existed Southdevonian (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a redirect to this article. It needs to be moved by an admin. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Picture
Why do we have a picture of the football ground, attack didn't take place in the grounds. I don't have any alternative pictures to suggest, but feel this photo is misleading. Jammmie999 (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think we could come up with a more fitting picture. Thomediter (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Source for deaths and injuries
Is there a reliable source for the 5 deaths and 8 injuries? - Chicken4War (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen one, so pretty sure it can be edited Thomediter (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Source for weapon used in attack
I cannot help but notice the lack of source for the weapon(s) used ((an) AR-15/M4 carbine style rifle(s)), is this substantiated by a reliable source? Does this need to be sourced in these types of articles? ChocolateAvian (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely think there must be a source for this. The citation in the article says nothing about an automatic weapon, just that it was multiple shots fired. Is it even a rifle? GigaDerp (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Footnote 5 (the France 24 one) says: "In a video shared online by Flemish newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws, the shooter is seen with an automatic weapon on his shoulder, fleeing on a scooter." Southdevonian (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And a more recent BBC article refers to an "automatic rifle attack" Southdevonian (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In those sources, they say "automatic", but there is no elaboration or specific gun mentioned. It seems to be the journalists' assumption. However, listening to the video on the BBC site, it is clearly not an automatic weapon. This is the video where the shooter is "seen with an automatic weapon", yet there would be no way to verify if it was automatic from the video (we can't see if the gun has an auto-sear or not without opening it). GigaDerp (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This source quotes the federal prosecutor as saying that they recovered an AR-15–style rifle. Southdevonian (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also in footnote 16 the Reuters report. Southdevonian (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * AR-15 is notably the semi-automatic variant of the rifle. Look at the article you linked for it. Also, from listening to the fire, it was clearly semi-automatic as the shooter didn't nearly reach anything close to automatic firing rates. GigaDerp (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can accept the current text saying "AR-15–style rifle" GigaDerp (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Current event template
With the perpetrator known and alert levels dropping again, it seems to me this is no longer a current event, and would propose to remove the template at the top of the page? Any objections? ArticCynda (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Southdevonian (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspected Islamist attack
The article title and opening text state in WP:VOICE that this was a terrorist attack and the opening text says that the motive is Islamist. While a great number of incidentals would point to these both being probably the case, sources are not saying them explicitly - nor at the moment could anyone be certain. BBC says "Two Swedish nationals have been shot dead and a third person injured in Brussels, in an attack which prosecutors are treating as terrorism - AP says "Eric Van Duyse, spokesman for the federal prosecutor’s office, said the investigation was centering on “a possible terrorist motivation for the shooting” after “a claim of responsibility was posted on social media.” Neither "treating as terrorism" nor "a possible terrorist motivation" = is an Islamist terrorist attack.

The man's own video certainly points to a probable motive - assuming it is found to be genuine, but ISIS's claim of responsibility is probably worthless and merely opportunistic - the wording used by them is standard wording for attacks which they wish to exploit for propaganda purposes, but which they had no actual link to.

We shouldn't be claiming to be more certain than sources and prosecutors are as to motives and should be attributing such claims. Pincrete (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Belgian prime minister and interior minister have called it a terrorist attack without "suspected" etc.
 * So too has the Swedish government
 * The Guardian and Politico refer to terrorist attack
 * And federal prosecutor Van Leeuw: "It does not seem at the stage of the investigation that the terrorist attack was organized by a large terror network. The hypothesis that he was acting as a lone wolf seems more likely."
 * Agree that the claim by IS does not mean much. Southdevonian (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is still stronger when we identify who says it is terrorism and none of them give 'Islamism' as a motive - though it is obviously a prime candidate. Pincrete (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I edited to remove 'Islamist terrorist attack' from the lead sentence, but was reverted. My logic was simple AFAIK no source is yet using that description ('Islamist' or synonym) and no judicial authority (justice minister/police spokesperson etc) has used the term Islamist AFAIK. The only mention we have is in the lead sentence and 'past attacks' background. The main justification for the revert was the perpetrator's video, which I believe is now accepted to be genuine in which he swears allegiance to IS. I have to say that IMO this is WP:SYNTH. Obviously 'Islamist' motives are the prime candidate here, but I know of several attacks in France and UK where - despite seemingly clear cut initial evidence - the perp was finally deemed to be mentally ill and not capable of having a rational motive. In Orlando nightclub shooting, the perp made several phone calls during his attack claiming to be acting for ISIS, but it has never been resolved what his motives were in the pot-pourri of homophobic/ Islamist and personal reasons.
 * I'm not going to revert partly because the matter is likely to become much clearer in the coming days, but am recording my disquiet at - seemingly - going over and beyond what sources and investigators have said explicitly and including in the lead (and earlier the infobox) content which is not expanded and made explicit in the article body. Pincrete (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2018 Brussels stabbing attack, which we mention in the background section, does not appear to have been confirmed as any kind of terrorist attack, although our article is madly out of date. Further, the only claimed link to Islamism is (according to the Daily Express} "Witnesses heard the knife-wielding attacker screamed “allahu akbar” as he threw himself at two policemen, according to local newspaper La Derniere.". So even this tenuous link is not endorsed by police or investigators. Our text does not say explicitly that this knife attack was Islamist, it does imply it however and we describe it as definitely terrorist, although the article claims this only as a possible kune of enquiry.Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I have been able to find out with a quick search he appears to have been charged with terrorist-related attempted murder . But it looks like the terrorist-related may have been dropped from the charges - "Attaque dont le caractère terroriste n'a finalement pas été retenu." I cannot read the article as it is subscribers only. I cannot find anything about a trial. Southdevonian (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In the absence of ++ identification of this as terrorism, even less so of Islamism, I'm going to remove the text referring to this. There are clearly other background incidents.

Confirmed Islamist attack ?
Marginataen the short answer to your question Why was the lead changed? is that nowhere in the article does anyone say it was an Islamist/terrorist attack. Given all the circumstances, I would fully expect it to have been confirmed by some Belgian police or Justice ministry person linked to the investigation, but nowhere in the article is there such a confirmation. Nothing should be in the lead which is not covered - and cited - in the body. This claim is neither AFAI can see, so it fails WP:V.

You say It has now been officially classified as Islamist terrorism, by whom? And if so, why isn't that put in the article BEFORE being in the lead? As I say I would be very surprised if this weren't ultimately ruled to be Islamist terrorism, but verification is still needed. I know that WP has been wrong on these matters in the past. Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Under Aftermath, the article reads, "On 20 October the Belgian government announced that the attack was officially classed as terrorism". Marginataen (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And the Islamist claim?Pincrete (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the Islamist claim is covered by the video recorded by Lassoued in which he said that he was inspired by IS and also by IS claiming responsibility for the attack, as well as reliable sources referring to an Islamist terrorist attack. The government has to officially confirm that an attack is terrorist because it gives special status to the victims but I do not think that there is any mechanism for announcing officially that it is Islamic or neo-Nazi or whatever, as that makes no difference to the status of the victims. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong, that is, if anyone can find a source saying that the Belgian Government is still trying to decide what sort of terrorist attack it was. So there is no point in waiting for an official declaration that is not going to come. Southdevonian (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Mmmmmm???? I don't know of another major incident where authorities haven't made clear what they have found out about the motives (there are a few minor ones without serious casualties where they didn't bother, or media didn't cover it). The IS claim is almost worthless, the wording they use (Un combattant de l’Etat islamique) is standard for people who they have no connection to. Besides, AMAQ would claim responsibility for the weather if they thought they'd get away with it! His own video is a stronger indicator, but why are we relying on his own statements and IS for claims? We'd ordinarily be sceptical of both if they said that water was wet! Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox
Just a query about a couple of things in the infobox. Does this actually qualify as a mass shooting? Is there a definition? And should the perpetrator be included in the deaths - as he was killed during arrest the next day and not during the attack? Southdevonian (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The precise definition of a mass shooting varies. On WP we usually use it to mean that there are at least four people shot, not including the perpetrator; this shouldn't be defined as a mass shooting. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Picture of the shooter
There have been released several images of Abdessalem Lassoued. I don't think an article about him should be made, but would it be possible to use a fair use picture of him in this article as there are no free alternatives and he is deceased?--Marginataen (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Article history
The move that seems to have been performed on the contents of this page has left the original history at the redirect 2023 Brussels terrorist attack. Not sure how to fix this but I suppose someone will have to do it. Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree & also don't know how to do that. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I didn't realise that consequence. Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Dutch place names?
I know Brussels officially is a bilingual city, but do we really on the English Wikipedia need to include the Dutch names?--Marginataen (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * According to WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions we should include both names on first mention and then just the French name. However I do wonder if we really need to put the Dutch names in at all, especially given that this is not an article about a place and the street names are only incidental. The Guardian and the BBC just give the French names. Southdevonian (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would support only using the French names as those are the ones used by reliable sources and the fact that's its irrelevant to the scope of the article Marginataen (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the photo of Lassoued appropriate?
My concern about the photograph of Lassoued (quite apart from fair use) is that it apparently comes from a video Lassoued uploaded shortly after the attack. According to The Independent newspaper "After the shooting Abdesalem Lassoued posted a video on Facebook about the killings, claiming he was a member of Islamic State (IS) and had killed "three Swedes so far"." If that is true, the video is in effect IS propaganda. Should Wikipedia be disseminating it? Is it disrepectful to the victims? Any thoughts? Southdevonian (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. WP:NOTCENSORED. I don't belive there's anything to discuss. From a encyclopedic point of view, it is of absoulte relevanse to include an image of the perpetrator like several media outlets have already done in their coverage. Like the case with the image of Osama bin Laden on the 9/11 article, its use is by no means endorsement. Concerns about fair use or whether is should be in the infobox are legitimate. I've reinserted the photo. Marginataen (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The convention is not to use images of terrorists (and certainly not terrorist propaganda especially in lead/infobox)
 * Brussels Islamic State terror cell IS flag but no photos of terrorists
 * Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting photo of building
 * 2016 Brussels bombings very small cctv photo in which you cannot see faces way down in article
 * Islamic terrorism in Europe just photo of memorial
 * August 2017 Brussels attack no photos
 * 2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers no photos
 * June 2017 Brussels attack photo of Central Station
 * Please see Manual of Style/Images
 * "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred." Southdevonian (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I belive you to be using a straw man. In my response to you, I explicitly wrote "Concerns about fair use or whether is should be in the infobox are legitimate", acknowledging that the infobox might not be the best place to put it, but merely defending that it of course should be used somewhere in the article. The reason why many of the article you list, do not contain images of the perpetrators is because no such images exist under a free license and that fair use is not an option/haven't been considered. I've put the image under "Perpetrator's background" now. Also, his time of death (9:38 am) is important as it offers the reader an understanding of the exact timeframe. Marginataen (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of photos of terrorists out there. The convention is not to use them in articles about attacks (it may be different when there are articles about terrorists). Certainly not when they are taken from terrorist propaganda videos. It is of no importance to the article whether the perpetrator was pronounced dead at 9.30 or 9.38 or any other time. It is giving him too much importance - the article is not about the perpetrator. Southdevonian (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please link to that "convention". How do you find this instance differentfrom the usage of images of terrorists Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mohamed Atta on the 9/11 article? Marginataen (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any (formal?) convention on this subject and don't see the photo as endorsing the attack, BUT I don't think that it adds anything to understanding the topic. Lassoued isn't a bin Laden or KSM or Atta whose faces and whole life stories became well known. Unless a great deal more info about Lassoued gets into the public sphere, the individual is almost a footnote already. Pincrete (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It 's not endorsement. I find that the relevance of an image should be seen within the scope of the article in question. The 9/11 article was a much bigger attack and the masterminds behind it were thus subject to far greater public attention. It's correct that this attack (most likely) will go down as a footnote in history, but that's not the point. Within the scope of the article, Lassoued is the most important person in the world as he is believed to be the sole guy behind it. He's the main character. Therefore, I think the photo of him should be included. I've never, quite the opposite, stated that it has to be in the infobox and would suggest adding it to "Prepertator' s death". Marginataen (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. I've waited for a response for five days and gotten a message telling me that the photo will be deleted if it is not used in any article. Therefore, I've put it back in. Please let it remain for the time being until consensus has been reached. Btw: If it had not been for the deletion, I would not have put it back now. Marginataen (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Best for it to be deleted. Southdevonian (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Best for it to be deleted" is not an argument. An image of the sole prepertator during a video with importance to the event itself is very relevant for this article. Marginataen (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to reinsert the photo. What do others have to say on the matter? Marginataen (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No it is not relevant. It is a still from a video made by a terrorist in which he boasts about having just killed two people. No place for it on Wikipedia and, as Pincrete has said, it adds nothing to understanding the topic. Southdevonian (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a photo of him. There are other photos of him, but this one in question is directly linked to the attacks, so I think it is the best one. Of course, we can use material no matter who made it as long as it is legal and serves and encylopeidic purpose. Showing an image of the one man who carried out the attack does appear relevant for the purposes of this article. WP:Not concored. Please reference policies, stating that material by bad people can not be used. There are none. Marginataen (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One could ask if you also object to the use of the non-free image on Robert Card in the 2023 Lewiston shootings article? In both that and this case, the atrocity by a single individual. Marginataen (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Map?
I belive a map of there the attack took place should be included in the infobox like it's the case with other language versions of this article. When I don't just do it myself, it is because I'm not aware how. Marginataen (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)