So, is this a minority attack? I didn't create a weakness, just won the pawn .
According to Jeremy Silman's glossary:
Minority Attack: A plan based on the use of two or more pawns (the minority) to act as battering rams against the opponent’s three or more pawns (the majority) in order to create a weakness in the opposing camp.
Here is the most common opening sequence by which a minority attack is reached: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Nf3 0-0 7.e3 c6 8.Bd3 Nbd7 9.Qc2 Re8 10.0-0 Nf8 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.b4 Be7 13.b5 Bd6 14.bxc6 bxc6. White has carried out his minority attack and has left Black with a weak pawn on c6 and a weak square on c5. After a further Rfc1, Rab1 and Na4 White will have great pressure against Black’s queenside. This plan is very important to understand, and situations for its use are constantly arising.
Funny how in his example the attack was carried out with one pawn, not the two in his definition. Well I think he means that the a pawn can be, though not necessarily, used as further support if black does something like ..a6 to hold the b pawn up. So the a pawn is part of the plan!
Of course the same is true for the kingside.
As for "creating a weakness", Is this just stated assuming the best defense scenario for the attacked side. If the attacker forces the win of a pawn due to poor defense, is it still a minority attack? I think so.