Jump to content

Talk:2015 Copenhagen shootings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picture should be removed

[edit]

With all due respect to @FunkMonk:, File:Police blockade after Copenhagen shootings.jpg is really not a good picture - it's dark, blurred and shows nothing particularly useful - just a couple of policemen on a street, which could be anywhere and any time. Even the author admits its poor quality in the file description ("Photo taken with an old Nokia phone, hence the bad quality.") While FunkMonk's dedication is admirable, unfortunately the picture simply isn't worth including - its quality is so poor that frankly it drags down the rest of the article by comparison. I propose that it should be removed. (I tried removing it myself, but FunkMonk reverted me.) Prioryman (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Købmagergade cordoned off by the police 200 m east of the Great Synagogue three hours after the shooting there
It is also currently used on many foreign language Wikipedias. This is the only free picture of the event we have so far, and shows what's mentioned in the article. I don't find your rationale for removing convincing, bad quality photos are only removed when better quality versions are found. It is unlikely to happen here in the near future, so the quality is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur for the reasons given by Prioryman, and have removed the picture as well. Only to be reverted promptly by FunkMonk. -- Sam Sing! 11:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons I gave above. Blockades are now being removed, we will not get another free photo of the event as it happened. This is like removing the only available photo of a rare animal because it is blurry (see for example Imperial amazon). Which is just silly. The quality is bad but it is pretty easy to see what it depicts; a police blockade keeping people away from the scene of the shooting, which was a notable historical event in itself, as much of Copenhagen was blocked for the first time. A bad photo is better than no photo at all. I've added the photo here so other commentators can see what we're talking about, in case overzealous editors remove it again. It is used as the main image in several foreign language Wikipedias for the reasons I mention. And no, I did not place it there. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now we have two photos to illustrate each incident. One illustrates the police at work very soon after the last shooting, and is therefore a bit more chaotic and guerilla-like, the second shows the "aftermath" of the first, and is therefore calm and more aesthetically pleasing. Together they give a very accurate atmosphere of the events, I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, they are from two different places and illustrate different incidents, so I'm not sure how one can replace the other (the image you added was taken by the same person as the former, who is a Commons editor). In fact, both sit just fine in the article now. We have nothing better to show police blockades in the inner city right after the second shooting. And we probably won't get anything better to illustrate that aspect, so close to when the event happened. It is pretty baffling why anyone would want to make the article less engaging/interesting by actually removing relevant photos that are impossible to emulate at this time. As for "support", two against one is hardly consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see you added a nice additional photo of flowers, but yet again, that does nothing to replace the former one, which shows police activity right after the shooting. The flower photo belongs under reactions. This is not about the police photo being "mine", but the fact that we have no free equivalent of the photo, and because it is much more relevant to the attack itself than anything that could be produced so long after the fact. If this was a stub, your concern would maybe be understandable due to space issues, but right now, it is just silly. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And right back at ya. RFC it will be. I've reverted three times, not four, the initial adding of the photo does not count as a revert. The image is now used on seven language Wikipedias, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The various insinuations of bad faith aren't helpful at all.--2.110.77.99 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the poor quality of the image I think it is unfair to blame Nokia and the age of the camera. The problem is clearly that the exposure time is so long that the camera moved with the shutter open, hence the point sources became L-shaped and the police cordon appears in basically two distinct copies. In fact, I will speculate that if the camere had been held against a fixed structure then the image would have turned out very well. Not that I could have done better myself with my trusty old Nokia N900. Lklundin (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the best time to stand still aim at them for a long time, I have a dark full beard, perhaps a bit suspicious-looking for alert policemen. In any case, I doubt we'll get anything close to that picture, which is the point. And now that the article has become so long, and the presence of other, lighter photos making it less jarring, I see even less reason to remove it. An interesting thing about the picture is that it was taken less than an hour before the killer was shot. FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is appropriate for the shootings. Thank you for keeping it in this article. As for your beard being suspicious, I have many Jewish friends with beards, many friends that have a beard during the winter, and many muslim friends that have never had a beard. Several of PET officers have beards, too.72.130.86.125 (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

See discussion above. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a shame the quality isn't better, but the photography's subjects (to whit, Danish policemen, a police cordon and a police vehicle on Strøget during that night) and thus provide a valuable documentation of the unfolding event at that particular time and place. walk victor falk talk 22:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with actions A criticism is that the photo shows "a street, which could be anywhere and any time". I am in favor of a keep, on the condition that the author updates the photo descripion on wikimedia with the exact location information, (lat, lon, heading). This is easy, f.ex. just go to google maps, zoom in on the location where the photo was taken and left click on the place. You should then get the latitude and longitude inserted into the top left search window. For example 55.68139,12.57583 if you were on Kultorvet. Please note that 1m is about 1e-5 degrees, so unless you can convince yourself that you can determine your location with an accuracy better than 1 m, then you should limit yourself to that accuracy (i.e. at most 5 digits after the decimal point). Also, give the (approximate) heading of the camera, 0 is for north, 270 for due west (from your description, it sounds like the heading is more or less to the west). Also, update the description with the address, e.g. street name and the nearest house number. As for the time, do _not_ try to modify the Exif metadata. Instead, you can make a comment explaining any offset in the recorded timestamp (2015-02-15T04:20:10), e.g. is the timestamp correct except you can see that the internal clock of your camera is running about 2 minutes 20 seconds late (or that you happened to have it on daylight saving time, making it 1 hour early). Fix those things, so people can convince themselves where the photo was taken (and to some degree when), and I support a keep. Lklundin (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: The metadata says 'Software used Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows'. Photoshopping is really the perfect way to discredit an image. So you _must_ provide the original, unaltered image, without any 'improvements' (yes, these are scare quotes). If for some reason the image quality can be improved and this is deemed useful, then you can keep two (or more) versions of the photo on the same wikimedia page. But the page must include your original photo, otherwise it is a no-go. In my opinion.
I can add coordinates, I know exactly where it was taken, Rundetårn and Studenterhuset[1] can even be seen in the background of the photo, the Arnold Busck bookstore is on the left. As for Photoshop, all I did was make the photo lighter, but I can upload the original underneath, so to speak. Both now done, in fact. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I confirm, from the coordinates now available with the photo one can now verify the location (to the corner of Skindergade and Købmagergade looking towards Rundetårn). So I am for a 'Keep'. Lklundin (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC) PS. What was actually cordoned off? You mention 'Nørreport Station' (about 450 m away from your photo location), while the synagogoe is just over 200 m away from your location.[reply]
A large area around Nørreport St. was blocked, but I guess it was due to the proximity to the synagogue. I didn't know that I was closer to the synagogue than to the train station at the time, never been there. I had read Nørreport st. was being evacuated, so I thought the shooting was close to there. I should note that I did not go there intending to take the picture, it was an afterthought when I was on my way home from a bar nearby... If I wanted a good photo, I'd have brought my camera. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the insistence on "original" photos. The problem is, by "original" you mean, one where there is metadata inserted at a manufacturer per government behind-the-scenes insistence, and by that you're implying, with serial number hidden in it somewhere by which (if you were a wealthy corporation; I don't know if random web users have access to such a tool) you could track down other photos taken by the same individual and 'out' the Wikipedia contributor. Which in turn means, at its core essence, that people should not find their work welcome on Wikipedia unless they have at least implicit permission from the government to take that photo. Of course, I realize that Denmark is the last place on Earth that this chain of logic would clearly play out to its logical conclusion at this time, but I object to the principle. Wikipedia should always be open to photos that have been scrubbed free of metadata, to the degree anyone knows it is possible. Wnt (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it is you that is making an implication, namely that Exif-headers are discreetly watermarked, just like Xerox machines and printers. I am intrigued. The storage capacity of an Exif-header is a lot smaller than what can discreetly be printed on a seemingly blank sheet of paper. Why are you not suspicious that the camera makers are compelled by the evil and mass-surveilling government that the for example the USA has turned out to be, to simply discreetly watermark each photo taken with the camera? That would be trivial with the firmware of a digital camera - and not entirely easy to scrub either. Or even better, the proprietary piece of software called Photoshop, that one might use to 'scrub the evil-gubberment-exif-header' might very well discreetly watermark the created photo, say with your IP-address, that is just 32 bits out of millions upon millions in the bitmap. (Personally, I use Open-Source software like GIMP instead of Photoshop, but not because I am paranoid, just because it is better). Anyway, feel free to point me to sources detailing how a mass-surveilling government is compelling camera producers to watermark digital photos. It is quite OK, if it is full of specifics and technically very detailed. Oh and many thanks for the opportunity to rant. Lklundin (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had read this article before the RFC and came to the conclusion then and now that even if it is a comparatively low quality image, it has been well reasoned that it is the best available picture of the event, and I agree with that. If something else is available to replace it with go for it, but as of the moment it doesn't do any harm to the article itself. Rotund but Reasonable (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone is able to digitally enhance the photo further, feel free to give it a try. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unique, valuable source. XavierItzm (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Pictures are not required under any guideline. Pictures are useful if they show something, but this one doesn't. To argue that we need to add this poor-quality common-place "dark street with a police car" picture because we have nothing else is way out of line. If we have nothing else, then don't add anything. WP:IUP says "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." This picture does nothing of it. It does not increase any understanding of the subject matter, it doesn't show any relation of what we see to the shooting. In fact it doesn't show anything much, just a dark night, which could be anywhere at any time. It could be a couple of policemen blocking a street because of a road accident. The picture doesn't say anything. Kraxler (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is supposed to show police cordoning off a street close to the shooting, shortly after it happened. Are you seriously claiming you can't make that out from the photo? If someone saw bigfoot in the photo, then I'd agree we had a problem. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The picture shows police anywhere at any time at night in a dark street. There is no vestige of the shooters, the victims, or the actual place where the shooting took place, as you well know. It's 200 meters away, by your own description. Please explain how this image increases the readers understanding of the subject matter of this article. The guidelines exist for a purpose. Kraxler (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, the picture shows a large part of Copenhagen being cordoned off after a terror attack, which is notable in itself. It shows events during the shooting, close to where it happened. The shooter wasn't even caught yet at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image shows one single spot cordoned off, an everyday occurrence anywhere. That the shooter was not caught yet at the time, is not visible in the picture. So why should the picture "increase the readers understanding of the subject matter of this article", as required under the guidelines? Anybody can take a picture of anything and then say, Napoleon passed within 200 meters of this spot at a time of major historical events. The picture will do nothing to increase the readers understanding of these events. Kraxler (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of both threads above

[edit]

To be of some help for the closer, I hope.

For removal

[edit]
  • Prioryman - "dark, blurred and shows nothing particularly useful"; removed image, reverted by FunkMonk
  • Sam Sailor - "concur for the reasons given by Prioryman"; "it's simply not good enough to be included"; removed the image, reverted by FunkMonk
  • Kraxler - the only !voter who cited a guideline, to wit: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." Fact: The image doesn't show directly any people, things, activities or concepts described in the article. The section where the image is added does not talk about any police action in the street. The image does not show the shooters, the victims, or the place where the shooting took place. The original uploader went silent when asked to explain how this image increases the readers understanding of the subject matter of this article.

For inclusion

[edit]
  • FunkMonk - the original uploader who edit-warred to keep it; also repeated over and over the arguments presented by the other keep !voters; also cited that the image is used on other language Wikis, an argument discouraged by the principle of WP:OTHERSTUFF
  • victor falk - "the photography's subjects (to whit, Danish policemen, a police cordon and a police vehicle on Strøget during that night) and thus provide a valuable documentation of the unfolding event at that particular time and place" Fact: Nothing happened at that time and place, the shootings happened 3 hours previously, 200 meters away, and the subjects of the photography stand still in the street.
  • Lklundin - "keep, on the condition that the author updates the photo descripion on wikimedia with the exact location information" - This rationale says nothing about the subject of the photo, no guideline supports having the exact co-ordinates as a reason to keep an image.
  • No More 18 - "Acceptable quality at c. 250px"; "a relevant and informative pic that cannot be replaced easily" Fact: Images are not required.
  • Rotund but reasonable - "the best available picture of the event"; "if something else is available, replace it" Fact: The picture doesn't show the event.
  • Xavier Itzm - "unique, valuable source" - A source? For what?
  • 72.130.86.125 - "picture is appropriate for the shootings" Fact: The picture does not show the shootings

There it is. Kraxler (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, overwhelmingly for inclusion. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions, new article?

[edit]

Do we need a new article for the international reactions, like the Charlie Hebdo? QuantoAltoPossoVolare (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite has taken place, I removed the similar-sounding condolences from international leaders and merely left a sourced sentence naming some of the leaders who made statements. I think that is best for an event of this one's magnitude, clearly not as much of a turning point in history as International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks '''tAD''' (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you very much for that. Too much fluff in these kinds of articles. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong translation?

[edit]

The article states - with reference to a Danish (and American) source - that 'chief police inspector said: "The culprit that was shot by the police task force is the person behind both of these assassinations." ' But the Danish story doesn't say that. Rather, the inspector is quoted for saying "As for now, it is our assumption that the man we are dealing with, and who was killed by police, is the perpetrator who at 15:33 (Saturday, ed.) with an automatic weapon opened fire on the people at Krudttønden." In other words: They are not sure. Jorgenjorgenjorgen (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is being reported directly as such by multiple RSs, including the Washington Post, a top-level RS.[2][3]Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But when you see what is reported elsewhere since Saturday, such a statement doesn't fit in. The guy shot at Svanevej has consequently been called "den formodede gerningsmand", i.e. the supposed perpetrator, by both media and police in Denmark. That's even what it says in this Wikipedia article right after the (wrong) quote. Could be that the inspector was inaccurate when interviewed, but that doesn't justify letting his words remain there. And it certainly doesn't justify quoting the Danish newsarticle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgenjorgenjorgen (talk • contribs) 01:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the quote in the Washington Post article was likely miscommunicated. Danish police released a statement dated "2015-02-16 11:47 CET", in which they refer to a "presumed perpetrator".[4] That's 2015-02-16 05:47 in Washington DC.[5] Assuming that is the timezone used in the WP article, the article was published less than 3 hours after the statement made by the police.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Separate statements. One is a statement by the department. The other, reported by a top-level RS, is a precise quote by the Chief Police Inspector, that was more recent. The WP reported it, and hasn't changed it, and is an RS. We can't override an RS with an editor "guess" that given that there was an earlier different statement that the Washington Post is not an RS for a direct quote. Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, for the love of Jimbo Wales, let's not get into a silly back-and-forth over it. It's very likely that Jorgenjorgenjorgen is right. You want to hold a different view - suit yourself.--Anders Feder (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If only WP and no one else reported that, it doesn't matter if it is a RS or not, what matters is what most RS say. FunkMonk (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, if the RSes are verifiably wrong, then that takes precedence over those incorrect RSes. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, delete the sentence with that quote. It is not consistent with what is otherwise known about the statements from the police. Jorgenjorgenjorgen (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At 22:05 CET this evening, Danish police announced the following in a press release: "Copenhagen police can now confirm the claims published by the press about the suspected perpetrator's identity." This is the first time, the police confirms the connection. (Source: http://www.mynewsdesk.com/dk/rigspolitiet/pressreleases/seneste-nyt-om-skudattentaterne-1118810 (But I guess this is not relevant, since the Washington Post hasn't written it ;-) ) Jorgenjorgenjorgen (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that strange "culprit" quote hasn't been removed yet. I wonder why? Jorgenjorgenjorgen (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator abuse

[edit]

Those admins who have removed categories and otherwise covered up the name of the perpetrator and his Islamic motives please explain yourselves or resign your adminship. You have brought Wikipedia into disrepute and for what motives. And don't hide behind blp because the perpetrator was dead. 166.137.242.58 (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whatever other nonsense, BLP applies equally to the recently deceased. There's no "conspiracy" and Wikipedia isn't a 24-hour news service like CNN or the BBC. St★lwart111 05:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the suspected perpetrator is in both the lead and the body. This troll is a troll who is trolling. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about the story to comment in that regard (thought you would seem to be absolutely right, looking at it) - I was just pointing out the falsehood in the IP's argument. St★lwart111 09:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart -- actually, that's not quite correct. The BLP policy clearly, by its terms and as its title suggests, applies strictly to living people. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it actually applies to the recently deceased as well—see WP:BLP. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche, from WP:BDP:

Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside.

Those who have died in the last fews hours/days/weeks certainly fall within the purview of that guideline. St★lwart111 04:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice an administrator, but I object to edits that make sources go away, like [6] and [7]. I personally tracked down the announcements of the event at Krudttoenden and also at Lars Vilks' site, because when you look at the original announcement, seeing it in context in a normal social calendar, you have a much more instinctive, intuitive feeling of what it's like for someone to walk into an event like this and suddenly have bullets flying through the window. It matters. We should never play keep-away with the data. Wnt (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt: And what sources went away? Oh, right, none of them, they were merely rearranged. So your objection is exactly what, again? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: OK, I see you kept the Krudttoenden reference after all, but all reference to larsvilks.com departed in your second diff there. I've added it back as a presumed oversight. Wnt (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waveform visualization of clearly semi-automatic shots fired at Krudttønden

[edit]
Waveform of gunshots fired at Krudttønden

A couple of edit summaries to the main article commented on the shots fired at Krudttønden and whether or not the weapon used could be an automatic rifle.

I have created an image with the waveform of a cleaned up (filtered) audio of the shots fired, some of which may come from the police.

The initial, close to 30 shots are fired in 10 seconds, so one can clearly see that the shots are not fired in fully automatic mode, but rather semi-automatic mode.

(The filtered sound is also available, played at reduced speed). Lklundin (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts regarding the identity of the shooter

[edit]

@Anders Feder: With your recent reverts regarding the identity of the shooter ([8] and especially [9]) I sure hope you know what you are doing, because they make no sense to me. Lklundin (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lklundin: What about them does not make sense to you?--Anders Feder (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me. As far as I can read, our reservation with respect to a WP:PRIMARY source is that it must be used (i.e. quoted) without any interpretation, so that anyone can read the quoted text in the Wikipedia page, and go to the source and basically find the same text there. And in the contribution you reverted with reference to this policy, I was making a quote that to the best of my knowledge is a word for word translation of the Danish text in the source into English. And since I see nothing in your revert summary that takes issue with the accuracy of my translation, I have to wonder what the issue is. Lklundin (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lklundin:Please don't take reverts as a criticism. My concern was that the source is written in a specific, Danish context, while Wikipedia is written in a completely different, general and global context. The expression "as reported by the media" in the source refers to Danish media, but when moved verbatim into Wikipedia it means something much broader. I thought this shift in meaning was unfortunate, and WP:BOLDLY undid your edit. It was not intended to imply that it was the final and unquestionable word on the matter.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anders Feder: I have asked why you reverted my edits, your comments regarding criticism are irrelevant. You with your concern 'that the source is written in a specific, Danish context', but you reverted by referring to our policy on WP:PRIMARY. And you have not explained how that policy applied to your revert. I cannot see how your personal interpretation of content in the primary source has any relevance in that regard. This discussion in moot now, due to available secondary sources, but perhaps you want to be a bit more careful when citing Wikipedia policy in future reverts. All the best, Lklundin (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lklundin:The explanation given above is completely satisfactory, and I won't be more careful in the future.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS. There are news papers quoting the press release, so I see no validity of the WP:PRIMARY concern at all.[10]
The WP:PRIMARY concern is fully valid, and the WP:SECONDARY source you are pointing to is much better. I would have no concerns about it being used at all.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and flowers

[edit]

It is well known that there were bouquets, cards, candles, and other effects in Svanevej, where the terrorist had been killed. However:

Danish and Norwegian media have written that 'people' (folk etc.) had brought the flowers there and that a group of Muslim youths later appeared and began gathering and removing these, explaining that such expressions are not a 'tradition among Muslims'.

Today, based on an article in The Daily Telegraph, a Wikipedia user has begun to claim that the flowers were brought there by Muslim youths wishing to commemorate their deceased friend and that other Muslim youths later appeared and began gathering and removing these, explaining that such expressions could 'create a misleading impression that the suspected gunman had the support of his community'.

This obvious contradiction cannot remain standing in the article until investigated. No More 18 (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you investigate and correct the article, rather than adding question marks and personal commentary. WWGB (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. No contradiction, all perfectly clarified by Jyllands-Posten article. Flowers were deposited by sympathisers of dead terrorist until 16:30 when 30 masked men removed them and shouted "allahu akbar". No contradiction. XavierItzm (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Telegraph (DT) are telling a story that I am not able to find in Danish newspapers. You have got to understand that because of this, DT content has to be removed while the user(s) who added it investigates its accuracy, for example by finding sources that, independently of DT, confirm the said story. Since you keep reinserting this obviously problematic content, I have added relevant templates to the section. No More 18 (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the story is true (the Telegraph does not attribute it to any source) it is of no direct significance to the article--unidentified men do something not recorded or reported to or by authorities according to no named or unnamed source. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC) <--- Medeis[reply]

@Medeis: Thank you for removing the whole section. I cannot understand why User:WWGB and User:The Almightey Drill insist on keeping content that obviously contradicts other sources, that is likely to be inaccurate/incorrect, and that might cause information loop if remaining in the article until investigated. No More 18 (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather bizarre that the whole section was removed under the excuse that its source was the Daily Telegraph, when the New York Times also reported:
* about a dozen young men, their faces covered by scarves, visited the spot where Mr. Hussein died and, declaring themselves his brothers, shouted “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,”
* as they removed flowers laid in memorial, a ritual they said was contrary to Islamic teaching.
* They also taped a sign written in Danish and Arabic to the wall near the spot where Mr. Hussein died: “May God show mercy. Rest in Peace, Captain,”
Of course, if flowers laid in memorial to the killer have no importance and must be deleted from article, it is not evident why flowers laid in memorial to the victims have any importance either. XavierItzm (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters comments about flowers in front of the synagogue twice (1 2) and it's an uncontroversial claim. News that some Danish Muslims/non-Muslims are taking actions that may suggest some sympathy with Islamist terrorism is a claim that needs caution unless widely sourced. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The argument about Reuters twice for the synagogue is fallacious,
because both the New York Times and the Daily Telegraph report about the flowers for the dead terrorist.
Are you saying two mentions by Reuters are somehow more RS than a detailed citation by The New York Times (US) and the Daily Telegraph (UK).??? XavierItzm (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Altogether, it's a new, media-generated story arc, with only tangential relation to the original subject of the article. The synagogue flowers are, as you say, uncontroversial and serve to conclude the article rather than start it anew.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the RS for this idea that there is a media arc?
Are you engaged in WK:OR?
We have as RS the Agence France Presse, The New York Times, and the Daily Telegraph, reporting the rather uncontroversial news that flowers were left at the death locations of the victims and of the murderer, we have a picture of one of the former, and yet somehow the latter is being sanitised. XavierItzm (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. It has nothing to do with censorship (and certainly not with OR). It's just a completely irrelevant piece of hyperbole.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By not refuting the argument,
it seems clear that there is an admission that the pretence to censor the citations of Agence France Presse, The New York Times, and the National Post of Canada
has no encyclopaedic rationale. XavierItzm (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By making baseless accusations, it seems clear that there is an admission that your case can't stand on mere merit.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo showing "Flowers in front of the Great Synagogue on 15 February, after Dan Uzan was killed" has been restored by Aronzak,
    yet the New York Times citation about "flowers laid in memorial," for Hussein the murderer, was deleted by Medeis.
    What is the rationale for keeping victim flowers while deleting murderer flowers? XavierItzm (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because news sources contradict about who laid the flowers for the perpetrator, and there's insufficient agreement in the news about what they were originally laid for. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When the facts are unclear, we should say that, rather than omitting them. Somehow flowers did appear, and there are some interesting RSed comments about that. Wnt (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Because news sources contradict about who laid the flowers for the perpetrator"
Isn't this a specious argument?
With regard to the picture about flowers for the victim, do you know who left them? How is it relevant?
Completely agree with Wnt. XavierItzm (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of RS that interview people who laid flowers where the shooter died. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have the New York Times, Agence France Presse, and the National Post all with interviews with people who laid flowers for the terrorist or otherwise memorialised him:
AFP: an elderly woman; Nicolaus Lambert; plus an onlooker: Mohammed
The National Post: two onlookers: a young Arab, who gave his name as Mohamed; an Arab man who gave his name as Benny
The New York Times: a dozen young men, [...] declaring themselves his brothers, shouted “Allahu akbar" and attached "a sign written in Danish and Arabic to the wall near the spot where Mr. Hussein died: “May God show mercy. Rest in peace, Captain,"
This seems like plenty of RS, don't you think? XavierItzm (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support inclusion of a paragraph about flowers being laid where the suspect was shot, later removed by a group of people who placed placards instead. These things are naturally sensitive and has gained much attention both in Denmark and Norway, (media I have followed most), including reactions from politicans and others. Also various kind of comments made at the place have gained attention. (Removing a headline, as we don't need two separate threads for this). Iselilja (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many things are sensitive. That doesn't mean they belong in this article. I see the populist, anti-immigrant Danish People's Party is now voicing concerns that the spot will turn into a permanent memorial site / place of worship. If that happens, I am all for creating a new top-level section ('Aftermath' or some such) and describe it there. Until then, it's just churnalism.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done as per your request.(--Unsigned comment by User:XavierItzm)
I didn't request anything.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 20:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC) User: Anders Feder wrote: "I am all for creating a new top-level section ('Aftermath' or some such)" and it got as requested. XavierItzm (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what it got. I didn't request anything.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. Thank you for your contribution. XavierItzm (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The claim of churnalism is absurd.
nyhederne.tv2.dk, The NYT, the AFP report, and The National Post all have different narrations and interview different witnesses of the memorial to the terrorist.
The churnalism canard just another excuse to keep censoring the facts. XavierItzm (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to a single edit where I have "censored the facts". If you can't, I propose you admit that your only goal is to be disruptive.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anders, please point to where I said you have censored facts. I don't think this is the case.
Nonetheless, you will notice that a very strong case has been made by
Wnt, FunkMonk, Iselilja, XavierItzm
that there is no reason to censor the facts as reported by AFP, TV2.dk, The National Post, The New York Times, and the Daily Telegraph. However, you have opposed consensus at every step, by using a series of implausible arguments that have included: "media-generated story arc" (which is false), "insentive" (which is irrelevant, there are RS), "pressure for exposure and viewership" (which is irrelevant), and "transient mention by news media" (which is irrelevant).
Opposing the consensus effectively results in censoring news sources from Denmark, Canada, the U.S., and the UK: right now, these facts, which were once part of the article, have been censored out.
Thank you for your contributions, however. XavierItzm (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing the consensus does result in anything being censored. Nor does consensus require unanimity.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what Danish TV2 says: "The many flowers at the perpetrator's death place has led to many reactions both in Danish and international media" (De mange blomster på gerningsmandens drabssted har affødt mange reaktioner både i danske og i internationale medier). Placing flowers on the death place of a terrorist/suspect is naturally sensitive, and it's totally natural for media to cover this, the fact that it is done by practically all Danish media, not a subset of tabloid media, as well as many international media makes this clearly relevant for Wikipedia. Iselilja (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TV2 it not tabloid, but it's under the same pressures as all other media organizations to get as much exposure and viewership out of the story as possible. Their TV 2 News station is covering it constantly for the same reason. But Wikipedia, in turn, is not a newspaper - it's an encyclopedia.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is we have a reliable source that points out to us that the flowers for the suspect is getting wide media attention. Wikipedia do use to cover incidents that get wide media attention; many far less significant things that this. 21:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Iselilja (talk)
In that case, we simply disagree, which is no crime. I'll leave it to others to read what the consensus is.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These arguments against notability are really arguments for it. If sources disagree on the motive or interpretation, that makes it more notable. If TV stations feel pressured by the public to cover an event, that makes it more notable. Wikipedia has many articles on people who are famous solely for being famous; you can say that's wrong, nonetheless the RS coverage makes it appropriate to detail. Ultimately the same reader interest that affects TV 2 should affect us. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"If TV stations feel pressured by the public to cover an event, that makes it more notable." Not at all - how did you come to that conclusion? In fact, WP:NOTABILITY specifically says: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". (Although notability really concerns articles as a whole - inside articles we go by WP:WEIGHT.)--Anders Feder (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text you cite puts necessarily in italics, because it goes on to explain that it pretty much does depend on these things, unless they don't lead to a proliferation of reliable sources and/or it is something specifically under WP:NOT. Which is already too much mumble for my taste, but still, the point is, RSes are RSes, and you can't go and say you think something is unimportant (or otherwise undesirable) and that makes the RS criterion go away. Wnt (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying anything goes away. I'm saying transient mention in news media, no matter how reliable and how numerous, does not in itself equate notability or significance. See WP:RECENTISM, which is not a policy or guideline, but which explains what the problems are.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM are pretty much always wrongly invoked. They don't prohibit coverage of recent news, but they would say that it is better to have, say, a map from a single date than to keep "updating" it with each new news snippet. They're only raised at the wrong times. But in this case, the claim is particularly out of place because the whole thing is recent news, and you can't seriously convince me that Muslim flowers are recentist but the other flowers aren't! Wnt (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How would WP:RECENTISM be able to prohibit anything when I explictly state above that it is not a policy, or even a guideline? You are attributing to me statements which aren't mine, making discussion rather pointless.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To add. The editor of the Culture section in Dagbladet writes a commentary on the Danish reactions. He mentions on one side, the unity demonstrations and the very popular text by Atle Thorberg about life going on as before. Then he contrasts this with the flowers that was laid at the place of the suspected perp and removed by a group where people shouted Allahu Akbar and concludes that the feeling of unity is to some degree false. So these placing of flowers, isn't just something hastily mentioned in the media and quickly forgotten, but goes into serious commentary and analysis about the situation in Denmark. Iselilja (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why "pressure on a TV station" can be an argument. Here's coverage of the flower issue by Politiken[11] and Information[12], probably the most well-respected Danish newspapers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the image go?

[edit]

I saw that the article had an image of El Hussein, I did an edit, came back, and it had disappeared. Not just that, but nothing on the deletion log indicated it had been deleted. What happened? '''tAD''' (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Almightey Drill: It was deleted on Commons: Commons:File:Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein.jpg.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anders Feder: Makes sense, I can't imagine how anybody except his nearest and dearest would ever possess a free image of him. However, by being deceased, a person of public interest and such pictures being widely shared by media, there should be rationale for a fair use image. '''tAD''' (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Police harshly criticized in new report

[edit]

Today, a thorough examination of the way the police handled the attacks was published. Numerous failures have been pointed out, and the chief of the PET, Jens Madsen, has stepped down. One of the many mistakes was that the police left the synagogue unguarded for hours after the attack at Krudttønden. Infact, the police has said earlier that they did send people to the synagogue shortly after the attack, but that proved not to be true. Jorgenjorgenjorgen (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have RSs, it seems worth reflecting. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2015 Copenhagen shootings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Copenhagen_shootings&oldid=1252364791"