Jump to content

Talk:2015 Copenhagen shootings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Second Copenhagen Attack

So, according to [1], there has been a second attack. I guess once details emerge, it's worth someone adding it to this article? Joseph2302 (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Already done in this diff. -- Sam Sing! 01:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Suggest this be moved to another article, and a third article linking the two attacks (any any subsequent ones) be created, similar to 2015 Île-de-France attacks Rationaledit (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe one should follow the same pattern as 2011 Norway attacks when further constructing this article. (Attack no. 1, attack no. 2, perpetrator, reactions, aftermath, etc.) No More 18 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. If it is a lone perpetrator's doing, it seems easier to record the pertinent information about his movements in one article. If there are several perpetrators, it becomes more difficult.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Victim of the first shooting identified

It is 55 year old documentary film director Finn Nørgaard, rather than the originally mentioned 40 year old (source: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2015/02/15/113410.htm). Cannot edit the article due to the semi-protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdrx8 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 Already done This has been added to the article by someone else. Thank you for your contribution. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Gun Laws in Denmark

Hello,

could anyone with knowledge of Danish gun laws add information to Overview of gun laws by nation? (incl. sources)? Plus a possible link from here once a dedicated part of the article is written.

Thank you,

Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is really an issue here. Most EU member states have basicly the same gun laws which are much more restrictive than in the US, i. e. you always need a license to own and carry a firearm and it's always up to the authorities to decide whether they'll issue the license to a person. Are you trying to use the attacks to prove your point that gun laws would be no use? --87.180.222.141 (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not proving any point. You are right that all EU states require license, but that is about all they have in common. In some states getting the gun license is on par with getting a driving license. In some EU states concealed carry is shall issue (more permissive than in NY or California). In some EU states self-defense guns such as pistols are completely forbidden (UK). See the link I gave above for details. I merely want to know what is the exact situation in Denmark, especially in situation when fully automatic firearms and RPGs are easily available on the black market to criminals, as was the case in Paris attacks, while in most states law abiding citizens cannot own and carry guns for self defense. It is a valid issue that is connected with these terror attacks. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not connected at all.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Cimmerian praetor: If a WP:RS state that this is a relevant issue for this particular terrorist attack in Copenhagen then of course we could add this to the article. As far as I have seen in Swedish and Danish newspaper, no expert in the field has yet talked about gun laws in connection with this particular terrorist attack. AadaamS (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi @AadaamS:, I understand that. Still, if there is anyone from Danemark with knowledge and reliable sources, I would like to ask them to contribute to Overview of gun laws by nation, even if no connection with this article is made. There are couple of EU states missing in the overview and sadly, Denmark is one of them. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan Uzan was 37

Dan Uzan was 37, not 38.

References: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4626623,00.html http://abcnews.go.com/International/suspected-gunman-copenhagen-shootings-criminal-past/story?id=28978240

Information about possible perpetrator released too soon: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2015/02/15/190507.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.86.125 (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Reason for delay in releasing name of perpetrator:

"Police were working to determine whether the man had travelled to Syria or Iraq", Jens Madsen, the head of Danish intelligence, said.

Reference: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31475803 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.86.125 (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Location of suspect's death is the corner of Svanevej and Frederikssundsvej in Copenhagen.

Reference: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2015/02/15/073908.htm72.130.86.125 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Alleged perpetrator's name

According to Danish sources, the perpretator has been identified as 'Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein' -> http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/afsloering-her-er-gerningsmanden/5444324 PMLF (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I see it has just been added. PMLF (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
He was jailed in 2013 for stabbing a random train passenger in the leg: http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/article4603388.ece http://www.mynewsdesk.com/dk/koebenhavns-politi/pressreleases/koebenhavns-politi-efterlyser-omar-abdel-hamid-el-hussein-935051 He was released a few weeks ago: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2015/02/15/190507.htm FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to add the name to the article, you need to cite a source for the name, and also to state it in an WP:NPOV form such as "named/identified by police as..." -- even dead people should not be identified as criminals until the police investigation, and preferably also the inquest, is complete. -- The Anome (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The name is already sourced under the perpetrator section. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The statement should also be sourced in the intro instead of just adding it to a sentence that cites a source that does not give a name, which creates a misleading impression about the content of that source and the provenance of the statement. -- The Anome (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, the source given in the "perpetrator" section does not itself appear to cite a source for the information: it merely re-reports other reports. Where does the name come from? Official sources? Guesswork? WP:NPOV requires a source to be given for statements, where there is any doubt of their provenance. For example, "identified by Danish media as..." -- The Anome (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The above article in ekstrabladet.dk simply says 'sources confirm to Ekstrabladet that the perpetrator is ...'. They also mention a photo match without going into details. Lklundin (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC) PS. Ekstrabladet does not always get their facts right. I sure hope they are not mistaken now.
I agree. We need multiple reliable sources, and they need to specify what they base their opinion on, so we can report that as the source per WP:NPOV. At the moment, there is no official confirmation about the identity of the dead person, so we have no evidence that the person named is actually the same as the alleged perpetrator: in which case WP:BLP applies to the named individual. -- The Anome (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what we need. If the source is an RS -- it ipso facto has a reputation for fact-checking. We don't, where a source is an RS, have to know the details of the fact-checking that the RS engages in. Anymore than we do for any other personal detail of a dead person (we don't ask -- where did the RS learn that the person was born on date x, or in city y, or went to school at school z, or was convicted of crime a ... and so on ... we rely on the fact that the RS meets wp:rs ... and it is not an editor's role to make up a fictitious non-WP-guideline-super-requirement where the editor wishes to delete RS-supported material from an article). Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Epeefleche that there are sufficient RS to add the name by now.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015

Since the wiki article takes time to mention both estimates of bullet holes and shots heard by French Ambassador, it seems reasonable to mention that the terrorist wasn't the only person shooting at the first attack at Krudttønden. Police officers returned the fire (Business Insider: "Police returned the fire", Channel NewsAsia: "[the gunman] fled the scene after a shootout with police", BBC: "return fire ensured", Sydney Morning Herald, video: "guards returned fire" +a huge number of Danish news sites that all cover this in exhausting detail, but I presume you prefer English here). I have no strong opinion on wording or format, but it could be:

  • Current version (2nd paragraph in Krudttønden attack section): At 15:33 CET a 55-year-old man attending the event was killed and three police officers were wounded by automatic gunfire. Two of the officers were bodyguards belonging to the Danish Security and Intelligence Service. At least 30 bullet holes...
  • Suggested version: At 15:33 CET a 55-year-old man attending the event was killed and three police officers were wounded by automatic gunfire. Two of the officers were bodyguards belonging to the Danish Security and Intelligence Service. Officers returned the fire and the attacker fled the scene.[any or all of the citations I provided above] At least 30 bullet holes...

62.107.221.251 (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Geolocation of third shooting (of the suspect)

Over at liveleak (and probably elsewhere) one can see footage of the forensic investigation at the scene where the third shooting occured.

The 'Synoptik' store can easily be geolocated to the corner of Frederikssundsvej and Svanevej with the deceased lying outside number 1 Svanevej, just west of Nørrebro Station.

So if deemed useful the location of the third shooting can be updated. Lklundin (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

PS. I see now that other sources directly specify the location to the corner of Frederikssundsvej and Svanevej.

Should the police officer's non-fatal 'gunshot to the chest' be kept, and if so, where ?

I added this [2] to the lead today and then it was soon after moved to the section 'Police killing of suspect', [3] by @AadaamS:.

The problem is that it has only been reported that a police officer who was injured during one of the two initial shootings also received a gunshot to the chest (nonfatal because he was wearing a bulletproof vest).

So the information cannot be fitted into any of the current sections, and it is patently wrong to place it in the 'Police killing of suspect' section, because it is known that it was _not_ during this event that he was shot.

So I think the information in its current presentation is wrong and should be either reverted, or possibly removed altogether, pending more details. Lklundin (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lklundin: I moved it because I thought it was too minor a detail to have in the lead section. You are welcome to find during which incident the policeman's attempted murder took place and put it in the correct section. AadaamS (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You could rename the "Police shooting ..." section to "Police response" or something like that, too. Then it will become the section for the organised response of the Danish police. AadaamS (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Omar Abdul Hamid El-Hussein now a redirect

I redirected Omar Abdul Hamid El-Hussein to this article since it had only one reference, and this would appear to be the event for which the individual is notable. Feel free to revert if you disagree. This is Paul (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is the Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein page just a link to this page?

Why is the Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein page just a link to this page?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirect, per WP:BLP. We have insufficient evidence to associate any possibly-living individual with this attack at the moment, and WP:BLP applies. There's a reason that the police have not yet publicly released a name. More information will become available in a day or so once the official identification procedures have been followed. Otherwise, at the moment, this appears just to be Ekstra Bladet's opinion on the matter. -- The Anome (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Anome -- that's not an appropriate rationale. BLP clearly does not apply. It applies, as it states in its first sentence, and as its title suggests, to articles "about living persons." As this article indicates, El-Hussein was killed. RSs report this -- and WP relies on RSs for this information. See, e.g., this article in The Telegraph, and this article in The Huffington Post, and this article in The Independent, and this article by France TV. He is not a living person.
And the question wasn't "why don't we delete the redirect," but rather why does the redirect lead to "just a link to this page?".
Anyway, there is no valid rationale for applying BLP to a dead person. The reason given for the deletion is clearly not appropriate.Epeefleche (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Not that I support removing the name, but the BLP definitely applies here. "...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. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime."
That said, BLP does not indicate that contentious material should not be included, it only indicates that contentious items must be exceptionally well sourced (i.e., tabloids don't count, numerous proper newspapers would be fine)129.178.88.84 (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Reuters was oddly cagey about the identification, nonetheless they did print the name, and they did say that Danish media was giving this name. We should reflect that uncertainty but provide the information that is available. Wnt (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not simply information published by the media, it is released by the police, who identify him directly as the person shot at Svanevej and as the suspect of the attacks. Media is filling in the blanks with information about his previous arrest (for stabbing a random man in a train, and his release from prison two weeks ago.) But this information is as official as it gets, directly from the police and repeated by multiple reliable sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a source that the police have released the name? I have only seen sources saying the police have published his age and a few other things without naming him.PrimeHunter (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, there was just one source that states that it was officially released by the police[4][5], others say that it was not, but they have supplied alot of detailed information of him with the exception of the name, including photos. His name was published officially in relation to the 2013 warrant and arrest. They have also clearly not put the medias statement in doubt, on the contrary they have corroborated it with additional information. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs)
Your first source says "Politiet har ikke offentliggjort mannens navn" (The police has not published the man's name). The second claims the police has published the name but then gives a police quote which doesn't name him, and is also quoted in other media which says the police has not named him. The source is dated 15.02.2015 at 20.04, presumably Norwegian time so 9 hours ago. If the police had really published the name at that time then it would be mentioned in lots of other media which currently say the police has not named him. The latest addition of his name to our article [7] is with a source [8] saying "Police refused to confirm the man’s identity, which was reported by Danish media." By the way, many Danish media initially claimed as facts that there were two attackers at the first scene and the man killed there was 40. It later changed to a single attacker and the killed man was 55. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
We are not confident of the facts. That is actually the norm for historical events, whether they happened yesterday or a thousand years ago. But let's remember that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, not a police point of view. That means that if the police don't release the name but some reliable sources do, we say that. It also means that if the police identify someone conclusively but some reliable sources question their decision, we would say that. There really shouldn't be a long thought process between what we read and what we put in the article. Wnt (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It is really futile to leave out the name at this point, it is repeated in so many sources, none of which put in any doubt the identity of the person killed by the police - they still describe him as suspect but that is obvious that they will continue to do that untill they have conclusive physical evidence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the prior two comments. We follow the RSs. It is that simple. And this is reflected in multiple RSs, on both sides of the pond. Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Title too vague

Not sure why this article was moved from the February title, it is unlikely to be the only shooting in 2015. Moved to a more specific title. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You may well be right - but can I ask that we try to avoid getting into one of the back-and-forth naming disputes that tend to occur with rapidly-developing stories. If there are suitable alternative names, create a redirect, and settle the naming issue when the article is in a more stable state. For now, it is clear enough what the subject of the article is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The article name was not the current one when I wrote the above. FunkMonk (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Suggest the title be changed to "Random Copenhaguen Shootings at Freedom of Speech Event and at Synagogue". XavierItzm (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
And how was this random? FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
We don't disambiguate preemptively. An unrelated shooting could occur in Copenhagen later this month, but that doesn't mean that we should append "14–15 February" to the title now. We wait until an actual need arises.
Amid the various moves, you replaced "shootings" with "attack" (which later became "attacks"). I'm guessing that you did so because February 2015 Copenhagen shootings had a revision history that prevented you from reinstating that title without an administrator's assistance. "Shooting"/"shootings" is our standard description of such incidents (with "attack"/"attacks" used when multiple modes of attack are involved), so I've reverted to the appropriate terminology. —David Levy 04:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
That process involved many users. Briefly explained, User:FunkMonk insisted on 'February 2015 Copenhagen [attack(s)/shooting(s)]', while I wanted '2015 Copenhagen [etc.]'. And yes, I ultimately chose '2015 Copenhagen attacks' as '2015 Copenhagen shootings' was already occupied as a result of the move process. No More 18 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I examined the page's history. The change from "shootings" to "attack" occurred when FunkMonk moved the article from 2015 Copenhagen shootings to February 2015 Copenhagen attack (presumably because February 2015 Copenhagen shootings – the title from which you'd moved the article to 2015 Copenhagen shootings – had a revision history). —David Levy 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Reactions

As usual with this type of event and a new article, there is a disproportionately long "Reactions" section which also has flagcruft. This needs trimming and conversion to prose.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I've done a slight clean-up. The Danish reactions are obviously more important, I retained the quotes and converted to prose (very easy). I cleaned up extra details on foreign reactions, and removed quotes as most are straightforward condolences/condemnations. Netanyahu's is different in my opinion—his people have been targeted, so his reaction is different. I left it, but other editors can go over it if they think otherwise. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@The White Hart of Wikiwood: Your recent addition is interesting in the moment, and well-sourced, but it seems slightly WP:UNDUE. Will it be found relevant when reading the article in a week?--Anders Feder (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I always struggle to achieve a balanced presentation, including facts that some might find hard to accept. I believe my contributions here confirm this. Considerable news about negative reactions would present reality in an incorrect/false way when not balanced by ditto about positive reactions.
That said, I have not considered the text in question as perfect or finished. There is certainly room for improvement. I see three things that might need attention:
  • The text should manage to present the essence of important aspects of the Svanevej incident without becoming excessive and without over-focussing on aspects that are not remarkably more significant or informative than others.
  • The text should perhaps be moved to another section of the article, as it is formally not a statement equal to those of widely recognised or umbrella organisations but rather equal to popular reactions.
  • If remaining under Reactions, the text might need to be reduced in size, especially after recent additions by other users.
No More 18 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Picture should be removed

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)

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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Request for comment

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

  • 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)
  • 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)
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[9] 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Keep. Unique, valuable source. XavierItzm (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Summary of both threads above

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

For removal

  • 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

  • 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)

Yes, overwhelmingly for inclusion. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Copenhagen_shootings/Archive_1&oldid=1258161185"