Jump to content

Talk:2015 Copenhagen shootings/Archive 2

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

International reactions, new article?

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

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)
And thank you very much for that. Too much fluff in these kinds of articles. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong translation?

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)

That quote is being reported directly as such by multiple RSs, including the Washington Post, a top-level RS.[1][2]Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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".[3] That's 2015-02-16 05:47 in Washington DC.[4] 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)
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)
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)
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)
No, if the RSes are verifiably wrong, then that takes precedence over those incorrect RSes. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
But that strange "culprit" quote hasn't been removed yet. I wonder why? Jorgenjorgenjorgen (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrator abuse

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)

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)
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)
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)
@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)
No, it actually applies to the recently deceased as well—see WP:BLP. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
I didn't notice an administrator, but I object to edits that make sources go away, like [5] and [6]. 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)
@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)
@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)

Waveform visualization of clearly semi-automatic shots fired at Krudttønden

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)

Recent reverts regarding the identity of the shooter

@Anders Feder: With your recent reverts regarding the identity of the shooter ([7] and especially [8]) I sure hope you know what you are doing, because they make no sense to me. Lklundin (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lklundin: What about them does not make sense to you?--Anders Feder (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
PS. There are news papers quoting the press release, so I see no validity of the WP:PRIMARY concern at all.[9]
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)

Greetings and flowers

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)

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)
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)
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)
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

@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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
"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)
There are plenty of RS that interview people who laid flowers where the shooter died. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
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)
Done as per your request.(--Unsigned comment by User:XavierItzm)
I didn't request anything.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
I don't care what it got. I didn't request anything.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
That's OK. Thank you for your contribution. XavierItzm (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Opposing the consensus does result in anything being censored. Nor does consensus require unanimity.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Not sure why "pressure on a TV station" can be an argument. Here's coverage of the flower issue by Politiken[10] and Information[11], probably the most well-respected Danish newspapers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Where did the image go?

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)

@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)
@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)

Police harshly criticized in new report

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)

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

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Copenhagen_shootings/Archive_2&oldid=1258161309"