Talk:2017 Turku attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

No cites in the lead section

Hey guys, please don't put cites in the summary according to WP:CITELEAD. Some articles have them, but it is Wikipedia standard for good articles to not have cites in the summary. Just write in the article with cites and summarize if important in the summary. KR--Rævhuld (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Number of casualties

As always with these things, information on the casualty count fluctuates as the events unfold. At this time (20:00 hrs Finnish time) the Police have finished their press briefing, where they confirmed that there currently known to be 8 victims, of whom 2 have died and 6 are non-fatal. In addition one attacker has been non-fatally shot by the police, bringing the total casualty count to 9. I have just corrected the infobox, where it erroneously stated that there were 2 fatalities and 8 non-fatal casualties. If new information comes to light, we need to be careful to distinguish between total number of casualties vs. victims (ie. whether or not the casualty count includes only victims or also attackers), as well as between fatal vs. non-fatal casualties. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The police clarified late Friday night the number of victims as 10 in total, of whom 2 had died. The arrested suspected attacker is a further casualty, having been non-fatally shot by the police, bringing the total number of casualties to 11. I have updated the casualty count in the infobox accordingly. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal details of casualties

Previously someone had added that one of the victims was a woman; I removed that at the time, because no victims' details have been officially released. Now someone has added a mention that one of the dead was a Jehova's witness. I don't see how this is relevant, so unless anyone has any objections I would like to remove that, too. (It would be relevant, if eg. the attack was targeted at Jehova's witnesses, but that seems unlikely.) In the same vein, I would also like to remove the reference to one of the victims being Swedish. Again, I don't think that is relevant, and in the absence of any details about the others, it seems lopsided to mention one person's nationality. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The police have now officially released information on the nationalities and gender of those injured (including the attacker) or killed. I've no opinion on whether we should include that in the article, but that information has now been officially released. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, that information is now officially in the public domain. Hence I agree, now the nationalities can be mentioned; whether they need to be is another matter. But I would still like to remove the reference to one of the victims' religious orientation as being irrelevant. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I see the "handing out leaflets" as the (minor) notable aspect, and the Jehovah's Witness description as merely context. But I can see that it might look misleading, as if this may have been relevant to the killer's motivation. Martinevans123 (talk)

Nothing suggests that it was relevant to motivation that one of the victims was a JW. The cited news article quotes that organization as saying that they don't think it's related. The police (not the local, KRP, or SuPo) have said it might be relevant in any of their releases.

So far, what the police have said is that there is indication of some "ideological" motive (hence they are investigating as terrorism). They've also said that from the gender of the victims they have concluded that it's possible that women were specifically selected as targets. Experts have said that that may be due to chance, or if deliberate, suggest an ideological reason or just tactical choice (less physical resistance from the victims expected). It's too soon to put any of this in the article in my opinion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The latest is that the attacker may have been targeting women especially, in which case it's probably more relevant that the deceased was a woman, than that she was a Jehova's Witness. The latter may have contributed indirectly, in that it was the reason why she was out where she was, handing out leaflets, which may also have made her an easier target, but that's just speculation. Mentioning her religion in my view adds nothing, at best, and could be misinterpreted, at worst. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Wn

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, for news we have Wikinews. Why we don't publish first on Wikinews? This is a typical newsarticle. For me too small to have a Wikipedia article. --Livenws (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

IMHO this is not a case of quasi news reporting, this is a case of creating an article about an event as it unfolds; there is a difference. It is often difficult to say at the time what event is and isn't worthy of a Wikipedia article. I would say if in doubt, let's create the article, and if posterity judges it to be unworthy, it can always be removed later, or merged with another article, etc. What in this case makes the incident notable is that these type of things happen very seldom in Finland - kind of like the old 'dog bites man' vs. 'man bites dog' analogy. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopaedic article must only be create after all the facts are known. At least a few days and not a few minutes after first newsreport. An encyclopaedic article must be reliable without the need to make corrections continuously. Just make first a Wikinews article, and if it's so important, than we can make here an article about it. But personally, I do not think this is an encyclopaedic article, as opposed to the Barcelona attack. Wikimedia has sisterprojects and Wikipedia does not have to compete!--Livenws (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You're suggesting this article should be deleted, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Most recently I took part in editing the article on the London Bridge attack, and that was done pretty much in real time, as the events were unfolding. In any case, even if we all agree to wait a few days, what's to stop someone else going ahead meanwhile? On a separate point, what in any case makes you say this is incident is 'too small' to have a dedicated Wikipedia article? I'm pretty sure there are far lesser topics covered in some articles. I for one don't see the harm in it; I would rather have an article about a topic that in the greater scheme of things turns out to be borderline trivial, than miss something that could and should have been covered. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is too detailed, what is its encyclopaedic value? Who is still talking about this in so many years? The article is complemented here as a news site that does. Low quality, and permanently remove and replace incorrect statements. I would definitely recommend removing these types of articles. The section "in the news" on the main page can be give a direct link to the Wikinews-article of this. Keep in mind, I'm not against all attacking articles on Wikipedia, I only think they have to be made later, because now we speculate. --Livenws (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Linking from main page to Wikinews articles, rather than Wikipedia articles, sounds quite a departure from the current norm. I think you'd need to raise that at Talk:Main Page? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC) p.s. by all means come back in "many years" and, as no-one will be "talking about it", propose for deletion then.

So I just looked at the Wikinews article. You're offering that as a better description of the incident?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course not, as long editors keep writing news arcticles here. Those users would be useful on Wikinews, because that project is difficult to run because Wikipedia overruled currently their niche.--Livenws (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think you may need to post at a different venue altogether. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I seriously comment here and work on a serious encyclopedia, so I do not need jokes. There are different sister projects. --Livenws (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I (sometimes) seriously comment here and work on a (semi) serious encyclopedia. But (for once) that was no joke. They may well be sisters, but I don't think you have over-riding parental rights on how they get along. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If a helicopter crashed in my garden with two deads, I may publish it on en.wikipedia? --Livenws (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it would depend on the circumstances of the crash, exactly who died and exactly where your garden was. But I feel we are straying from the topic a little here. This article is currently under consideration for posting to the front page In The News section, so perhaps you ought to voice your opinion there also? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why a Wikipedia article should not be developed just because it 'competes' with Wikinews. I say we should let every flower bloom, and best luck to everyone. Wikinews editors are welcome to put their best effort forth, I will meanwhile stick to making my humble contributions to Wikipedia. As it stands currently, the quality of the Wikipedia article in question is considerably higher than the corresponding Wikinews article, so I know which one I would rather read. And turning an earlier argument around: in a few years' time, who will want to go to Wikinews to find out about this incident? Whereas Wikipedia seems exactly the right source to me. If by then this article will have been erased by consent (and I do mean something broader than just one person's opinion), then so be it; that doesn't make editing this article now a waste of time, at least not for me. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If this article were not on Wikipedia, there would be a lot more people working on Wikinews. Until now, it does not happen. Wikinews and Wikipedia must go hand in hand. We are one big Wikimedia family. If an encyclopedia wants to publish news, there is a problem. --Livenws (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

But this is not a new thing is it?? This isn't really the best forum for you to suggest there is now suddenly a major problem with the "big Wikimedia family"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Martinevans123, this hasn't been a problem before, so why turn it into one now? And why assume that Wikinews and Wikipedia 'going hand in hand' means we all have to stop editing the latter and move over wholesale to the former - maybe it should be the other way around? ;) Anyway, if Livenws prefers to edit Wikinews, by all means be my guest, but please don't presume to tell me that I shouldn't meanwhile edit Wikipedia. If you want to instigate some Wikimedia-wide policy change to prevent the creation of Wikipedia articles describing current events, you're barking up the wrong tree, you need to take it up with the powers that be. Anyway, I feel we are digressing from the purpose of a talk page, which I believe is to discuss how to make the article in question better, not whether the improvement efforts should be devoted instead to another Wiki site. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Article name

Shouldn't the article name be 2017 Turku stabbings (since it's been more than one person stabbed and killed) or 2017 Turku attack? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should be 'stabbings' rather than 'stabbing'. I also agree that your suggested '2017 Turku attack' is even better overall, including that it also dates the incident which will be useful later on when looking at eg. category pages like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamic_terrorist_incidents_in_2017 DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Would agree with "stabbings". But I think 2017 would be needed only to disambiguate the article from those for other stabbings in Turku, which we don't have. Article names do not need to follow Category names. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the year is needed in the title because it is shown in the category title (of the page I was pointing to). I'm saying the year may seem obvious now, but in a few years' time when someone is looking at a page title 'Turku stabbings', it won't be so obvious whether that refers to a recent event or something from the Great Northern War. Many articles describing similar incidents have the year in the title, even if only one such incident took place in a given city, eg. 2017_Stockholm_attack and 2011_Norway_attacks. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That's possible, in which case we'd have to trust someone to change it when appropriate? But for consistency with those two existing examples, I'd tend to agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Could we try to reach some sort of consensus on the name? My vote goes to the first suggestion by TDKR Chicago 101, '2017 Turku attack'. If that's acceptable, then could someone who knows the moves please implement the change? DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Turku attack is the by far best one in my opinion as well. The article can be moved simply by using the "Move" tab in the upper right corner (next to history etc), but I'll at least wait a couple of hours. Shadowdasher (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk)

Ooops I misread the discussion and moved to '2017 Turku stabbing'. Pincrete (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no need for the year - that's only required to disambiguate between different events in the same place. This is the only notable stabbing (or attack of any type) that's happened in Turku. Jim Michael (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As discussed above, including the year is better in the long run and a normalized way of naming these type of attacks. F.ex. London Bridge has had only one attack, but its still named June 2017 London Bridge attack. Similarly, 'attack' might be a better and more neutral name since 'stabbing' only denotes one victim and 'stabbings' starts sounding a bit odd. Shadowdasher (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason for including the month and year in that title is that people who aren't familiar with London are likely to confuse it with the 2017 Westminster attack, which happened on a bridge in London this year. The year (and month) are usually only used when there's been more than one notable attack in that year (or month) in the same location. This isn't the case for Turku. Jim Michael (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is bound with other examples where an attack is connected in its article name to a year without any other notable attacks. For example, Copenhagen and Oslo have both only had one attack, but yet they are listed as 2015 Copenhagen shootings and 2011 Norway attacks. Thus, IMHO it is the most natural convention to name suspected terrorist attacks and something like "Turku attack" or "Turku stabbing" just sounds odd. See Wikipedia guidelines on this at Wikipedia:Article titles. Shadowdasher (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't say that they year must be in all titles of articles about attacks. The 2011 Norway attacks weren't limited to Oslo - and it's not the only notable attack in Norway. In Copenhagen last year, a man shot three people and was killed by police - you could argue that it's notable enough for an article, so the year in 2015 Copenhagen shootings is arguably necessary. In what way does adding 2017 to Turku stabbing make it not odd and why do you think Turku stabbing sounds odd? Do you think that Hungerford massacre and Dunblane massacre need to have 1987 and 1996 added before them? Jim Michael (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

(wow, that was a swift move, Jim! I guess I'll have to agree with that one). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You've got a point there, true! But doesn't stabbing still point to only one victim? Shadowdasher (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Not really, no. I think "stabbing" can include multiple instances. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It's debatable if it should be plural or not - several people were stabbed - but it was all in one attack. Is there anything in a guideline, policy etc. about whether or not to put an s on stabbing, shooting etc. when there are multiple victims in one attack by one person? Jim Michael (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll waive my case on all things related to the article name and focus more on content in the foreseeable future! Shadowdasher (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe what we currently have is not "ideal" from your viewpoint, but I don't see it's really problematic. Your forbearance is appreciated, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

See Stabbing as a terrorist tactic for continuity. But then again, just 'stabbing' is used by some news outlets (e.g. the Guardian) with a quick check through Google. Shadowdasher (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Describe as Islamic terrorism, here and on the main page

Wikipedia took every opportunity to emphasize "White nationalism" (and for a while even "White supremacy") in the case of Charlottesville. Now Turku and Barcelona are just "attacks"? They are Islamic terrorism, even if that is damaging to your anti-Western pro-Islamic agenda on a website where "criticism of Islam" is tagged with "Islamophobia".

In addition to my response to your comments in the 'We don't know if it is Islamic terrorism' section, please add any new sections to the bottom of the page. As to your main argument, you do not know, any more than the rest of us, what the motives of the attacker were, simply because the investigation into the matter has barely started and no such information has yet been released into the public domain. It may indeed turn out in the fullness of time that the attack was indeed motivated by Islamist extremism, in which case you can say 'told you so'. However, it may equally turn out to have been motivated by hatred towards women (the majority of the victims), or Finns (ditto), or perhaps the attacker suffered from a mental illness of some sort or was under the influence of some mind-altering substance. Until we know one way or another, we shouldn't brand this as 'Islamic terrorism' (sic) or anything else for that matter. The white nationalists, neo-nazis, etc. in Charlottesville made it blatantly clear (!) what their views and motivations were; alas, the attacker in Turku didn't carry a placard or shout his slogans through a bullhorn. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Current event?

There appears to be a bit of flip-flopping going on with regards to the current event tag - it was removed earlier today, then reinstated, and has just now been removed again. I don't know if there is a clear policy as to when it should be removed, in which case someone in the know please enlighten us, but IMO it is too early to remove it because the investigation is still on-going so new details are bound to surface. Also, as long as it is listed in the 'In the news' section on the front page, it seems better to me to leave the tag on. Views? DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree 100 %. Shadowdasher (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

International response.

Many, Many, Many countries have condemned the attack and offered support... No country deserves more right than the other to be mentioned. We had a similar issue on 2017 Barcelona attack. Compile them on Wikiquote if you want to quote them.Gvstaylor1 (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

So no mass listing with a bunch of country flags? Does this mean Ann-Margret is not coming? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

'See also' section

The section links to this week's Barcelona attacks and the Stockholm attack back in April. The former I sort of understand, given that they (the Barcelona and Turku attacks) happened within 24 hrs of each other, and in both cases the suspects were Moroccan. But what is the (actual or implied) connection between the Turku and Stockholm attacks, other than both being of terrorist nature, and perhaps some degree of geographical proximity? The methods were different, the nationalities of the attackers were different, and the incidents took place several months apart. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong and I would personally add a few others that have happened in 2017. The section is 'See also' and the nature of the attacks as terror and somewhat close proxmity (i.e. Europe) should be enough of a connection. I don't see it implying consistency between methods, nationalities, cells, casualty rates etc. For example, see what information other attack articles contain in the 'See also' section. Shadowdasher (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

There should be a clear link, otherwise we would link every stabbing/ every (possible) terrorist attack/ every murder/ every crime involving refugees/ every crime in Finland etc etc. That is lacking with Barcelona, possibly less so with Stockholm, but probably unclear with both until more is known. Pincrete (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Not really. As Wikipedia guidelines go: "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Again, it is not a "Clearly linked similar incidents" section, but an expansion into similar issues. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. Shadowdasher (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, now the Barcelona attack (which I, rightly or wrongly, thought was the most relevant link to include in this section) has been removed, while the Stockholm one remains, and another Finnish incident, the Myyrmanni bombing (which took place 15 years ago, and in terms of motives has very little in common with the Turku attack) has been added. A retrograde development, IMHO, no matter how loosely one wants to interpret the remit and purpose of the 'see also' section. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Catalonia attacks has been since added, removed, re-added, and removed again. I've restored it. I think we have consensus in this talk section that the link is relevant to the degree specified by MOS:SEEALSO (indirect, tangential relevancy due to close proximity in time in a similar political environment). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see any thematic connection to Barcelona (same week, opposite ends of same continent?). Different MO, possibly/probably different motive and perp 'profile'. The "similar political environment" is what exactly? Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

" The incident is considered significant since it was the first suspected terrorist attack in Finland since the end of World War II."

This is very, very wrong. What do you call the Myyrmanni bombing, if not a terrorist attack ? Cmskog (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess Myyrmanni bombing is not counted as a terrorist attack, since it lacked any evidence of trying to "achieve a political, religious or ideological aim", as per definition of terrorism in our article. It is not even clear if it was meant to be an attack at all. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's probably either just wrong or right. The article says clearly "The possibility of Gerdt having links to any radical groups or terrorist organizations has been ruled out". It's categorized under Category:Shopping mall attacks, Category:Improvised explosive device bombings and Category:Mass murder in 2002, but nothing to do with terrorism. So I think you need to start a discussion at that article first? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

PM Sipilä: "If the criminal charge is confirmed to be terror-related murder, that would be a first in Finland" and "Supo considers the incident to be the first suspected terrorist strike in Finland" (both within the article). I added the "since WW2" part since that's the only starting point I could find a reliable source on (in the section Background). But the statement is very true: apart from stuff going on during and between the Wars, nothing else has been considered factually terrorism by relevant authorities and/or experts. On the other hand, popular opinion might count some incidents (e.g. Myyrmanni) as 'terror', but that is beside the point.

I would suggest to add some citations or a note on to the summary to avoid confusion and to be absolutely clear as per WP:CITELEAD: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Shadowdasher (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually Martin, your quote is not what the source says. The source says no links to any outside group were found (at Myyrmanni), rather than any connection was definitively ruled (ie they had no idea what the motive might have been). Your conclusion is still correct though, "we don't know" means "we don't know". Pincrete (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC))

Thanks for checking. I must learn (again) not to take Wikipedia at face value (ever). In which case that's misleading and should be corrected. But, yes, it doesn't change things here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Background?

Hi. The Background section seems to be very superficial and does not address the actual background of the incident at all. All that is said has to do with the history of terrorism and political violence in Finland. That might be somewhat relevant perhaps, if the attacks turns out to be a terrorist act at all. But what is the background of the specific incident? There is no information about that at all. RhinoMind (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

True, a better name for that particular section might be "Context" or smth. An actual background of the incident is still missing (although the reported background of the suspects is somewhat in the Investigation section), feel free to add. :) Shadowdasher (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't know if it is Islamic terrorism

Please don't write, that it is Islamic terrorism. We don't know if it was. Thx --Rævhuld (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the Islamic notions <3 --Rævhuld (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Screaming "Allahu Akbar" is not enough to understand that hatred for the Finnish architecture is not his motive? --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No. Read WP:Don't jump the gun. TompaDompa (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Tomorrow it will be obvious that he does not just dislike Finnish architecture. I'm too lazy to prove to you that Earth is round. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. Today, calling this Islamic terrorism is WP:Original research. TompaDompa (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The police in their press briefing said they don't yet know if this was terrorist-related, and they also have not confirmed an earlier witness claim that someone had shouted 'Allah' during the attack. We should hold back from connecting this to any terrorism, let alone any particular type of terrorism, until that connection has been made by the relevant authorities. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Didn't expect to see the Scottish play get a mention here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the reference to islam. That mention was clearly based on radical views from one user. Uxte (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, the takbir is not a terrorist phrase. It's a Muslim phrase. No different from hearing English Christians scream "Oh my God", "Jesus Christ" or "good Lord" when things get any sort of exciting. If you only hear it in this context, that's more your fault for ignoring the language in every other context. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It's probably workplace violence (USA favorite designation). Or mental issues (German catch-all for any terrorist attack). Certainly the RS don't mention islamic terrorism and it can't possibly be that. XavierItzm (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

XavierItzm, re: It's probably workplace violence even your cliches are stale! That takes some doing. Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Islamists, disgruntled workers and lunatics are all driven to kill by anger. Cut off that head, and the problem's solved. Focus on the tentacles, and you'll just make them angry. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

For discussion: According to the Finnish Security Intelligence Service's press release: "Also, the suspect’s profile is similar to that of several other recent radical Islamist terror attacks that have taken place in Europe, according to Supo’s Director Antti Pelttari." http://www.supo.fi/en/news/1/0/threat_assessment_unchanged_for_the_time_being_73980 Shadowdasher (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It's simply an awkward translation. The original says: "Myös epäillyn profiili on samankaltainen kuin monissa Euroopan viimeaikaisissa radikaali-islamistisissa terroriteoissa, sanoo Suojelupoliisin päällikkö Antti Pelttari", and includes no implication that this attack is Islamic like the attacks elsewhere in Europe. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I would say the translation is as good as it can get. I agree that the attack cannot be yet determined to be Islamic terror, but it's pretty darn close. How are they usually determined by authorities? IMHO by the suspects' methods, backgrounds, interests, statements, communities, affiliations i.e. the profile. Shadowdasher (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the translation. Judging from the translation, one would imagine the original says "Myös epäillyn profiili on samankaltainen kuin monissa muissa Euroopan viimeaikaisissa radikaali-islamistisissa terroriteoissa", but it doesn't - the implication simply isn't there. As for how do authorities determine if something is Islamic terrorism or not, is not very relevant here. Let's simply call events Islamic terrorism if reliable sources call them such, and not call them if reliable sources don't either. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at the translation, and I'm looking at the original, and I can't see any material difference, nor do I think the inclusion or exclusion of that 'muissa' would make much of a difference either way. If you ask me, the Supo statement in question doesn't in and of itself tell us that this is Islamist terrorism, or for that matter isn't, or whether this is connected to other recent attacks bearing similarities. I'd say we need to wait for something more tangible to come out. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with DoubleGrazing on all accounts. But why I'm bringing this up: The contentious threshold of determining the breakdown between Islamist terrorism vs. non-Islamist terrorism IMHO cannot be and is not in other pertinent articles "when a reliable source explicitly says so". Otherwise one would have to clean up a great many articles where its not explicitly said so (e.g. Louvre machete attack, 2017 Stockholm attack). In this case, "Islamist terrorism" is a Wikipedia construct and adheres to its internal rules of implication. Shadowdasher (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

All content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable from reliable sources that directly support claims in Wikipedia articles - no exceptions. Yes, we do need to clean up many articles that include original research. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

After reading through Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) a bit, I can see your point on strict adherence. My bad. Shadowdasher (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It is truly sinister that Wikipedia is discussing whether or not to suppress this as an Islamic terrorist event. Already on your main page you are covering up Barcelona and this Turku terrorist incident, describing them merely as "attacks". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.35.123 (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, kindly sign your comments. Secondly, please don't preach your political etc. views, this is not the appropriate forum. Thirdly, as to your suggestion that editors here are in any way trying to "suppress this as an Islamic terrorist event", that is simply not the case: as soon as the Finnish authorities investigating the incident release that information (assuming they do, which in itself is jumping to premature conclusions!), it will be included here. Until that happens, it won't, as it remains speculative, even if that conclusion may seem 'obvious' to you. If you're unclear as to the rationale behind not including speculation and supposition in articles, please refer to the various Wikipedia policies which are readily available, starting with the ones on verifiability and original research. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

220.244.35.123, re "It is truly sinister that Wikipedia is discussing whether or not to suppress this as an Islamic terrorist event", no, what is sinister is that you imagine you, we, (or anyone 1000s of kms away), can or should decide on the basis of the evidence available in a few newspapers what happened here. Civilized countries have police and courts, others are happy with 'trial by media'. Pincrete (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I realise this isn't conclusive by any means and perhaps not even entirely reliable, but all the same: the Finnish newspaper Ilta-Sanomat has for this article interviewed people who had met the attacker, and it seems that he wasn't particularly religious (one person says he visited the local mosque only for the free meals), whereas he did have a violent and aggressive character as well as a criminal background. While that doesn't of course prove the attack wasn't motivated by Islamist ideology (for lack of a better expression), it at least keeps that possibility open. My point being, until we know it's terrorism ("Islamic" or otherwise), we should avoid labelling it so. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Name of main suspect

This edit removed the name of the main suspect, with the edit summary "identity and nationality unconfirmed" Why was that? Was the previous Yle source not reliable? Have they retracted that claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I can see plenty of sources for the name a couple of days ago, but nothing today to announce that it has been withdrawn. I'd revert this, but maybe the OP will give a source for this withdrawal? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that that edit added this source with the quote "Meillä on hänelle nimi, joka on kerrottu jo julkisuudessakin. Pyrimme kuitenkin vielä selvittämään, että pitääkö se nimi paikkansa." (we have a name, which has been published, but are still investing its correctness). I don't speak Finnish, but Google Translate seems to confirm that the translation is more or less accurate. TompaDompa (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

So essentially, it's the same person who has been reliably named. But he admits only "fatal acts" and denies murder? I'm not sure why that means we can't name him. Are we back in sub judice land again? Fortunately the article is called "2017 Turku stabbing" and not "2017 Turku murders". But I can see that WP:BLPCRIME says ""For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. So we have a bizarre situation whereby we can publish a name before the individual is charged, and then we have to immediately remove it and pretend that no-one knows. Even though the reliable sources are all still there, completely unchanged, in the public domain. Or maybe the suspect can ask Google to kindly remove them from it's search results? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 23 August .2017 (UTC)

The name in question has been distributed widely by Finnish, German and Swedish authorities (and concurrently by media), submitted into official court documents etc. They just said that that they are not 100 % sure the name is correct, since the suspects have used multiple identities throughout Europe (and transmuting Arabic names into Latin sometimes also causes problems, I assume).

As for WP:BLPCRIME, I've always assumed it just means using the exactly right wording when connecting identities and crimes? (i.e. X is suspected of committing a murder instead vs. killed a person)? I bet hundreds of biographies here contain blocks on "was suspected of doing X, but later was found to be not guilty". A normal way of things in the public domain, me says.

Thus, I would personally keep the name in the article since he has been named by more than enough RS and the article always mentions he is a suspect. Shadowdasher (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. So what is the exact rationale as to why the name can't be included in the article? You know, if someone has admitted performing "fatal acts", and the police are looking for no-one else, it seems kind of likely that he was indeed the perpetrator of these stabbings? He's being held by the police "on suspicion of murder". That's just a fact. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

My main reason for removing the name was that if it is false, it might be somebody else's name. I presume the easiest way to get false documents is by using stolen ones, and keeping the name might be convenient. I suppose the police published the name after finding his identity, without realizing it may be false. He has admitted the stabbings, but not murder with terrorist motives. Whether he admits murder is unclear. Anyway he has in my view lost his right to privacy in the matter, but publishing a name that may not be his is a separate question. As the name is widespread by now, also Wikipedia publishing it does not change much, but is probably against our policies. --LPfi (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmmh, yes. Interesting dilemma for which I have no clear answer. I'm leaning a bit to the option of keeping the name, but just making it clear that it is still under verification. In this option, we are just reporting facts stated by others (i.e. "a person called XXX is a suspect of murders with terrorist intent and has admitted stabbings, his name is still under verification). But I can see your point on not adding the name since it, in a certain way, is not relevant to en encyclopedic article and it is, quite true, still under verification according to sources. Shadowdasher (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

So we are saying that we can't trust a report by the Finnish as a WP:RS, because they might have got the wrong name? Or because they might have mis-spelled it? How can the name of the only suspected perpetrator be "not relevant to en encyclopedic article"?? I'm more than a little surprised to see that suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, personally, the name of some 18-year old nobody from Morocco (which I could hardly pronounce or remember after 4 hrs) does not really add any depth to my scrutiny or understanding of the event. But as I said, I am all open to including his name. Just tried to see it from WP:BLPCRIME's view since the authorities bluntly admitted the name is still under verification. I'll leave it to others. Shadowdasher (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to disagree there. If there was one single fact I might expect this article to provide (any legal provisions permitting), it would be the name of the perpetrator. Whether I can pronounce it or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather know how he grew up, why did he do it, how did he prepare it, with whom etc. etc. environmental issues instead of a bunch of letters arranged into a name. But going a bit off-topic, so I'll leave it here. Shadowdasher (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to know those things too. But I feel we might be verging on the realms of speculation on those topics for some time to come. I'd at least like to start with some straightforward verifiable facts, and someone's name usually provides that, doesn't it? It's what you'd expect in an encyclopedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Shadowdasher (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

If the WP:RS cite the name, the name should be included. Otherwise, you are doing WP:OR on whether the WP:RS should have published, and on whether the information published by the WP:RS is correct. Oh and by the way, I love it how committing an illegal act such as faking one's identity then leads to people such as LPfi adopting a "know nothing" stance about these sort of crimes, i.e., by undertaking such a criminal act, then what can be said about the crime or the criminal must be limited! Is this the perfect crime for the 21t century? XavierItzm (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It has now come to light that Abderrahman Mechkah is NOT the real name of the main suspect, nor is he 18 years of age as previously reported. The authorities do know his real name and age (22 or 23), but these have not been released. I will make the necessary changes to the article, and just wanted to give a heads-up here in case someone changes the name back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleGrazing (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have a source for that claim? Seems notable in itself. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I've so far only seen this reported in Ilta-Sanomat (not my favourite 'reliable source', but hey ho), they're quoting the NBI inspector in charge of the investigation, so I assume it's kosher. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The same also now reported by YLE (the Finnish equivalent of BBC). DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that looks more reliable. It says (via GoogleTranslate, which has not made this totally clear):

"Investigator Crista Granroth of the National Bureau of Investigation tells us that the name the suspect has previously told the authorities is wrong. The main suspect has appeared in Finland as Abderrahman Mechkah.

Granroth says that the name of the suspect is known to the police, but can not be made public on the basis of the Preliminary Probation Act. According to Granroth, there was no such decisive factor in coping with the information."

So the article needs adjustment. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The name "Abderrahman Bouanane" now gets 2,220 hits on Google search. So presumably it is now fully in the public domain? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Yes, this is being reported by YLE, apparently the law court where the case is being brought has corrected their paperwork with that name, so that puts it into the public domain. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems like the main suspect's identity may still not be known. The Moroccan authorities are reportedly saying they've no knowledge of such a person, so it could be that one or more of the details (name, age, nationality) are false. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Added new section on the trial

I've created a new section on the trial starting March 20. So far little more than a placeholder (giving mostly dates and venue), but I expect it will grow as new information comes to light as the case progresses. The reason why I thought it was best to create a first-level section rather than put it under the investigation, was a) because I feel that conceptually (and probably also legally) this represents a new phase, and b) so as to prevent mission creep in the investigation section and to aid navigation. If anyone thinks differently, feel free to demote it to a sub-section of the previous. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The results of the investigation which were filed at the preliminary hearing on March 20 and disclosed to the media (as reported eg. here [in Finnish]), there is quite a lot of detailed description regarding the defendant's mental state, thought processes, etc. leading up to and on the day of the incident. I'm as yet unclear whether that should be included in this article, and if so to what extent and under what heading. I'm especially thinking of the information relating to his (perceived, alleged or actual) association with ISIS, which seems to me relevant here. Anyone have any views on this? DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Thx a lot! I had included some bits of those issues in the 'Background' section based on the press conference after the investigation was concluded. Feel free to add or amend. Also, a trial section is far better than continuing the investigation IMHO. Manelolo (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for "terrorism" label

Hello there. If the attack is to be categorized as terrorism, what criteria would it have to fit? Does anybody know?

Wouldn't it require a larger organisation and planning behind the incident for example?

RhinoMind (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Simply that courts and/or other authorities consider it terrorism under their respective laws and it is reported as such, I reckon? Shadowdasher (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, there must some objective criteria. Otherwise it doesn't mean anything. RhinoMind (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there any reasonably more objective criteria besides laws of democratic states based on international treaties (e.g. UN, EU instruments) and the authorities executing those laws? Of course they make mistakes too, but wouldn't be a bad starting point. Finnish Criminal Code: "An offender has a terrorist intent if it is his or her intent to: (1) cause serious fear among the population, (2) unlawfully force the government of a state or another authority or an international organisation to perform, allow or abstain from performing any act, (3) unlawfully overturn or amend the constitution of a state or seriously destabilise the legal order of a state or cause particularly harm to the state economy or the fundamental social structures of the state, or (4) cause particularly extensive harm to the finances or other fundamental structures of an international organisation." Shadowdasher (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Great! I am surprised how broad and flexible that definition is, but there it is nevertheless. Thanks.

Is there a link perhaps to the source of this text? RhinoMind (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, right, sorry! http://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039 Shadowdasher (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

As an interesting twist to this, in the preliminary hearing on March 20, the charges included references to terrorism, which (and this is the interesting bit IMHO) the defence lawyer disputed but the defendant himself admitted. The defendant evidently saw himself as acting for ISIS, which presumably by definition would make this terrorism-related. As to why the defence is trying to argue otherwise, I'm not sure. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In the main trial hearing on April 9, the defence is now formally denying the terrorism aspect of the charges. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)