Jump to content

Talk:2020 Vienna attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2020 Vienna attacks)

Murder

[edit]

My addition of Category:2020 murders in Europe was reverted, with the edit summary "there has been no judicial finding of murder". Do we really need to wait for a court case (which, if there was only one gunman, will never occur) before describing these awful events as murder? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do. It is likely that there are gunmen at large and, when captured, they are entitled to due process rather then being pre-emptively labelled "murderers". "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law." [1] WWGB (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the killed gunman himself killed someone, then his killing can be termed a murder now, and there is no need to wait on that. --2604:2000:E010:1100:3574:7179:FD8:3B85 (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is, it called wp:crime.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: wp:crime is very long page; please cite the specific part that prevents us from describing killings by a dead terrorist as murders. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there might be at least one suspect still lose?Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"please cite the specific part that prevents us from describing killings by a dead terrorist as murders". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If one of them is still at large we do not know they are dead. Thus we cannot assume all of the attackers are dead, this both wp:blp and wp:crime is in effect.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're still waiting for a citation for the claims you are making... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"One or more gunmen", either that is wrong, or its not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its already sourced in the article, at least twice. But here is another https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/vienna-terror-attack-nov-2-live-updates/index.html "there might have been more than one attacker".Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for a citation for the claims you are making, that wp:crime prevents us from describing killings by a dead terrorist as murders. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is an irrelevant point as not all of them may be dead.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)if the killed gunman killed someone! Pincrete (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yet we're happy to accuse them of terrorism... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No that should not be in out voice either.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is in our voice more than the other; both terms are used by reliable sources. "terrorism" is currently used in the article fifteen times, not counting the references section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean we should do it, policy says we do not say someone committed a crime until they are convicted.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then feel free to remove all fifteen occurrences; and thus test whether your assertion has consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing it already.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be able to substantiate the claims you are making. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What that there are claims not all of them are dead, I have proved a source want another?Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having failed to substantiate his claim that wp:crime prevents us from applying the category to this article, Slatersteven is now edit-warring to remove it; most recently with the nonsensical edit summary "Still not cite thre was only one killer"; and previously with the edit summary "read wp:brd and wp:UNOUS " (note that WP:BRD says "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once."). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven is correct on both counts. "Murder" is a legal term, as is "terrorism". We don't get to decide when those legal terms apply and when they do not, that's WP:Original research. MOS:TERRORIST furthermore says Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. In other words, we should never call anyone a terrorist in WP:WikiVoice – but writing "X said Y is a terrorist" is fine. TompaDompa (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since neither I nor anyone else has argued that "we should get to decide when the term 'murder' applies" (indeed, I noted above that it is being used by multiple reliable sources), nor attempted to "call anyone a terrorist" your reply is a straw man. As are your absurd references to racism and sexism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I wrote again, you'll find I didn't make any references to either racism or sexism. I quoted MOS:TERRORIST verbatim and that quote included both the words "racist" and "sexist", but I said nothing about either racism or sexism. Anyway, referring to an event as terrorism in WP:WikiVoice is tantamount to calling the person responsible a terrorist in WP:WikiVoice. We can't do that, but we can quote other people as saying something is terrorism and we can quote other people as saying someone is a terrorist. Similarly, we can't refer to something as a murder (or someone as a murderer) without a legal authority declaring it thus, but we can quote other people as saying so. Including something in a "murder" category is tantamount to calling it a murder (and the person responsible a murderer) in WP:WikiVoice. TompaDompa (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to re-read what you wrote; having read it the first time; it includes the markup ''[[racist]]'' or ''[[sexist]]'',. Perhaps you didn't mean to include that in your quote, in which case you should apply more care, but include it - and refer to it - you did. None of the terrorism-related categories on this article are quotes of other people. If you believe that we can't refer to something as a murder without a legal authority declaring it thus (further: yet can do so for terrorism), please cite a policy that says as much. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I meant to include the entirety of the quoted passage in the quote, that's what quoting means. That you got stuck on a part of the quote to which I made no reference is entirely on you.
The policy in question here is WP:OR: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Are you trying to suggest that news media are WP:RELIABLE sources for making decisions about what does and does not constitute a particular type of crime in specific cases? TompaDompa (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not "failed to substantiate" my claim, as the claim is not all the perps may be dead, now have you shown they are all dead. When (and I hope it is when) it is shown he acted alone then we can say murder and terrorist (as BLP and Crime may not apply (note it may as it also applies to the recently dead). We can also do this is all of them are killed, until then we act as if they are still alive.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You rely on wp:crime to say that we cannot use the category; you have repeatedly failed to say which specific part of that very long page mandates this; ergo, your claim is unsubstantiated. The utter hypocrisy of removing one reference to murder, while leaving fifteen references to terrorism in situ, is remarkable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected I mean to link to WP:BLPCRIME.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you can tell us what in BLPCRIME makes you think that Category:2020 murders in Europe does not apply to this article? And why, if it does not, you did not remove all the terrorism related categories at the same time? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because (as yet) three may still be perps at large, and thus (at this time) there are living people who we will accuse of being murderers, even thought the have not been convicted. Also, just because I saw X and did ot see Y does not mean I agree with Y.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And again I'm asking you to cite what in BLPCRIME says that we can't use the category on this article. That's cite, not wave your hands. Also, you omitted to explain why you think the one category should be removed, while all those about terrorism, about which I altered you earlier in the thread, remain. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one making the positive claim here, namely that this is mass murder. You say reliable sources support this, so it should be trivial to cite them. "Terrorism" is attributed to the Austrian authorities in the sources and the article, but what about mass murder? TompaDompa (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying sources use the term murder; and they do: BBC "a gunman murdered four people"; The Times "the murder of four people by gunmen in Vienna last night". Wikipedia uses mass murder categories for killings of four or more. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the sources that use the term "murder" do not attribute that to anyone at all and no sources whatsoever use the term "mass murder"? TompaDompa (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with not categorizing this under "murder". Part of it is because there is no murder conviction yet; another part of it is the important distinction between "murder" and "(terrorist) attack" we make on Wikipedia. Murder requires an intent to harm specific people, but this attack appears to be indiscriminate. I came here after seeing Pigsonthewing indirectly refer to this discussion off-wiki. Deryck C. 21:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This matter is now moot. The sole attacker is dead, so there is no "reputation" to protect from a statement of murder. I still maintain, however, that "murder" should not have been asserted while it was likely that an alleged attacker was still alive. But that did not play out. WWGB (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54798508 "Police say that based on the current status of the investigation..." so its still not a given he was alone, just the current assumption. No I think we should wait until we know for sure. We are not a newspaper chasing circulation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And still you (nor anyone else) have given us no citation whatsoever to any policy or guideline that says the category cannot be used on an article such as this; and no explanation of why you think it acceptable to describe the events as terrorism but not murders. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refer you to my previous comments, where I said

The policy in question here is WP:OR: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Are you trying to suggest that news media are WP:RELIABLE sources for making decisions about what does and does not constitute a particular type of crime in specific cases?

and

"Terrorism" is attributed to the Austrian authorities in the sources and the article

respectively. TompaDompa (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll refer you to the sub-thread where I provided reliable sources, at your request, which refer to the incidents as murder. I'll also remind you that the categroy under discussion is Category:2020 murders in Europe, so your question about "mass murder" is, in this case, a straw man. Still no citation whatsoever to any policy or guideline that says the category cannot be used on an article such as this; and no explanation of why you think it acceptable to describe the events as terrorism but not murders. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.", so until it is definite that there was only one killer we cannot say (even an unnamed person) is a murderer. Again wp:notnews means we do not need to rush, we can wait till the dust is cleared we we know (absolutely) the situation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So that's "must seriously consider not including", not "must not include"; there is no absolute prohibition. Anyone who "seriously considers" the case at hand will conclude that people were murdered - as indeed, the multiple, independent, reliable sources I have cited say they were. And this discussion is about categorising an event, not about categorising a non-public figure. You may be right that "we cannot say (even an unnamed person) is a murderer", but adding the category does not say that. This is not about rushing, and it is not about NOTNEWS. And still you do not explain why your claimed exception applies to the crime of murder but not to the crime of terrorism. Nor indeed, to the unspecified crime in Category:2020 crimes in Austria, Category:Crime in Vienna and Category:November 2020 crimes, all of which you left on the article when you removed Category:2020 murders in Europe. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes adding the category does, just (not wholly) indirectly. After all its it was not murder it would not be there. I have said terrorism should also be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To which I replied "Then feel free to remove all fifteen occurrences; and thus test whether your assertion has consensus.. Still waiting for you to do that... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy`; Andy's edits 10:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So?Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you quite understood my objections here. The difference between "terrorism" and "murder" is that the former is attributed – both in the cited sources and in the article itself – to the Austrian authorities. While you have provided sources that call this "murder", they do not attribute that term to any competent authority. We can't exactly attribute the assessment that this is murder to BBC or The Times, now can we? That is, we cannot write "BBC and The Times decided that it was murder." or anything along those lines. That's why I asked you Are you trying to suggest that news media are WP:RELIABLE sources for making decisions about what does and does not constitute a particular type of crime in specific cases?
I asked about "mass murder" because Category:Mass murder in 2020 is used here. I was thinking it should be removed. I had misread which category was being discussed, but the point still stands. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understood what you said perfectly: you want to apply a test which we are not required to apply, and for which you can cite no policy requiring it to be applied. Nor is anyone arguing that we should write "'BBC and The Times decided that it was murder.'"; you have presented yet another straw man argument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The test I'm applying is "is this source WP:RELIABLE for this particular piece of information?", the reason I'm applying it is because of the policy WP:OR, the answer I'm reaching is "no", and my pointing out that we cannot attribute the term to news media was a way to illustrate this. You don't have to agree with me, but your disagreement doesn't make my arguments straw men. TompaDompa (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the test you applied in your previous comment, which was whether sources "attribute that term to any competent authority". We have reliable sources that say the victims in Vienna were murdered. That's not something you can credibly deny.
I didn't say all your arguments are straw men; I said that your latest, which I quoted, is (just as your treatment of your previous false claim that I was making claims about "mass murder", was). Of course, you can refute that by showing where someone said we should write "'BBC and The Times decided that it was murder.'. Or, rather, you cannot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are not WP:RELIABLE sources for this particular piece of information (i.e. whether this does or does not constitute murder, which is a legal term), which is the point that I have been making all along. Do you now see the relevance of "competent authority"? TompaDompa (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are reliable sources. You don't get to decide that they are not, for a prticualr type of statement, based on some bogus test you invented. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Generally reliable sources are not necessarily reliable for all the statements they make. You know this; you yourself said We do not blindly repeat sources making dubious claims. in response to another editor making the blanket statement we do not second guess RS (about something CNN had reported) in the section #20,000 videos on this very page. WP:GREL itself gives the following examples for when generally reliable sources are not reliable: the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (a well-established news organization is normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim, or a higher standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question. Here, we have something outside of their area of expertise. Or are you trying to suggest that making decisions about what does and does not constitute a particular type of crime in specific cases is in fact within the area of expertise of news organizations? TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That four people were murdered during this event is not a "dubious claim", nor an "exceptional" one in the circumstances. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the claim is dubious or exceptional is irrelevant since we don't have any sources that are WP:RELIABLE for that kind of claim to support the claim in the first place. Or are you trying to suggest that making decisions about what does and does not constitute a particular type of crime in specific cases is in fact within the area of expertise of news organizations? TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: both the BBC and The Times are reliable sources. Both describe these shootings as murders. Beyond that, you still seek to apply an irrelevant test, of your own invention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are WP:GENERALLYRELIABLE sources. Generally reliable sources are not reliable for statements that are outside the sources' accepted areas of expertise. Are you trying to suggest that making decisions about what does and does not constitute a particular type of crime in specific cases is in fact within the area of expertise of news organizations? Because that's what determines whether those sources are reliable for that statement. This is neither an irrelevant test nor one I invented. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The initial reason for not having murder cats on this article was that early reports said there were other gunmen at large. Now it's been established that there was a sole gunman who was shot dead. We don't need experts or officials to declare it murder when it clearly was. Jim Michael (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are these incidents relevant?

[edit]

Are the recent incidents described here relevant enough to the topic to be included in the article? I realize the source is a bit partisan, but just wanted to bring it up. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do RS link them?Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inter&anthro Might be more relevant to Persecution of Christians. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly also Catholic Church in Austria. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bayerische Rundfunk reports an increasing number of attacks. It should be possible to find more sources by using search engines and enter German words. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced addition - please to not readd without RS

[edit]

This addition is unsourced. It needs an RS source. It is not sufficient that the editor is of the view that it is not contentious - it is not supported by an RS, and of course it is contentious (the shooting started there, the shooter may not have known it was closed, etc). --2604:2000:E010:1100:6CFD:553E:241D:821D (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a source, just as it would not be necessary to source that the Austrian Parliament was NOT the target, Donald Trump was NOT the target, M Mouse was NOT etc. The only question is whether it is necessary and clearly phrased since early reports implied that the synagogue MIGHT HAVE BEEN the target, but later ones did nothing to corroborate that and tended to undermine it. There is really no reason to think the synagogue WAS the target rather than it it is known that it was NOT, would be accurate, Pincrete (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The present phrasing (and your comments) tend to imply that some sources currently believe that it MIGHT HAVE BEEN the target - which is not the case AFAIK. Whether it REALLY was is of course wholly unknown, but there is no more reason to believe it or to imply it than a million other things which MIGHT HAVE BEEN the target - including what he actually shot at! We cannot accommodate 'maybe's. Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no RS support for it not being the target. Thus, it is not supported. And should not be added. If it is as irrelevant as saying that Donald Trump was not the target, while that would also need RS support - it would be irrelevant to add it. So there is a second reason to not add it. Add whatever facts RSs report that support or undermine the possiblity - but don't substitute your OR thinking for RSs, and make a statement in wikipedia's voice that the RSs do not in fact state. I believe that all we know is the fact that the shooting started outside the synagogue. And that the synagogue happened to be closed at the time. Beyond that - it is simply one editor conjecturing what that means. Without RS support. That's not cricket. Thanks. 2604:2000:E010:1100:9189:68CE:4E2B:487E (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is at least as QR-ish to imply significance to the shooting starting near the synagogue as it is to state that there is no reason to believe it was the target. But present wording seems fairly clear, people initially thought it might be the target, but nothing has corroborated that, so the issue is largely moot. Pincrete (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trip to Czechia to buy ammo

[edit]

Is it confirmed that Czechia authorities reported to Austrian authorities that the perpetrator had tried to buy ammunition in Czechia, and that the Austrians did not act on this information? Abductive (reasoning) 05:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With some skills in the German language, finding reliable sources like this one - Die Zeit: Wiener Attentäter wollte Munition in der Slowakei kaufen takes 30s. Then again some editors only use language skills when it comes to deletions, not to actually add any information or search for sources. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attack&oldid=1252331927"