Jump to content

Talk:Bærum mosque shooting: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 51: Line 51:
:: Hi, thx for your help. I'v made a BOLD edit, perhaps verging on, but hopefylly not descending into, being ... well, too unambiguous =o) . Feel free to revert, amend, edit as required if not appropriate. T [[Special:Contributions/85.166.160.249|85.166.160.249]] ([[User talk:85.166.160.249|talk]]) 19:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
:: Hi, thx for your help. I'v made a BOLD edit, perhaps verging on, but hopefylly not descending into, being ... well, too unambiguous =o) . Feel free to revert, amend, edit as required if not appropriate. T [[Special:Contributions/85.166.160.249|85.166.160.249]] ([[User talk:85.166.160.249|talk]]) 19:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
::: New try. Quoting Wikipedia on "Quisling" (the epithet, not the person). Good luck with the important parts of the work. T [[Special:Contributions/85.166.160.249|85.166.160.249]] ([[User talk:85.166.160.249|talk]]) 21:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
::: New try. Quoting Wikipedia on "Quisling" (the epithet, not the person). Good luck with the important parts of the work. T [[Special:Contributions/85.166.160.249|85.166.160.249]] ([[User talk:85.166.160.249|talk]]) 21:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
:::: Argh. Sentence still ambiguous. Now it looks like VQ expressed right wing sympathies (which he most decidedly did) online (which ... etc.) Not a native EN speaker, and I _always_ mess up layout and dangle refs. I leave to anyone who also sees this as a problem, and has the skill to fix it. Out. T [[Special:Contributions/85.166.160.249|85.166.160.249]] ([[User talk:85.166.160.249|talk]]) 21:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:35, 15 August 2019

RFC: Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hello! I am the author of the article Al-Noor Islamic Center shooting which I believe to be more objective and reliable than this article for following reasons:

1) This article states that "The gunman killed a young woman before going to the mosque". There are no sources for this. However I write in my article the following: "A young woman was found dead in his apartment" from the Independent writing "Several hours later it was reported that a young woman had been found dead at the suspect’s home and that he was suspected of murder"[1]. That is not the same as he killing her.

2) Article states "The gunman was later identified by a right-wing blog as Philip Manshaus, a 21-year-old Norwegian citizen" citing a blog which is unreliable.

3) "Hours before opening fire on the Al-Noor Islamic center, the suspect praised the Christchurch mosque shootings and the Poway synagogue shooting in a online post", again, no sources.

--Albert Falk (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True. In addition it's illegal to reveal a person's identity before the police and official medias have done it. --Snorken123 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will merge the contents of Al-Noor Islamic Center shooting into the Bærum mosque shooting page and create a redirect - there are multiple mosques known by that name, and there is at least some precedent for using city names. I feel that this move is uncontroversial. As for Albert Falk's concerns, I will review the content and sources of all content. Kingsif (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated!

--Albert Falk (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ "Man arrested as one injured in Norway mosque shooting". The Independent. No. Several hours later it was reported that a young woman had been found dead at the suspect’s home and that he was suspected of murder. 10 August 2019.

Unsigned comment by Jaysfan7077

There needs to be a template for baerum mosque shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysfan7077 (talkcontribs) 14:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect's name

Until the police or his lawyers publicly announce the name of the suspect, we shouldn't and I'm pretty sure we're not allowed. Media can speculate, but wait for official statement. Even the most recent and reliable source for his name (NRK) has a very long paragraph at the bottom explaining that they have only just chosen to publish the name at the editor's discretion because there isn't complete information but they believe with the more serious charges it's of public interest to include his name. That's not an official police statement at all, which the article goes out of its way to make clear. Kingsif (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the BBC are reporting his name, and anyone can do a photo ID of the guy at court on Monday, it seems that it would now be out-of-step to not include the suspect's name. Kingsif (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC) ETA: The BBC's original headline on the court appearance was "Norway mosque attack suspect accused of terrorism", and it was recently updated to say "Norway mosque attack: Bruised suspect Manshaus appears in court". When his name was publicly released in court it was, well, publicly released, though CBS confirm "the suspect has not been identified by officials". But it's now in article, using the BBC ref for timeframe. Kingsif (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing information

@46.249.244.178: please stop changing sourced info into something else. If you think it's accurate, please provide a source, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP says he changed the info because "FBI have no jurisdiction in Norway, so why would local police tell people to call them? It's just dumb."
I responded in edit reason with: "A Norwegian source says it was the FBI, taking your word that you think it's wrong doesn't work, you're going to need a reliable source that agrees with you. Perhaps it was the FBI because the internet messageboard is hosted in the US, and that's what would be investigated?" Kingsif (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP says: "Stop writing lies. I know my country better than you do"
I reply: "As I've already explained, you need a reliable source to back up your claim. Whether you are right or wrong, I have told you this at least three times now." Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate choice of words

Hi, I think that "Vidkun Quisling, the Norwegian Prime Minister who collaborated with the Nazis" could have been formulated better. Now it looks like VQ was elected prime minister of Norway and then chose to collaborate with the Nazis; in fact it was, of course, the other way round: VQ was a minor politician who chose to ally himself with the Nazis, who in turn rewarded him by temporarily making him some kind of - unconstitutional - government leader. How about " Vidkun Quisling, the Norwegian politician who collaborated with the Nazis" or something similar? T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't originally that wording, I had put in something like "VQ, the Norwegian leader who worked with the Nazis" and it was changed a few times, so when it was changed to current I assumed it was by someone more knowledgeable on the topic. Any formulation that makes the association clear should be good, I see no reason why you can't change it yourself and explain that in edit reason. Kingsif (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thx for your help. I'v made a BOLD edit, perhaps verging on, but hopefylly not descending into, being ... well, too unambiguous =o) . Feel free to revert, amend, edit as required if not appropriate. T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New try. Quoting Wikipedia on "Quisling" (the epithet, not the person). Good luck with the important parts of the work. T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. Sentence still ambiguous. Now it looks like VQ expressed right wing sympathies (which he most decidedly did) online (which ... etc.) Not a native EN speaker, and I _always_ mess up layout and dangle refs. I leave to anyone who also sees this as a problem, and has the skill to fix it. Out. T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]