Jump to content

Talk:2017 Turku attack

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


Move to 2017 Turku terror attack

[edit]

TompaDompa - I agree that ("terror" and "terrorist" are not interchangeable), and a rename isn't automatic, commonname and all that, - but the verdict was : "guilty on two counts of murder with terrorist intent and eight counts of attempted murder with terrorist intent, …… This marks the first time that a crime in Finland has been legally classified as terrorism" (similar wording in both the local and Reuters reports). Just making sure you are aware. Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree with Pincrete, that title change seemed quite reasonable. Perhaps an WP:RM would be best? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I stand by my revert. As I mentioned elsewhere, the appropriate title would if anything be 2017 Turku terrorist attack. If the page had been moved to that title in the first place, I might not have bothered to move it back (though I think a WP:RM discussion would've still been called for; that would still have been a potentially controversial move). TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you "be bothered" with a WP:RM? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly about 2017 Turku stabbing vs. 2017 Turku terrorist attack, and would not have much to contribute to a WP:RM discussion. My main objection to the move I reverted was the use of "terror" in lieu of "terrorist". TompaDompa (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to ruffle any feathers, but this terror attack vs. terrorist attack seems to be semantics. Both are used by RS to refer to attacks or acts performed by a terrorist to induce terror (i.e. terrorism). Couldn't find any WP policy on the issue either. 86.115.14.101 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All you need contribute is a preference. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, either is ok with me. Content trumps semantics in my world. :) 86.115.14.101 (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is anything to go by, but if you look at eg. Category:Islamic terrorist incidents in 2017, none of the articles listed has the words terror/terrorist/terrorism in the title. (Granted, that's just one year's articles, I haven't done a more thorough search, but still.) They're mostly designated as either 'attacks' in a generic sense, or with a description of the method (with 'bombing' being the most common). This would seem to suggest that '2017 Turku stabbing' is more consistent than '2017 Turku terrorist attack' with the other similar articles. As to how important consistency is here, and more to the point whether 'terrorist' or 'stabbing' carries more useful information as the title, I don't know. Just saying... DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 June 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to 2017 Turku attack. See general agreement below to rename this article and a rough consensus for the chosen title. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Turku stabbing → 2017 Turku terrorist attack – New name would seem to reflect more closely the outcome of the trial and the notability for Finland as a country. –Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 20:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: while the proposal seems feasible and sensible at first sight, we must remember that article titles should be precise. Stabbing immediately tells me that the weapon was a knife. Terrorist stabbing attack would be the most precise option but as Roman Spinner says, we tend to avoid the use of "terrorist" in article titles because of ambiguity. It's much better use the title to tell the reader how the attack happened, rather than the motives for it. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, kind of. I'd prefer "2017 Turku attack" like Roman Spinner above. "Stabbing" alone doesn't really convey the attack-type and scale of this happening. --Pudeo (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, The attack was officially declared as terrorist act by Finnish court in 15 June 2018. Before that more appropriate name was just attack or stabbing but now that the court has ruled that the attack was a terrorist act under Finnish law the situation is different. MayMay7 (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Latest formatting on the type of terrorism

[edit]

Discussion on touchy terrorism-wording and subjects in the article after a bit of edit warring between me and Velivieras:

  • Islamic terrorism? So far I've found only one RS stating this after the court verdict: "A Finnish court sentenced Abderrahman Bouanane, a failed Moroccan asylum seeker, to life in prison on Friday for stabbing two women to death and wounding eight other people last year in the Nordic country’s first militant Islamist attack." (Reuters 15 Jun 18 [1])
    • But then again, all other markers (e.g. manifesto, ISIS, radicalization, martyrdom) seem to point that way so I'd say it's fair to mention it in the lede?
  • Lone wolf? I think this is clear since the main investigator mentioned him acting alone: "At a press conference on Wednesday, National Bureau of Investigation lead investigator Olli Töyräs said that the suspected attacker, Abderrahman Bouanane, acted alone." (Yle 7 Feb 18 [2])

Cheers! 86.115.14.101 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "lone wolf", the Lone wolf (terrorism) article may be instructive, or perhaps a guide anyway? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. From that article's lede: "A lone wolf, lone-wolf terrorist, or lone actor, is someone who prepares and commits violent acts alone, outside of any command structure and without material assistance from any group. He or she may be influenced or motivated by the ideology and beliefs of an external group and may act in support of such a group." Furthermore, from the investigating agency in the aforementioned source: "We don’t believe there is a group behind him." 86.115.14.101 (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The beginning of the article has now been rephrased according to 86.115.14.101. What comes to the lone wolf-part, he would have not commited the act alone and he had outside help, thus he was not one. Velivieras (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And also needed in the infobox? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well can be skipped from the infobox for all I care, not that relevant. It's in the body anyways per the RS. :) But! Regarding the "first terrorist act" aspect:
  • Fact #1: RS within the article consider that Finland had experienced terrorism during the Finnish Civil War and other periods. Thus, the attack cannot be considered the first terrorist attack in Finland (rather the first terrorist attack since WW2 as RS say).
  • Fact #2: RS state that it was the first time ever that a court sentenced an attack as terrorism in Finland (e.g. "For the first time, a Finnish court has decreed that a crime was a terrorist act." Yle [3]). Historians and whatnot have otherwise agreed that there was de facto terrorism in Finland before. As for the Islamic context, I rest my case upon the text further up. 86.115.14.101 (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term "lone wolf" appears only in the infobox. That doesn't seem right. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, true. It's only piped as [[Lone wolf (terrorism)|acted alone]] in the background part. Well, in this article source it's mentioned explicitly so I'll just amend it per the source and add a quote: "The National Bureau of Investigation (KRP) has revealed that the young man who stabbed ten people in Turku, South-west Finland, on 18 August, was a lone wolf with sympathies towards the so-called Islamic State, a terrorist organisation also known as Isis, Isil and Daesh. (Helsinki Times [4]). Thx! 86.115.14.101 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only Fact that encyclopedia needs to take into account is this act was the first terror attack in Finland according to the court, the police, the prosecutor and the terrorist himself. It was also the first Islamic terror attack in Finland according to the terrorist himself and according to everyone that can read. User 86.115.14.101 needs to remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This is not an history article. Feel free to discuss the consept of terrorism and violence before WW2 in some other place.Velivieras (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A edit war seems to have developed over the article lead section. We might have to ask for page protection if it goes on? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We might need a wider evaluation here also. I have provided the sources and the facts. User 86.115.14.101 only POV. Velivieras (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very happy if e.g. DoubleGrazing, Martinevans123 or TompaDompa could edit the lede according to their neutral stance (without interference from me or Velivieras)! But currently it's laden with plain errors, misclaims and citation-breaking bugs. As mentioned, no source references that it was the "first terror attack". They merely say it was the "first court case sentenced as terrorism" or something along those lines, a vast factual difference. 2nd, the claim of the attacker targeting women was disproved later on into the investigation - as the article says per RS.
Although it shouldn't matter at all in an objective sense, but I researched and edited 75% of the article (under the nickname Renamed user a2vv12zt2i aka Manelolo) in happy cooperation with other editors without a hiccup until this. Cheers! 86.115.14.101 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are both currently at 4RR, so I'd strongly advise to stop and await input from other editors. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bouanane himself told in the trials that he was "in a war against women", as user 86.115.14.101 well knows. I agree, that there is a problem to say that the act was the first terror attack in Finland, e.g. Eugen Schauman can bee seen as a terrorist. But the act was unequivocally the first islamic jihadist terror attack in Finland, which is a problem for 86.115.14.101 to mention in the article. User 86.115.14.101 motives are clearly to whitewash the attack because his politics, which one can see from his edit history.Velivieras (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what your or mine opinions are - even if you're warping mine. :D We use RS, not our opinions. My version read "Described as Islamic terrorism, it was the first time a terrorist attack was sentenced as a crime in Finland and the first terrorist act in Finland since the end of World War II." so an aversion to Islamic terrorism really can't be my political stance. Or any other political stance for that matter. Rather it's the common principle of writing articles through the words of RS, not my interpretation of facts. For example, your interpretation of facts that leads to a fallacy: Bouanane said he was in "a war against women" = he targeted women specifically during the attack. Even though the investigators of the crime say this was not the case in the end? :D

As mentioned, my concluding proposition: let neutral editors edit the lede. An RFC is another option. 86.115.14.101 (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I have, as requested, edited the WP:LEAD. TompaDompa (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a thousand! More than happy with this neutral and detailed edit. 86.115.14.101 (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It remains the only terrorist attack ever in Finland."

[edit]

This seesm a very questionable claim. There historically been plenty of politically-motivated violence in Finland, with the assassination of Nikolay Bobrikov in Helsinki in 1904 being one example. There is even a paper explicitly discussing its characterisation as "terrorism"... —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source states that it's the first in the sense that it's the first time anybody has been convicted of terrorist crimes, which is also stated elsewhere in the WP:LEAD. I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think terrorism was included in the Finnish criminal law only sometimes after the 2001 NY WTC attack, and there has been very little political-motivated violence in Finland after the 1930s. –LPfi (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See e.g. https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10258161 Velivieras (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disarmed and detained

[edit]

It’s fascinating as an American to read how security forces disarmed and detained the perp. In the US, we are told over and over again that this impossible for the police to do and that they must shoot to kill at all times. I would be curious to read more about how the training of Finnish police differs in this regard, as well as the differences in policy when it comes to arrest and detainment. It’s been said that because the police in the US maintain an antagonistic stance to the public, we are the victims of more police violence as a result. The police in the US say this is because most people are armed in the US, but this is frankly not true. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Turku_attack&oldid=1252351948"