Talk:Kongsberg attack

Potential renaming: Kongsberg bow and arrow attack?

If this is not possible, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatireisUnderrated (talk • contribs) 02:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not opposed to renaming the article as I am sure there has been more "attacks" in Kongsberg in the past. What rationale would you like considered in order to justify renaming the article? Jurisdicta (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Kongsberg seems to have been a very peaceful place. I don't see any previous "attacks" mentioned at the English language or the Norwegian language article? Even if there have been, they do not have Wikipedia articles, so there's no need to disambiguate? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

This is neither necessary nor correct, considering the bow and arrow was not the only (or even primary) weapon. Attacks worthy of Wikipedia articles are extremely rare in Norway, not to mention Kongsberg. Ved havet (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Article was posted to ITN, rendering it ineligible for DYK; closing

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a man killed 5 people in Norway using a bow and arrow? Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58906165

• Comment: Interesting incident, perfect for DYK.

Created by Love of Corey (talk). Nominated by Heythereimaguy (talk) at 14:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC).

I agree that it should be posted to DYK, regardless of whether or not it's posted to ITN. The ideology/motive behind the attack should be added if RS report it as fact. Jim Michael (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but no, it can't be posted "regardless". See: Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria section d. It can't be in DYK if it's been in ITN. cart-Talk 22:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It's likely at this point that the discussion will be closed due to a lack of consensus, so...Heythereimaguy (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears the nominator has not done a QPQ. STSC (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

As the nominator has no previous DYK credits, they are exempt from that requirement. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I will do a full review of this, it is currently eligible as it is not on ITN right now (and doesn't look like it will be). If this page later ends up on ITN, I will re-review to reject this as per Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria. Note: I am reviewing the current version as of 15 October, so if substantial edits are made after this, they may need to be re-checked

Y Article is long enough (3724 characters), new enough (created 13 October, nominated 14 October), and article is within policy. The Investigation section appears appropriate per WP:BLPCRIME, as it's stating the facts but also pointing out that a conviction has not yet taken places and so is subject to change. AGF on non-English sources, but they look okay to me

Y Hook is short enough, interesting (as unusual), in the article and well cited

Y QPQ exempt, as the user has 0 previous DYK nominations

(DYKtick now removed) Overall, this nomination passes, congratulations (with the caveat that if it gets on the front page of ITN, it will then be ineligible for DYK). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: this article has now featured as a bolded article on ITN, and so is no longer eligible for DYK, as per rule 1d: An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as bold link in "Did you know", "In the news", or the prose section of "On this day". Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Useless photo as of right now

The current photo does not actually highlight the relevant area; it's just a map of Norway with no notations right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.161.139 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it ought to show both Kongsberg and Oslo. Is there someone who knows how to do this? --A bit iffy (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Any word...

...on which country he lived in?

...had lived his entire life in the country.

– Sca (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Weapon

Many sources like this one use the Norwegian word armbrøst. This is a crossbow, not a "bow and arrow"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

We'll change the weapon of choice in the article accordingly to official statements.Znuddel (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

If official statements say "pil og bue", then I guess that's what it was. It might be useful if we used some Norwegian official statements as sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the photos from the crime scene showing long slender arrows. Can you really shoot such arrows with a crossbow?? Crossbows shoot bolts, not arrows. Plus: If you know how to handle these weapons, bow-and-arrows is a much faster weapon (reloading) than a crossbow. cart-Talk 21:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

That's what is used at no:Massedrapet i Kongsberg 13. oktober 2021 ("The massacre in Kongsberg 13 October 2021"), so I guess they ought to know. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm Norwegian, and edited out the crossbow section. I see it as pure speculation.--Znuddel (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Znuddel. I have to agree with W.carter that the pictures clearly show arrows not bolts. BBC News at Ten clearly used "bow and arrow" in it's coverage (second item) tonight. So I guess there is just some small degree of confusion in the reporting in the Norwegian press. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Up here in the North, crossbows are more "exotic" weapons than ordinary bow-and-arrows, and some befuddled journalists might have used that word to make the story sound cooler. cart-Talk 22:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it can be grim up north. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Name of the accused

WP:CRIME says "... 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." I think his has been seriously considered. And in this case we say in the article, with a reliable source, that he "has confessed to the attack". Doesn't this make a large difference? As usual, the name may be found online very quickly, and already appears in some of the sources visible here as references. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I favour a strict interpretation and enforcement of WP:BLPCRIME, so I say don't include the name. Omitting the name does not result in any significant loss of context, and with investigations ongoing not naming a person suspected but not (yet) convicted of a crime is preferable. Whether it has been widely disseminated is not really the point here. Keep in mind that a different, incorrect name that circulated online was briefly on this article. That is clearly unacceptable. In short, there is no benefit to including the name, and there is some harm. TompaDompa (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

We know the name 100%, down to the correct Norwegian orthography. I think it's a bit more than "context". If Wikipedia had a stricter policy on this, it might be easier. I realise that widespread dissemination of a suspect's name might impact on the legitimacy of a fair trial. But hardly in a case when a crime has been admitted. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The name of the accused has been widely published around the world. Naming him does not imply guilt. WWGB (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding nationality.

Why is it important to highlight his citizenship? - how exactly is that relevant to the case? The perpetrator have spend the vast majority of his life in Norway, being a resident there having spend his childhood there. His nationality is Norwegian-Danish at best - not solely Danish. Furthermore I’m pretty sure he identifies as Norwegian. His Danish citizenship is merely a footnote - but the editors portray him falsely as being a Dane. His ancestry is irrelevant - there is a difference between nationality and citizenship. Laroucan (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

proper police wording

the police in norway is generally not officers. they are constables. they are ranked from rank 1 constable to rank 3. the police told me how the ranking system worked when i reported a theft. saying police officers is incorrect in terms of the police in norway. 84.212.107.130 (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

In modern informal UK parlance the word "officer" may be used for any police rank, including constables. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

A quick search on the Norwegian Police Services homepage for "officer" implies that this is the preferred designation.[ref]https://www.politiet.no/en/search/?SearchText=officer[/ref] --Znuddel (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Not terrorism

Martinevans123: An article in the Norwegian Aftenposten today, found by Sca (Many thanks!) who auto-translated quotes by Police Inspector Per Thomas Omholt as saying: "The hypothesis that has been strengthened so far is that he has done this all by himself." cart-Talk 14:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That might be worth adding. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Lone wolf terrorism is a thing. The fact that he acted alone does not disprove terrorism as a motive. 83.233.200.164 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

That's true, but in this case the subject's history of mental illness suggests that may be a more important factor. I also don't see why there needs to be "one single exclusive explanation" for his actions. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Nothing in this case indicates terrorism, mental illness is the focus from Norwegian media.--Znuddel (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by that? The Norwegian police is investigating terrorism on a probable lead, as is also indicated by this very Wikipedia article. I find saying "Nothing in this case indicates terrorism," is highly baffling, when I have personally listened to a Norwegian police chief talk about indications of terrorism. Mental illness is also a probable lead and is currently considered the strongest hypothesis, and as the person above said, there need not be one single explanation. 83.233.200.164 (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Names of victims released

The names of the victims are now released:

Hanne Merethe Englund (56), Gun Marith Madsen (78), Liv Borge (75), Gunnar Erling Sauve (75) and Andréa Meyer (52).[1] (Norwegian).--Znuddel (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. But not usual to add these as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, and should anyone really want to know the names, they are easily available through the linked refs. cart-Talk 19:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Islam conversion

Gianluigi02 How can you say that "The fact that he converted to Islam is a confirmed fact, so saying that "the convert hypothesis was weakened" is wrong."?

It's a direct quote from the police spokesman saying that the convert hypothesis is weakened. And how is it a fact that he converted, when it's only the suspects claim?[2]. --Znuddel (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Conversion to a religion is a matter that is decided by the individual, if they claim it, it is a fact, unless they are lying. What religion you belong to is a personal matter. If someone says they converted to a religion, the only person privy to that truth is the person who claims it, it is not something you can confirm or deny via outside sources. Of course, belonging to a particular religious institution is a different matter, but that is not what we are talking about here. 83.233.200.164 (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Reaction section removed

User:TompaDompa removed the Reactions section with the statement Condolences are to be expected and therefore unremarkable. Is there consensus of this practice?--Znuddel (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

User:TompaDompa You reverted/deleted the reactions sections on this article. What makes this one different from e.g. the 2011 Norway attacks, 2004 Madrid train bombings, Volnovakha bus attack, 2016 Atatürk Airport attack and Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting articles? These article has an reactions section? Will you remove those too? --Znuddel (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

If all we have to say is that person such-and-such offered condolences and the like, than we're better off not having a "Reactions" section at all. A better example of the kind of stuff to add to such a section is "Multiple members of the Lebanese parliament resigned in protest" and "As a result of the explosion, concerns were raised about the storage of ammonium nitrate in other ports across the world" at 2020 Beirut explosions#Reactions. We actually do have content like that here: "Norwegian police officers, who are usually unarmed, were ordered to temporarily carry firearms nationwide after the attack", but it's in the "Aftermath" section. TompaDompa (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: I think that the "Reactions" section could be properly merged with the "Aftermath" section, so I did, and I think it looks far cleaner this way. The thing with the "Aftermath" section is that the majority of it (the "questions were raised" line) was better placed in the "Reactions" section, and I think the bit about officers carrying firearms could've gone either way. Regardless of what you think of the condolences themselves (I believe they should be included, as they're almost all the main subject of reliable sources), I think the two sections are best kept together at the moment. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

What the section is called is not important to me. I mostly don't want there to be a bloated section filled with a bunch of "Person X offered their condolences" stuff. That is, to put it mildly, not quality content. TompaDompa (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TompaDompa on that. It is expected and unremarkable that various leaders express their sympathy, and including a long list of condolences is pretty undue. There could be exceptions, like unexpected condolences from a long-time enemy, but generally the "Reactions" section should focus on what happened in the society as a result of the event. Sjö (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with both Sjö and TompaDompa. There is no criterion which says information has to be remarkable, extraordinary or unique to be included in an article, those arguments are just variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Conversely: every country has a population, therefore a country article giving information on the population number is mundane information and not in any way unique. The Olympics happen every 4 years, they are expected but there's still an article for each. So: conodlences offered by prominent leaders and the like should be included in the article. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

My two cents on this personally is that I could understand excluding e.g. "[x] gave their condolences on Twitter", but I think the royal family attending a church service and the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice visiting the town on their first full day in office stands as reactions that are worthy of mention, especially when it's reported in reliable news sources such as Euronews and Aftenposten. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Intro is wrong

The introduction states that the murderer shot eight people with a bow and arrow. This is not reflected in the sources (particularly not the Norwegian-language sources). According to the timeline (like this article: [3] and [4]), he used the bow and arrows in a store (injuring a policeman), dropped the bow and arrows outside someone's house, then used other weapons to kill five people (the police still haven't told us what those other weapons were, but we know at least one of the victims was stabbed). I would edit the intro myself, but I'm not sure how to phrase it.LordKulgur (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I've edited it now.LordKulgur (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks better now.--Znuddel (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"2021 bow and arrow norway attack" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2021 bow and arrow norway attack has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 1 § 2021 bow and arrow norway attack until a consensus is reached. Willbb234 20:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)