This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Location(s)
Videos and pictures seem to show that the events were concentrated in the west of the Schwedenplatz and in at least one nearby narrow street by the synagogue. I have placed some tentative coordinates in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Article merge with November 2020 Vienna attacks
-- Posting this here as well since this articles name just changed from shootings to attacks.
Original argumentation:
I believe this article should be merged with the article November 2020 Vienna attacks because it follows the naming conventions as per WP:NCE.What's happening is an attack, it's likely not to be limited to only shooting and considering the naming of other similar attacks on Wikipedia I believe the title of this article "November 2020 Vienna attacks" is the proper title to be used. See also the discussion on Talk:November 2020 Vienna attacks. I'll also post this at Requests for merge assistance and feedback. -- TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
New argumentation:
I still believe this article should be merged with the other one as the month should be specified, as per wikipedia naming conventions. For example November 2015 Paris attacks, September 11 attacks. However I also see a lot of articles named with the month so I'd like to discuss below what is more appropriate.-- TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Putting in month might be a good idea, but so far the two articles seem to cover identical things. Were there any non-November shootings in Vienna?VR talk 22:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is a disagreement about which title to use, not a proper merge proposal. I've redirected the other title to this one (the other article was only a stub, nothing worth merging). TompaDompa (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- TruthToBeSpoken, ermm, no? There were two major attacks in Paris that year, one in January (see: January 2015 Île-de-France attacks). And 9/11 is an official name. That is how the government and media referred to it, as well as the masses. Vienna attacks don't have an official name. November 2020 Vienna attacks should be deleted or redirected here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Government isn't certain this is a terrorist attack
I'm having too many edit conflicts --Annemaricole (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.213.144 (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Both the Austrian Chancellor (head of government) himself and the interior minister have called it a terrorist attack.
This section should be deleted 85.148.213.144 (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- This section exists as a record of the conflicting reports and changing information in the hours following the attack. TompaDompa (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Condolences from other countries
These add nothing. Please don't add them. Their addition only turns the "Reactions" section into a (often flag salad) WP:QUOTEFARM. The quality of the article is improved by removing condolences, not adding them. TompaDompa (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Deletion of Chancellor quote, in the New York Times
An editor has cleansed the article once already by deleting a quote of the Chancellor of Austria, stating in his words the nature of the attack, as reported by the New York Times. That is highly relevant, relevant for the lede, and its deletion is unconscionable. Before he attempts it again, he should see, consensus, but it is against wp standards. --2604:2000:E010:1100:1080:A916:7D47:6053 (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Calm down a bit. The addition was poorly written and poorly placed within the WP:LEAD, and Kurz was already quoted as saying it was a terrorist attack in the reactions section. I am in fact the one who insisted that we quote him as saying it's a terrorist attack rather than a terror attack (see this diff and this diff). TompaDompa (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
TompaDompa, What is the difference between a terror attack and a terrorist attack? PS: I don't see any reason to tell the above editor to calm down. I also don't see any reason to conceal the deeds of murderers. Do you? 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Terrorist attack" has a specific meaning. "Terror attack" doesn't. The latter is a suggestive term used by e.g. news media when using the former would potentially be inaccurate or libellous. TompaDompa (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
One can't assume everyone is versed in US centric and disputable nomenclature. For 99% of the public (probably including the Chancellor of Austria) a terror attack and a terrorist attack are the same thing in English. In Austrian he used the term Terroranschlag which means terrorist attack. https://orf.at/stories/3187757/ 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you think this is US-centric. Terrorism has a legal definition. Terror does not. Anyway, we can't make up quotes. If the sources say that he said "terror attack", we can't change that to "terrorist attack" because we think that's what the sources should have written. TompaDompa (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
TompaDompa, please stop trying to protect terrorists. The sources say he said "terrorist attack", verbatim quote: ""disgusting terrorist attack". Why do you keep ignoring the sources?: https://orf.at/stories/3187757/ (Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF) is the Austrian BBC equivalent, national public service broadcaster) 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- First off, please read WP:AGF. The point here is that when we quote sources, we quote them verbatim. We can quote Kurz as calling it a
"hideous terrorist attack"(The Guardian seems to have removed that phrasing from their article)or"Terroranschlag" based on the sources, but if we want to quote him as saying it was "definitely a terrorist attack", we need a source that uses the exact phrasing "definitely a terrorist attack", not one that uses the similar phrase "definitely a terror attack". See MOS:QUOTE. TompaDompa (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I have not said anything about usage of the word "definitely". The confusion arises when people quote news media that hides actual facts. CNN has reported (falsely) that the Austrian Chancellor said "terror attack" because apparently (and evidently) CNN doesn't like to hurt the feelings of people who execute random civilians on the streets. CNN has literally subverted and falsified a verbatim quote by a world leader.
"terror attack" https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/vienna-terror-attack-nov-2-live-updates/h_78376dce7bbff794929eb6360fc329ec
Whereas a real news organisation, Reuters has actually done what news organizations are supposed to do and that is state facts. That the Chancellor said "terrorist attack":
"terrorist attack" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-attack/at-least-one-killed-in-vienna-attack-involving-multiple-assailants-locations-idUSKBN27I2JF
The accuracy of Reuters quote is corroborated by the Austrian national news service: https://orf.at/stories/3187757/
CNN should (evidently) not be a reliable source for an Encyclopedia. The proof is right here. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Video of attackers executing citizens on the street
A video has surfaced of the attackers executing random citizens by pistol shot on Seitenstettengasse street (warning the 4th video is very graphic):
(Site not allowed on Wikipedia)
You'll have to Google the video as wikipedia will not allow posting the link to Liveleak. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Unless WP:RELIABLE sources report on this, it doesn't warrant mention in the article. TompaDompa (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Legend
Lists Liveleak as "links must be whitelisted before they can be used." I suggest the link is whitelisted. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Fox news is reporting the same video now: https://www.foxnews.com/world/shootings-austria-injured-person-dead 85.148.213.144 (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Fox doesn't describe the contents of the video, making it fairly useless. NYT does however, so we can paraphrase their descriptions. TompaDompa (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Deaths
There are certainly more than 2 deaths here.--46.7.63.144 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we hide that the leader of Austria called it a terrorist attack in the lede, in order to protect the terrorists?
In the leading paragraph, should we hide the fact that the leader of Austria (Chancellor Sebastian Kurz) called this a terrorist attack, in order to protect the terrorists? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-attack/at-least-one-killed-in-vienna-attack-involving-multiple-assailants-locations-idUSKBN27I2JF
Who is for protecting the terrorists and hiding the quote of the Austrian Chancellor in the leading paragraph? 85.148.213.144 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- What on Earth are you on about? Please read WP:CIVIL and knock it off with this silliness. Poisoning the well is not conducive to building an encyclopaedia collaboratively. TompaDompa (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry TompaDompa but I don't take kindly to people who protect terrorist motives. You reverted more than 15 of my edits that attempted to add published video of the terrorist attack. Your behaviour transcends wikipedia etiquette. I don't care what your political affiliation is. This is the law. Report me to wikipedia editors as you have done. I know who to report your IP address to. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait, is your issue that NYT doesn't link to the video itself whereas Fox does? Also, I have to say that I don't quite understand what you mean by
I know who to report your IP address to.
TompaDompa (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
When choosing between 2 reliable sources (NYtimes and Fox News) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Why choose the one which doesn't have video coverage of the actual attack itself?
Why am I even asking that? Of course you don't want video in this article showing the actions of terrorists.
Tell me I am wrong: tell me you have no problem linking the (WP:RS) Fox News article that actually shows the video of the attack as opposed to the NY Times article that doesn't.
Tell us clearly that you do not want to protect the terrorists and have no problems at all linking the news article that shows the actual video of the attack itself. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody's hiding anything, Wikipedia is not a news source and has to report the consensus of what the secondary sources say. This is explained at WP:NOT#NEWS. Liveleak and such are primary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 02:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x2 Why choose NYT over Fox? Because NYT describes the content of the videos, whereas Fox doesn't. There's nothing stopping us from adding both, but we need the NYT article because it allows us to describe the contents of the videos without engaging in WP:Original research. Why didn't you just say from the start that you wanted to use a source that links to the video itself? That's not a tall order, though we can't remove the NYT source even if we add the Fox one.
And seriously, accusing other editors of wanting to protect terrorists is a quick way to get yourself blocked from editing. Of course nobody here wants to protect the attackers. TompaDompa (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Your opinion is clear cut. Thank you so much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Legend lists FOX News as a reliable source.
Fox News features an actual video of the attack itself. https://www.foxnews.com/world/shootings-austria-injured-person-dead
I am placing a link to the Fox News article in the page. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)