Talk:2017 Turku attack

We don't know if it is Islamic terrorism

Please don't write, that it is Islamic terrorism. We don't know if it was. Thx --Rævhuld (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the Islamic notions <3 --Rævhuld (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Screaming "Allahu Akbar" is not enough to understand that hatred for the Finnish architecture is not his motive? --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No. Read WP:Don't jump the gun. TompaDompa (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Tomorrow it will be obvious that he does not just dislike Finnish architecture. I'm too lazy to prove to you that Earth is round. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. Today, calling this Islamic terrorism is WP:Original research. TompaDompa (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The police in their press briefing said they don't yet know if this was terrorist-related, and they also have not confirmed an earlier witness claim that someone had shouted 'Allah' during the attack. We should hold back from connecting this to any terrorism, let alone any particular type of terrorism, until that connection has been made by the relevant authorities. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Didn't expect to see the Scottish play get a mention here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the reference to islam. That mention was clearly based on radical views from one user. Uxte (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, the takbir is not a terrorist phrase. It's a Muslim phrase. No different from hearing English Christians scream "Oh my God", "Jesus Christ" or "good Lord" when things get any sort of exciting. If you only hear it in this context, that's more your fault for ignoring the language in every other context. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, August 19, 2017 (UTC)

It's probably workplace violence (USA favorite designation). Or mental issues (German catch-all for any terrorist attack). Certainly the RS don't mention islamic terrorism and it can't possibly be that. XavierItzm (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

XavierItzm, re: It's probably workplace violence even your cliches are stale! That takes some doing. Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Islamists, disgruntled workers and lunatics are all driven to kill by anger. Cut off that head, and the problem's solved. Focus on the tentacles, and you'll just make them angry. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, August 19, 2017 (UTC)

For discussion: According to the Finnish Security Intelligence Service's press release: "Also, the suspect’s profile is similar to that of several other recent radical Islamist terror attacks that have taken place in Europe, according to Supo’s Director Antti Pelttari." http://www.supo.fi/en/news/1/0/threat_assessment_unchanged_for_the_time_being_73980 Shadowdasher (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It's simply an awkward translation. The original says: "Myös epäillyn profiili on samankaltainen kuin monissa Euroopan viimeaikaisissa radikaali-islamistisissa terroriteoissa, sanoo Suojelupoliisin päällikkö Antti Pelttari", and includes no implication that this attack is Islamic like the attacks elsewhere in Europe. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I would say the translation is as good as it can get. I agree that the attack cannot be yet determined to be Islamic terror, but it's pretty darn close. How are they usually determined by authorities? IMHO by the suspects' methods, backgrounds, interests, statements, communities, affiliations i.e. the profile. Shadowdasher (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the translation. Judging from the translation, one would imagine the original says "Myös epäillyn profiili on samankaltainen kuin monissa muissa Euroopan viimeaikaisissa radikaali-islamistisissa terroriteoissa", but it doesn't - the implication simply isn't there. As for how do authorities determine if something is Islamic terrorism or not, is not very relevant here. Let's simply call events Islamic terrorism if reliable sources call them such, and not call them if reliable sources don't either. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at the translation, and I'm looking at the original, and I can't see any material difference, nor do I think the inclusion or exclusion of that 'muissa' would make much of a difference either way. If you ask me, the Supo statement in question doesn't in and of itself tell us that this is Islamist terrorism, or for that matter isn't, or whether this is connected to other recent attacks bearing similarities. I'd say we need to wait for something more tangible to come out. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with DoubleGrazing on all accounts. But why I'm bringing this up: The contentious threshold of determining the breakdown between Islamist terrorism vs. non-Islamist terrorism IMHO cannot be and is not in other pertinent articles "when a reliable source explicitly says so". Otherwise one would have to clean up a great many articles where its not explicitly said so (e.g. Louvre machete attack, 2017 Stockholm attack). In this case, "Islamist terrorism" is a Wikipedia construct and adheres to its internal rules of implication. Shadowdasher (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

All content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable from reliable sources that directly support claims in Wikipedia articles - no exceptions. Yes, we do need to clean up many articles that include original research. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

After reading through Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) a bit, I can see your point on strict adherence. My bad. Shadowdasher (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It is truly sinister that Wikipedia is discussing whether or not to suppress this as an Islamic terrorist event. Already on your main page you are covering up Barcelona and this Turku terrorist incident, describing them merely as "attacks". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.35.123 (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, kindly sign your comments. Secondly, please don't preach your political etc. views, this is not the appropriate forum. Thirdly, as to your suggestion that editors here are in any way trying to "suppress this as an Islamic terrorist event", that is simply not the case: as soon as the Finnish authorities investigating the incident release that information (assuming they do, which in itself is jumping to premature conclusions!), it will be included here. Until that happens, it won't, as it remains speculative, even if that conclusion may seem 'obvious' to you. If you're unclear as to the rationale behind not including speculation and supposition in articles, please refer to the various Wikipedia policies which are readily available, starting with the ones on verifiability and original research. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

220.244.35.123, re "It is truly sinister that Wikipedia is discussing whether or not to suppress this as an Islamic terrorist event", no, what is sinister is that you imagine you, we, (or anyone 1000s of kms away), can or should decide on the basis of the evidence available in a few newspapers what happened here. Civilized countries have police and courts, others are happy with 'trial by media'. Pincrete (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I realise this isn't conclusive by any means and perhaps not even entirely reliable, but all the same: the Finnish newspaper Ilta-Sanomat has for this article interviewed people who had met the attacker, and it seems that he wasn't particularly religious (one person says he visited the local mosque only for the free meals), whereas he did have a violent and aggressive character as well as a criminal background. While that doesn't of course prove the attack wasn't motivated by Islamist ideology (for lack of a better expression), it at least keeps that possibility open. My point being, until we know it's terrorism ("Islamic" or otherwise), we should avoid labelling it so. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Name of main suspect

This edit removed the name of the main suspect, with the edit summary "identity and nationality unconfirmed" Why was that? Was the previous Yle source not reliable? Have they retracted that claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I can see plenty of sources for the name a couple of days ago, but nothing today to announce that it has been withdrawn. I'd revert this, but maybe the OP will give a source for this withdrawal? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that that edit added this source with the quote "Meillä on hänelle nimi, joka on kerrottu jo julkisuudessakin. Pyrimme kuitenkin vielä selvittämään, että pitääkö se nimi paikkansa." (we have a name, which has been published, but are still investing its correctness). I don't speak Finnish, but Google Translate seems to confirm that the translation is more or less accurate. TompaDompa (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

So essentially, it's the same person who has been reliably named. But he admits only "fatal acts" and denies murder? I'm not sure why that means we can't name him. Are we back in sub judice land again? Fortunately the article is called "2017 Turku stabbing" and not "2017 Turku murders". But I can see that WP:BLPCRIME says ""For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. So we have a bizarre situation whereby we can publish a name before the individual is charged, and then we have to immediately remove it and pretend that no-one knows. Even though the reliable sources are all still there, completely unchanged, in the public domain. Or maybe the suspect can ask Google to kindly remove them from it's search results? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 23 August .2017 (UTC)

The name in question has been distributed widely by Finnish, German and Swedish authorities (and concurrently by media), submitted into official court documents etc. They just said that that they are not 100 % sure the name is correct, since the suspects have used multiple identities throughout Europe (and transmuting Arabic names into Latin sometimes also causes problems, I assume).

As for WP:BLPCRIME, I've always assumed it just means using the exactly right wording when connecting identities and crimes? (i.e. X is suspected of committing a murder instead vs. killed a person)? I bet hundreds of biographies here contain blocks on "was suspected of doing X, but later was found to be not guilty". A normal way of things in the public domain, me says.

Thus, I would personally keep the name in the article since he has been named by more than enough RS and the article always mentions he is a suspect. Shadowdasher (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. So what is the exact rationale as to why the name can't be included in the article? You know, if someone has admitted performing "fatal acts", and the police are looking for no-one else, it seems kind of likely that he was indeed the perpetrator of these stabbings? He's being held by the police "on suspicion of murder". That's just a fact. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

My main reason for removing the name was that if it is false, it might be somebody else's name. I presume the easiest way to get false documents is by using stolen ones, and keeping the name might be convenient. I suppose the police published the name after finding his identity, without realizing it may be false. He has admitted the stabbings, but not murder with terrorist motives. Whether he admits murder is unclear. Anyway he has in my view lost his right to privacy in the matter, but publishing a name that may not be his is a separate question. As the name is widespread by now, also Wikipedia publishing it does not change much, but is probably against our policies. --LPfi (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmmh, yes. Interesting dilemma for which I have no clear answer. I'm leaning a bit to the option of keeping the name, but just making it clear that it is still under verification. In this option, we are just reporting facts stated by others (i.e. "a person called XXX is a suspect of murders with terrorist intent and has admitted stabbings, his name is still under verification). But I can see your point on not adding the name since it, in a certain way, is not relevant to en encyclopedic article and it is, quite true, still under verification according to sources. Shadowdasher (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

So we are saying that we can't trust a report by the Finnish as a WP:RS, because they might have got the wrong name? Or because they might have mis-spelled it? How can the name of the only suspected perpetrator be "not relevant to en encyclopedic article"?? I'm more than a little surprised to see that suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, personally, the name of some 18-year old nobody from Morocco (which I could hardly pronounce or remember after 4 hrs) does not really add any depth to my scrutiny or understanding of the event. But as I said, I am all open to including his name. Just tried to see it from WP:BLPCRIME's view since the authorities bluntly admitted the name is still under verification. I'll leave it to others. Shadowdasher (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to disagree there. If there was one single fact I might expect this article to provide (any legal provisions permitting), it would be the name of the perpetrator. Whether I can pronounce it or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather know how he grew up, why did he do it, how did he prepare it, with whom etc. etc. environmental issues instead of a bunch of letters arranged into a name. But going a bit off-topic, so I'll leave it here. Shadowdasher (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to know those things too. But I feel we might be verging on the realms of speculation on those topics for some time to come. I'd at least like to start with some straightforward verifiable facts, and someone's name usually provides that, doesn't it? It's what you'd expect in an encyclopedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Shadowdasher (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

If the WP:RS cite the name, the name should be included. Otherwise, you are doing WP:OR on whether the WP:RS should have published, and on whether the information published by the WP:RS is correct. Oh and by the way, I love it how committing an illegal act such as faking one's identity then leads to people such as LPfi adopting a "know nothing" stance about these sort of crimes, i.e., by undertaking such a criminal act, then what can be said about the crime or the criminal must be limited! Is this the perfect crime for the 21t century? XavierItzm (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It has now come to light that Abderrahman Mechkah is NOT the real name of the main suspect, nor is he 18 years of age as previously reported. The authorities do know his real name and age (22 or 23), but these have not been released. I will make the necessary changes to the article, and just wanted to give a heads-up here in case someone changes the name back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleGrazing (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have a source for that claim? Seems notable in itself. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I've so far only seen this reported in Ilta-Sanomat (not my favourite 'reliable source', but hey ho), they're quoting the NBI inspector in charge of the investigation, so I assume it's kosher. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The same also now reported by YLE (the Finnish equivalent of BBC). DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that looks more reliable. It says (via GoogleTranslate, which has not made this totally clear):

"Investigator Crista Granroth of the National Bureau of Investigation tells us that the name the suspect has previously told the authorities is wrong. The main suspect has appeared in Finland as Abderrahman Mechkah.

Granroth says that the name of the suspect is known to the police, but can not be made public on the basis of the Preliminary Probation Act. According to Granroth, there was no such decisive factor in coping with the information."

So the article needs adjustment. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The name "Abderrahman Bouanane" now gets 2,220 hits on Google search. So presumably it is now fully in the public domain? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Yes, this is being reported by YLE, apparently the law court where the case is being brought has corrected their paperwork with that name, so that puts it into the public domain. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems like the main suspect's identity may still not be known. The Moroccan authorities are reportedly saying they've no knowledge of such a person, so it could be that one or more of the details (name, age, nationality) are false. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Background?

Hi. The Background section seems to be very superficial and does not address the actual background of the incident at all. All that is said has to do with the history of terrorism and political violence in Finland. That might be somewhat relevant perhaps, if the attacks turns out to be a terrorist act at all. But what is the background of the specific incident? There is no information about that at all. RhinoMind (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

True, a better name for that particular section might be "Context" or smth. An actual background of the incident is still missing (although the reported background of the suspects is somewhat in the Investigation section), feel free to add. :) Shadowdasher (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for "terrorism" label

Hello there. If the attack is to be categorized as terrorism, what criteria would it have to fit? Does anybody know?

Wouldn't it require a larger organisation and planning behind the incident for example?

RhinoMind (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Simply that courts and/or other authorities consider it terrorism under their respective laws and it is reported as such, I reckon? Shadowdasher (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, there must some objective criteria. Otherwise it doesn't mean anything. RhinoMind (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there any reasonably more objective criteria besides laws of democratic states based on international treaties (e.g. UN, EU instruments) and the authorities executing those laws? Of course they make mistakes too, but wouldn't be a bad starting point. Finnish Criminal Code: "An offender has a terrorist intent if it is his or her intent to: (1) cause serious fear among the population, (2) unlawfully force the government of a state or another authority or an international organisation to perform, allow or abstain from performing any act, (3) unlawfully overturn or amend the constitution of a state or seriously destabilise the legal order of a state or cause particularly harm to the state economy or the fundamental social structures of the state, or (4) cause particularly extensive harm to the finances or other fundamental structures of an international organisation." Shadowdasher (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Great! I am surprised how broad and flexible that definition is, but there it is nevertheless. Thanks.

Is there a link perhaps to the source of this text? RhinoMind (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, right, sorry! http://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039 Shadowdasher (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

As an interesting twist to this, in the preliminary hearing on March 20, the charges included references to terrorism, which (and this is the interesting bit IMHO) the defence lawyer disputed but the defendant himself admitted. The defendant evidently saw himself as acting for ISIS, which presumably by definition would make this terrorism-related. As to why the defence is trying to argue otherwise, I'm not sure. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Added new section on the trial

I've created a new section on the trial starting March 20. So far little more than a placeholder (giving mostly dates and venue), but I expect it will grow as new information comes to light as the case progresses. The reason why I thought it was best to create a first-level section rather than put it under the investigation, was a) because I feel that conceptually (and probably also legally) this represents a new phase, and b) so as to prevent mission creep in the investigation section and to aid navigation. If anyone thinks differently, feel free to demote it to a sub-section of the previous. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The results of the investigation which were filed at the preliminary hearing on March 20 and disclosed to the media (as reported eg. here [in Finnish]), there is quite a lot of detailed description regarding the defendant's mental state, thought processes, etc. leading up to and on the day of the incident. I'm as yet unclear whether that should be included in this article, and if so to what extent and under what heading. I'm especially thinking of the information relating to his (perceived, alleged or actual) association with ISIS, which seems to me relevant here. Anyone have any views on this? DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Thx a lot! I had included some bits of those issues in the 'Background' section based on the press conference after the investigation was concluded. Feel free to add or amend. Also, a trial section is far better than continuing the investigation IMHO. Manelolo (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)