Talk:Utrecht tram shooting

Name of the suspect

Hello fellow editors, the Dutch police force have arrested and identified a suspect. Some people have been adding his name to the article, but currently, all mentions have been deleted. As per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME, I oppose sharing his name until he has been officially charged with murder (he has not been charged with any crime at the moment, he is simply suspected). Some user(s) have tried to draw a false comparison with the Christchurch mosque shootings. This comparison doesn't hold true, because the suspect of that crime has already been charged with 1 count of murder, the suspect of the Utrecht tram shooting has not. Please share your thoughts! --MrClog (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The main suspect in a deadly tram shooting in the Dutch city of Utrecht will be charged with offenses including multiple murder or manslaughter with a terrorist intent, prosecutors said Thursday (3/21) He'll be charged Friday.50.111.50.240 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see where it says Friday. Did I miss something? MrClog (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Apparently - re-read the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.50.240 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

That being said, WP:BLPCRIME notes that what matters is convictions: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. TompaDompa (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Technically, yes but (i) he is on video (surveillance cam from the tram), (ii) he confessed and (iii) his name has been released to the public in the Netherlands by the authorities. At best he could be found legally insane, at worst he could be found a terrorist. Note that insanity and terrorism aren't mutually exclusive. So, there isn't any doubt that he killed those people, the only question is why. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

So, there isn't any doubt that he killed those people - As long as he has not been convicted there is doubt. Even if someone pleads guilty there is no 100% guarantee. Wikipedia is not for speculations about wheter or not the suspect will be convicted. --MrClog (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

To put it simply, denying that he killed those people would be a bad legal defense strategy, because nobody would buy that story. In the Netherlands the prosecution has the task of truth-finding. I.e., if they believe that the accused is innocent, they ask for acquittal. They don't just accuse random people and hope that the judge will believe their story, in order to score as many guilty verdicts as possible. For the prosecution finding out the truth has priority over condemning people. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No, there is NO doubt he killed people - the only question is will he be found legally not responsible at the time ... he was seen committing the crimes and apprehended on the spot. He did it - that is beyond any liability. 50.111.50.240 (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, this doesn't matter, as WP:BLPCRIME says: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. MrClog (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

He admitted in court on Friday that he committed the mass shooting, which means that he formally declared his guilt. Jim Michael (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It's up to the court though, not him. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, WP:BLPCRIME does not prevent us from adding the name of a suspect. See also the lemma on the Christchurch mosque shootings and the discussion there on the name of the suspect.. Celaena1 (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

But it would go against the spirit of it and there is no consensus to name them, and what's the hurry anyway? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

For the reasons, kindly refer to the Christchurch mosque shootings, as mentioned before. There's no "hurry" - the shooting happened a month ago. "Hurry" refers to hours, or days. Celaena1 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

What happens in other articles is of no relevance here. Here there is no consensus to name them. Wait for a court verdict, then decide. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Celaena1: please read WP:BRD and you'll see that the "bold" only happens once - at the start - to repeatedly force your change without consensus might be considered to be disruptive. Please undo your change and present your reasoning for naming them here, and see if you can get a consensus for it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I've already mentioned my reasons hereabove. So far there's only one person disagreeing - and that's you. And even with the reasons presented and a clear example of a recent, comparable, incident, there's no beginning of you seeing the light. Let me phrase it differently: (a) Why would I need consensus for my POV, when there doesn't seem to be a consensus for your POV either, and (b) What would it take for you to finally see the equivalence to the Christchurch mosque shootings? Celaena1 (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
PS: Please note that WP:BRD applies to you too.

The attempt to keep the name of this suspect out of this article is obviously the result of ulterior motivations. I have visited perhaps three talk pages of Wikipedia articles in my entire life, but the omission was so bizarre that I had to see what was going on. And my suspicions were confirmed. 2607:FEA8:84A0:C22:9954:7AE5:F94E:83D3 (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME states: For relatively unknown people, 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. - Let's break that down:

• For relatively unknown people: Despite being mentioned in the media, on a global scale it is unlikely that many people know the suspect's name or recognise his picture (in the Netherlands, this is obviously different). In the Christchurch massacre, this is different: the suspect's name was on the front page of newspapers worldwide.
• editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person ... is accused of having committed a crime: Adding the suspect's name quite clearly suggests that that person is accused of having committed the mass shooting.
• unless a conviction has been secured: There is no conviction yet. A court of law is yet to rule whether or not the suspect, Gökmen T., is guilty of a crime and which crime. An admission is not a conviction (and note he has not plead guilty in a court of law, he did admit he committed the shooting in a police interrogation, but that is not a conviction).

It seems clear to me that as per the biographies of living persons policy, we should not add a name to the article unless there's a conviction. Thanks. --MrClog (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

And, as discussed on the talk page for the Christchurch Mosque shootings, WP:BLPCRIME does not always prohibit us from mentioning the name. See also the name "Brenton Tarrant" which is found on the article, even though there's no conviction. Thanks, Celaena1 (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Celaena1, please (re)read my post. The Christchurch shooting is different because WP:BLPCRIME only goes up "[f]or relatively unknown people". Gökmen T. matches that, but Brenton T. does not. Thanks. --MrClog (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Insanity

@InedibleHulk: In the Netherlands there were heated debates whether he was terrorist or insane or both. So, yes, his insanity is a major component of the investigation and it has become a widely known claim in the Netherlands. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This claim has been reiterated by NOS Journaal, today 7:00 AM Dutch time, which also called him "drugs addict". In this context "verward" should be translated as "psychotic, insane". See http://gtb.ivdnt.org/iWDB/search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M079254 Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Victims

In the article it says: "One victim remains injured in hospital". It is not likely he is still there a year later. What was the outcome? This part should be adapted somehow. AntonHogervorst (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay I just removed that sentence. I went looking for information in Dutch sources, but could not find any. In the Dutch wikipedia it is not mentioned anymore. And if the victim still would be in hospital, I assume some newspaper would have ... If you don't agree, just revert, but I thought this was the best thing to do. AntonHogervorst (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Classification as Islamic Terrorism - input requested

Over at Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe#Utrect attack classification by AIVD there's a discussion on whether this attack constituted islamic terrorism or not. Here, the Dutch secret service AIVD lists the attack among jihadist attacks in the Netherlands. We could use input from editors knowledgeable in the Dutch language or knowledgeable on the subject of terrorism. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)