Jump to content

Talk:Zug massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
‹ The template below (Merged-from) is being considered for merging with Copied. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

Reference to behoerdenwillkuer.ch

[edit]

I seriously doubt that wikipedia is a place to promote that kind of conspiracy theory. Any thoughts? Mensi (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

[edit]

The picture caption just disappeared again. Can someoen help me out please?49.199.136.82 (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"... querulous vexatious grumbler..."

[edit]

Do we really need to use this kind of language... I mean, pretty much in ANY context? Just seems like someone had too much fun with a thesaurus! 64.52.133.188 (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 02:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No prejudice against renominating once it has been brought to GA status.

(
)
  • Reviewed:
5x expanded by Il5v (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

il5v (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@PARAKANYAA In the past week there have 69 edits to the article (many of which have been yours, which I would also like to say I appreciate ), six of which have added over 1,000 additional bytes to the article, does this qualify as being expanded five times? il5v (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Il5v DYK goes by character count when it comes to expansion. At the start it was at 700 words, and is now at about 2000. 700 x 5 is 3500, so not quite 5x I am afraid. We could collaborate on taking it to WP:GAN, and it would be eligible if it passes. After my changes I do not think it is too far away, but there's probably still some work to do (and GAN can take a while...) PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA The article seems to follow WP:GACR.
  1. I've looked through each paragraph and there are no issues with grammar or punctuation, no spelling mistakes either and it seems to comply with WP:MOS.
  2. From what I can tell it is verifiable (according to requirements of verifiability in the GACR6) however I might be wrong since I have not read all of WP:V yet.
  3. In terms of broadness of the article's coverage, I'd say everything that can be said about the massacre has been said, it seems like essentially everything has been covered.
  4. There's no bias, the only bias in this article I could imagine existing is any comments regarding Leibacher's conspiracy theory however every mention of his beliefs are highlighted by the fact that only he believed them.
  5. No recent edit wars.
  6. As it stands, the article contains four images, two maps and quotebox, all of which are relevant to the topic.
I couldn't find any videos that would contribute to encyclopedic value, so I'd say the article is well illustrated. What else should be done to this article before a WP:GAN? Like I said I haven't fully read WP:V so perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me could give their opinion for the time being. il5v (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's like 95% there, I think there are some verifiability issues where the citations got shuffled around and there's some other sources I could add. Otherwise, pretty close to good. I'll work on it and probably in the next day or two nominate it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tightening of gun laws?

[edit]

The 2017 Routledge book explicitly states that there were no gun changes, or at the very least far less than other countries. The 2022 Swissinfo piece says that there was a tightening of gun laws, but it does not actually say what these changes were. I cannot find any discussion of what gun laws changed a result of this, so I wonder if Swissinfo was just wrong? PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After searching I cannot find what this is referring to. There was some change after Rey-Bellet, but as far as I can tell, none after Zug. Academic books are considered more reliable than news usually, and since I can't find what the actual alleged change was I am going to remove this. Sometimes RS are wrong. And, the source is a description page for a documentary film and not the film itself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were changes in 2019 I believe, but that was because the EU forced them and AFAIK had no relation to Zug. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Has that been mentioned in any massacre-related sources? il5v (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a few sources that mentioned it in reference to the referendum, but it wasn't in a way that connected Zug and the referendum - typically like, Switzerland has little gun violence except that one time in Zug in 2001. In any case, I did not look very hard, so I will try again. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 10:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Zug massacre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 12:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk · contribs) 05:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Review

[edit]

This page seems to pretty unstable and going through a lot of changes. I will put some comments on how to improve the article here and may pass it. But I think that, if there will be more significant additions, this article should be put on hold or failed and be re-nominated once it becomes more stable. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is just personal opinion. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @All Tomorrows No Yesterdays! I'm not experienced in GA reviews, but based on my reading of WP:GACR6 - just because the article is going through lots of changes doesn't necessarily mean it is unstable...? From what I see, that criteria is mostly directed towards if there is edit warring or disruptive editing. Although, as I stated before, I'm not experienced in the GA process, so please let me know if you disagree! Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep it's true. That's why I stated "It's just my personal opinion." If you're not planning to make drastic edits then it's fine. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it when I had expanded it with every source I had access to and then I realized I had access to the Die Weltwoche sources, which I did not know at the time. Short of paying money this is all I have for now, expansion wise. But generally reasonable idea, though I do not foresee large expansion again within the time frame of this GA. Also to my understanding the stable criterion is generally not for this situation. Also, if you need a quote from a source to check it, feel free to ask. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Words like "a large margin" and "over a century" seem to be unclear and could be viewed as puffery or exaggeration. .Could they be clarified? All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Away from the computer but will handle this later today. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "a large margin" but I'm struggling to find any additional information on the massacre being the "first time a politician was killed in Switzerland in over a century". Three sources state make this claim, BBC News, New York Times and
The Economist. The Economist article reads: It was the first time for more than 100 years that any Swiss politician had been murdered
None of the articles say who the last murdered politician in Switzerland was but they only claim that it was over 100 years ago (a century). I did some quick Googling myself and it appears that this just simply isn't true as politicians Kazem Rajavi, Félix-Roland Moumié, Wilhelm Gustloff and Vatslav Vorovsky were all murdered post-1901.
However, I did notice that all of these politicians were not Swiss themselves and were only murdered whilst they were located within Switzerland, so the quotation from The Economist article be correct that it was first time in 100 years that a Swiss politician had been murdered. From what I can tell, in 1639, Jörg Jenatsch was the last Swiss politician to be murdered before the massacre however I can't find any mention of him in any sources related to the massacre. il5v (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Il5v FWIW the last time was in 1890, it was Ticino councilor Luigi Rossi (he's notable but enwiki has no article on him yet, though dewiki and itwiki do). I added that in a footnote - SWI swissinfo says it here. I don't think they were counting non-Swiss politicians as Switzerland was very international; probably should change to "the first time a Swiss politician was murdered in [...]". PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
changed that - that is what SWI said anyway PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A large margin could maybe be seen as an issue, but upon reflection I don't actually think that "in over a century" is an exaggeration, since specifying the last date in the lead is undue weight on a minor detail. The body specifies the last time was in 1890, which was 110 years - over a century is accurate, and it's not puffery. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still, maybe specify it like "since 1890". All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It feels WP:UNDUE to be so specific about that kind of thing in the lead. This is not on that, after all. If it's that important, sure, but I think it detracts from the focus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "Since the 19th century". PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much better in my opinion. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It is also possible that these were lies, intended to "legitimate" his murder fantasies, and that he simply wanted to kill people." feels a bit aggressive, could it be rephrased? All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'll try to rephrase that. It's trying to get at a point (which is that Baur presents evidence that the whole government feud thing was basically just an excuse) but I bet there is a more elegant way to incorporate that into the text. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed it. It is too difficult to cover what Baur says in this way without straying into WP:OR or it being undue weight. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"He would deny anything no matter the evidence, instead accusing those who had accused him of the crimes he had committed." seems to be exaggerating and accusative, could it be rephrased? Other than that, I don't find any flaws. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deadliest

[edit]

The claim that it is the deadliest mass murder in Swiss history is supported by the given source (the BBC article), but as it is an English source from not that long after it happened, and there are some questions I have, I am not sure if this is true. By death toll, the worst would be the Order of the Solar Temple affair in 1994, which killed 53 people. What confuses this is 15 of those were ruled suicides, and some were surely murder, and some are unknown. However, most of those at Cheiry were ruled murder, and that was about 20. So that one is probably worse. In lieu of a better source saying this I may remove this per WP:WSAW PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know renomination

[edit]

(
)
  • ALT1:... that as a result of the 2001 Zug massacre in Switzerland, public building security measures were changed, but gun laws were not?
    • Source: Hurka, Steffen; Nebel, Kerstin (2013-03-01). "Framing and policy change after shooting rampages: a comparative analysis of discourse networks". Journal of European Public Policy. 20 (3): 390–406. doi:10.1080/13501763.2013.761508. ISSN 1350-1763. As a result, and in addition to the already low magnitude of the gun discourse, it hardly comes as a surprise that deadlock occurred and no gun policy changes were implemented in Switzerland in the wake of the Zug massacre. Yet, security measures in public buildings were bolstered in many parts of the country as a response to the shooting [...]
    • Reviewed:
    Improved to Good Article status by PARAKANYAA (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

    Il5v (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

    • Comment (as person who got article to GA, not reviewer) I don't think this is a great hook? It feels a bit callous to me, which to some extent is unavoidable but Zug is a complicated enough case that I bet we can think of a better one. Also, is not actually cited like that in body, which is a violation of the DYK standards and is generally long winded and hard to follow. I will think of an alternative in an hour or so - I think the fact that there were no gun changes as a result to be the most interesting bit that is "hook-y". PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Based on the book I saw yesterday, two good anecdotes for DYK hooks might be 1. the guy who jumped out of a window to escape the attack (in paragraph 2 of "Massacre") 2. the guy who barely escaped by taking the elevator instead of the stairs (not yet covered in article). Either would be a way to get a "quirky" and more positive hook out of this fairly macabre subject. Toadspike [Talk] 09:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot about this until now but this just seems to have never shown up on the DYK log? Don't know why. May be too late. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential image

    [edit]

    @PARAKANYAA Would File:Schutz vor Waffengewalt-Initiative.svg or File:Abstimmung über die EU-Waffenrichtlinie 2019.svg be good images for the Legacy section, where these referenda are discussed? Toadspike [Talk] 09:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Another unrelated issue: could you please provide the original for the quote "Now, we deal with 'the complaint Leibacher'"? I think it may not be the best translation – if it truly is a "complaint", then it should be "complaint from Leibacher". However, I suspect the original is "Klage", which can also mean "lawsuit", relating to his legal issues. Toadspike [Talk] 09:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toadspike A bit busy at the moment, so I will look over stuff again tomorrow but
    1) Those images look fine, but the text would have to be translated
    2) This is from an English source, it appears verbatim as follows: Towards the end of the attack he revealed his identity and shouted: “. . .now, we deal with ‘the complaint Leibacher’” (Weilbach, 2009, p. 164).
    It sounded weird to me as well, their specialty was probably not translation. They are citing "Amok", a 2009 book by K. Weilbach that I also do not have. I did a pretty thorough check for sources and Weilbach + Schmutz were the only book sources that covered this a lot that I could not find. I now have Schmutz but alas no Weilbach. Might be in another report? I agree the translation is probably poor. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked the source (Meloy) and noticed the same. I will look at getting access to both sources; if this goes to FAC it would be ideal to cite the original rather than Meloy's summary. A related issue that Meloy doesn't answer is which body does "Zug politicians unanimously rejected" refer to? Presumably the Kantonsrat, but he doesn't say. Toadspike [Talk] 09:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toadspike Good idea! I will come back to this tomorrow. Any and all criticism is appreciated, I hoped there would be more at the GA review but there really wasn't. I want this article to be the best it can be. And you are Swiss and a German speaker so you probably catch issues I am blind to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have ordered "Amok: "es sieht so aus, als würde ich der Wolf sein": eine kriminologische Einzelfallstudie zur Amoktat von Zug (CH)" by Weilbach, Karl, published by Frankfurt (Main): Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft in 2009. I should get it in three days. I misread your message, since you have Schmutz already Weilbach should be the only one missing. If you need anything else, let me know. Toadspike [Talk] 09:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zug_massacre&oldid=1277895828"