Talk:Bærum mosque shooting

RFC: Merge proposal
Hello! I am the author of the article Al-Noor Islamic Center shooting which I believe to be more objective and reliable than this article for following reasons:

1) This article states that "The gunman killed a young woman before going to the mosque". There are no sources for this. However I write in my article the following: "A young woman was found dead in his apartment" from the Independent writing "Several hours later it was reported that a young woman had been found dead at the suspect’s home and that he was suspected of murder" . That is not the same as he killing her.

2) Article states "The gunman was later identified by a right-wing blog as Philip Manshaus, a 21-year-old Norwegian citizen" citing a blog which is unreliable.

3) "Hours before opening fire on the Al-Noor Islamic center, the suspect praised the Christchurch mosque shootings and the Poway synagogue shooting in a online post", again, no sources.

--Albert Falk (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * True. In addition it's illegal to reveal a person's identity before the police and official medias have done it. --Snorken123 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I will merge the contents of Al-Noor Islamic Center shooting into the Bærum mosque shooting page and create a redirect - there are multiple mosques known by that name, and there is at least some precedent for using city names. I feel that this move is uncontroversial. As for 's concerns, I will review the content and sources of all content. Kingsif (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated!

--Albert Falk (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Unsigned comment by Jaysfan7077
There needs to be a template for baerum mosque shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysfan7077 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Suspect's name
Until the police or his lawyers publicly announce the name of the suspect, we shouldn't and I'm pretty sure we're not allowed. Media can speculate, but wait for official statement. Even the most recent and reliable source for his name (NRK) has a very long paragraph at the bottom explaining that they have only just chosen to publish the name at the editor's discretion because there isn't complete information but they believe with the more serious charges it's of public interest to include his name. That's not an official police statement at all, which the article goes out of its way to make clear. Kingsif (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the BBC are reporting his name, and anyone can do a photo ID of the guy at court on Monday, it seems that it would now be out-of-step to not include the suspect's name. Kingsif (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC) ETA: The BBC's original headline on the court appearance was "Norway mosque attack suspect accused of terrorism", and it was recently updated to say "Norway mosque attack: Bruised suspect Manshaus appears in court". When his name was publicly released in court it was, well, publicly released, though CBS confirm "the suspect has not been identified by officials". But it's now in article, using the BBC ref for timeframe. Kingsif (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Changing information
please stop changing sourced info into something else. If you think it's accurate, please provide a source, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * IP says he changed the info because "FBI have no jurisdiction in Norway, so why would local police tell people to call them? It's just dumb."
 * I responded in edit reason with: "A Norwegian source says it was the FBI, taking your word that you think it's wrong doesn't work, you're going to need a reliable source that agrees with you. Perhaps it was the FBI because the internet messageboard is hosted in the US, and that's what would be investigated?" Kingsif (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * IP says: "Stop writing lies. I know my country better than you do"
 * I reply: "As I've already explained, you need a reliable source to back up your claim. Whether you are right or wrong, I have told you this at least three times now." Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunate choice of words
Hi, I think that "Vidkun Quisling, the Norwegian Prime Minister who collaborated with the Nazis" could have been formulated better. Now it looks like VQ was elected prime minister of Norway and then chose to collaborate with the Nazis; in fact it was, of course, the other way round: VQ was a minor politician who chose to ally himself with the Nazis, who in turn rewarded him by temporarily making him some kind of - unconstitutional - government leader. How about " Vidkun Quisling, the Norwegian politician who collaborated with the Nazis" or something similar? T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't originally that wording, I had put in something like "VQ, the Norwegian leader who worked with the Nazis" and it was changed a few times, so when it was changed to current I assumed it was by someone more knowledgeable on the topic. Any formulation that makes the association clear should be good, I see no reason why you can't change it yourself and explain that in edit reason. Kingsif (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thx for your help. I'v made a BOLD edit, perhaps verging on, but hopefylly not descending into, being ... well, too unambiguous =o) . Feel free to revert, amend, edit as required if not appropriate. T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * New try. Quoting Wikipedia on "Quisling" (the epithet, not the person). Good luck with the important parts of the work. T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Argh. Sentence still ambiguous. Now it looks like VQ expressed right wing sympathies (which he most decidedly did) online (which ... etc.) Not a native EN speaker, and I _always_ mess up layout and dangle refs. I leave to anyone who also sees this as a problem, and has the skill to fix it. Out. T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edits are much appreciated, T! Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

"Danish Prosecutors" error
according to "Arrest and charges" "On 17-February-2020 Danish prosecutors formally charged Mr. Manshaus with murder and terror." this is a mistake from this source "https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/world/2020/02/17/norway-terror-mosque-attack/111330612/" (archive https://web.archive.org/web/20200220063702/https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/world/2020/02/17/norway-terror-mosque-attack/111330612/)

both bærum and oslo is located in norway, but there is not one danish location mentioned in the article apart from the intro text, which erroneously sets "Copenhagen, Denmark" as the location of the story, sorry for the verbosity due to my tiredness but i would like that some of you fix it as my english literary abilities is subpar in my lucid state and even worse in an exhausted state. thank you for your patience reading this 85.113.171.38 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Nobody was shot in the mosque
A teenager was shot and killed in a house. Then buddy tried and failed to shoot up a mosque, when a scuffle occured. He was charged with murdering his stepsister with a gun, but not for poking a man in the eye. Pending conviction, he is a "suspect" and in the mosque context, no "shooter" or "gunman", just a wannabe and suspected terrorist. SharabSalam is apparently mad at me about another argument, so followed me here to revert wholesale, but my fixes make sense. Agree or don't, I refuse to fight hard for this shit article. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Shooting is not about how many people were injured or killed. Shooting is shooting. I can't believe I have to explain this. Also، I have this article in my watchlist, I swear. I don't know why you made these edits that are extremely, extremely unconstructive.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Was anything damaged? Did anyone preemptively thwart his attempt before an attack or shooting as it normally means (not reckless discharge) could occur? Has he been convicted? Why shouldn't the lead note he's charged with murder? Why does vague "injured" work better than clear, sourced eyepoked? Why do you say he "executed" his sister? Had she been convicted? Why call the lesser alleged crime "the main attack"? Why not spell the numbers under 13? Why quote him without a source? Explain that, not why you're bothered. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Fail" is not a fuzzy word. The shooting will fail only if the gun didn't work. You have to bring sources that says that the shooting was a "failed shooting" because you are the one who is changing the long-standing lede. Also, the police, investigators and all reliable sources have said that he is the shooter. This is not a living person so there is no court.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A shooting also fails if you miss your targets. Human error, not mechanical failure. I'll look for a synonym a source uses, if not "failed". Unless the article is missing something, buddy was arrested, charged and is still alive. Per WP:BLPCRIME, we wait for a conviction before declaring guilt as fact. You seemingly have no intention of explaining the rest you undid. I'll restore it, address your complaints, but would appreciate it if you only revert what you actually dislike, not just everything with my name attached. That's overkill. 09:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A shooting is firing bullets. If the bullets were not fired because of technical or human error then thats a failed shooting but if they were fired then that's a shooting regardless of how many people killed or injured.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's technically true, fair point. But in context, the term and the article title strongly suggest people were shot, like in the very loosely similar Christchurch "mosque shooting" (and many others in other temples). If the suspect intended this to be the violent sort of shooting (definition 2 per Merriam-Webster), he obviously didn't accomplish that goal, so I'd say he failed, or was thwarted or did not succeed. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Name of victim
I added the name of the Asian victim of the murderer who carried out this attack and it was reverted with the reasoning 'no benefit in adding non notable name'. I believe there is a strong interest in adding the name of this victim. In Norway, the Asian community have been struggling with the erasure of this person's death due to her Asian origins in the public narrative. There's also an important symbology in remembering the names of victims of terrorist attacks. Dismissing this victim as 'non notable' is therefore part of the problem of the erasure of this person's victimhood. Here is a source about the victim and here is another source about racism towards Asian people in Norway. I would appreciate comments from other editors about the removal of the victim's name, which I do believe to be notable, and in the interests of the public discourse on this subject to be included in the article. --Jwslubbock (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a long-standing provision that the inclusion of victim names requires consensus. If it is important to note that a victim was Asian, that might be included. Otherwise, the specific name of that victim adds nothing to the reader’s understanding of the incident. WWGB (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are we including the name Mohammad Rafiq, the injured victim, but not the slain one then? Consensus by whom? Seems to me the anti-asian racism that Jwslubbock mentioned has simply crept its way into Wikipedia too. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:ED59:ED21:2325:107F (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding name of victim in 2023?
I think it would be appropriate to change the article to include the victim's name, considering that there are now multiple articles in the mainstream press discussing her in relation to the attack. More on that can be added to the article if need be, and I think it should as there were reports that she was concerned about his radicalization. Especially considering their family relation, it seems appropriate to mention her and in line with the wishes of the family, given how Manshaus's stepmother has spoken out.

Just wanted to seek consensus before making any edits. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The article contains the name of the injured victim, but not the slain one. This inconsistency seems irreverent. Definitely worth a change for the sake of Wikipedia's reputation in my opinion. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:ED59:ED21:2325:107F (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess it could be argued that since there was coverage of what Rafiq did it deserved to be included but at this stage there's also lots of coverage of Ihle-Hansen.
 * I'll add more about her as well, to make the case for inclusion stronger. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Please put into the article, at the end of a relevant section
Source, https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/manshaus-saken-gjenapnes-tar-avstand-fra-holdningene/s/5-95-1706719. Nettavisen.no. Retrieved 2024-03-15. 80.67.37.2 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On 15 March 2024, Manhaus's lawyer held a press conference. She said that Manhaus now has distanced himself from "the views that he expressed before, during, and after the trial".

Re-opening of case (as of mid-March 2024)
The case is being opened today. It seems that the authorities have ruled that Manshaus was psychotic when he committed the crimes. Source, https://www.dagsavisen.no/nyheter/innenriks/2024/03/15/manshaus-saken-gjenapnes/. 80.67.37.2 (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I will add this stuff later today. This page needs to be updated more anyway. Thank you for the heads up! PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)