Talk:West German Embassy siege in Stockholm

Jimbo Wales highly recommended ...
Jimbo Wales highly recommended to delete the article about the SPK and all links to the Wikipedia-project terrorism. See our recent Boston meeting, see the juridical proceedings of SPK against Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.208.239 (talk • contribs) 19 August 2006


 * I made no recommendation about this article. The anon ip number should be ignored.--Jimbo Wales 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding date to title
Anyone object to changing the title to "1975 West German embassy attack in Stockholm", or something similar? This would keep the title parallel with the other titles for embassy attacks used on Wiki: List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

infobox
I dont agree with the recent infobox change by @31.218.27.246.

Could you tell me what a correctly placed infobox would be and why this one isent? I might have a better understanding of your changes if you did. Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The previous infobox was designed for military conflicts and this was a terrorist attack, plain and simple. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, riots also use those infoboxes Dencoolast33 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a riot, it's terrorism, a crime not a war. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * but doesent the red army faction count as a paramilitary group?
 * u Dencoolast33 (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course not, the RAF was a terrorist organization and as such plotted and carried out terrorist attacks. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * cant organizations be both a paramilitary and a terrorist organisation? Like the OLA in ethiopia. Dencoolast33 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion is about the infobox and the changes made because of the nature of the attack and the perpetrators behind it, there is no point in speculating about various African armed groups. We don't do original research nor practice synthesis here. Just beacuse people use firearms and get killed doesn't mean we are dealing with a military conflict. I think you can move on now. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * those infoboxes are not exclusivly used for wars but for conflicts too. The paramilitaries attacked swedish and German diplomats which sounds very much like an attack on sweden/(west)germany as the diplomats are apart of their repective governments. The attack on the embassy was also an ockupation of german territory thereby making it a conflict acording to international law.
 * Yes, there was no military response from the swedish government, but the attack was conducted by a paramilitary in the first place. If the only response from ukraine was through the police in the recent invasion by russia, it would still be counted as a war (I know that the invasion is very diffrent in nature and scale but it was the first thing to come in to my head and it stil works). You might still disagree with me, but even if its not a conflict, it would still be more intense and war-esk than a riot and should then be worthy of such an infobox.
 * maybe we should get third parties in here!
 * @Gvssy
 * @TU-nor
 * if you dont want to take part, feel no pressure. Dencoolast33 (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You should start by reading the policies and guidelines that people are advising you to do and not putting in your own versions or interpretations on matters. You were blocked one month from svwiki for basically the same thing that is happening now. As for the infobox read: Template:Infobox military conflict. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure why I was invited here, but since I am here, I can give my two cents: It is completely obvious to me that the infobox currently reinstated is the proper one. I think it would be very difficult to find any reliable source whatsoever calling the attack a "military conflict". And part of the Cold War? Honestly? Please have some mercy …
 * Also, just for the record, the proper infobox had been in the article for more than 15 years when the military conflift infobox was introduced some months ago by an editor that now is not only indefinitely blocked here at en-Wiki, but globally blocked for long term abuse. --T*U (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay then, thank you! Dencoolast33 (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)