Talk:2013 Valdresekspressen hijacking

2003 incident

I've put this in as background for two reasons: one is that there are rumblings in the press that coverage of the 2003 killer's deportation may be connected to the choice of bus; the other is that it's redlinked in no.wikipedia and may be a candidate for either an independent article or treatment of both incidents on a more even footing depending how the national debate goes. I kept it as brief as possible, but the driver's heroism has been emphasised in the 2013 press coverage. Whatever we do, if we mention 2003 at all it has to be only with referenced content. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's naturally to mention the 2003 incident because it was kind of similar (and the media has clearly made a connection), but going into details about the 2003 busdriver being named "name of the year" (or something) strays from the topic of the article imo. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Not natural. The 2013 incident has an asylum seeker-turned-suspect, who has not been convicted. If there is a natural connection, then we need expert opinions. Opinions of notable generalists such as MPs might be notable. Opinions of rank and file journalists might not be notable. --Funny linguist (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's very clear that we should point out that this is the second time a on this bus experienced a hijacking/murder. And the fact that multiple media (practially all media) I believe, have made a connection to the 2003 incident is enough for Wikipedia to include it, as we typically follow the lede of media. The unions also focus on this (link). I am planning on expanding this article with more focus on political reactions etc, and in a longer article which include the follow-up debates in Norway regarding multiple issues related to bus security, police reaction, various debates related to asylum seekers etc, a brief mention of the 2003 will clearly belong. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The article has not even pointed out that it is on the same bus route (going thru Årdal). I have pointed out that matter in a following thread, Two different bus routes( from the East) into Fagernes. If the article does not have the police's opinion-, and not any other expert opinion of a 2003/2013 connection, then we might need a seperate section about the media's investigation or synthesis of a 2003/2013 connection. --Funny linguist (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Cherry picking previous murders of bus passengers and drivers

No person or persons have been convicted of the 2013 murders. People are murdered on public transport from time to time in Norway. With only one known suspect of the 2013 murder, it is not fair to cherry pick only one previous murder—which was performed by an asylum seeker (of a different nationality and) from a different refugee center than the suspect of the 2013 murders—also an asylum seeker.

The 2003 incident was arguably not the previous incident of bus passengers being murdered on board public transportation in Norway, unless someone has a reference of that and can demonstrate notability in an article. --Funny linguist (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Two different bus routes( from the East) into Fagernes

The text does not say if the 2003 murder occurred on the route coming from Beitostølen towards Oslo, or the route from Årdal towards Oslo. Are there any references that say that the two different routes sometimes has passengers merge into a single bus from Fagernes to Oslo? If passengers from Årdal never sit on the same bus (at the same time) as passengers are coming from Beitostølen, then these are clearly two different bus lines sharing the same name (possibly for branding/marketing purposes). Either way we need text and references to sort this out in the article. --Funny linguist (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The press is representing it as the same bus route - Valdresekspressen. Dagbladet, the first reference I used for the section. Dagbladet is also making a big deal out of the 2003 driver's heroism - understandably since they declared him man of the year, whether or not any other motive, such as selling more papers by having a more emotional angle, is involved ... I could see removing that bit, but I suspect his heroism will continue to crop up in coverage of the 2013 event, so I thought better to put it in provisionally. What I do agree it would be bad to mention in the article until it's something more than speculation is the theory that has cropped up in the press that the hijacker got the idea from press coverage of the 2003 event, since the convicted hijacker in that case was recently deported. However, I disagree with the point you make above about not relying on newspaper coverage. There's no reason per se to regard newspapers as less reliable than politicians. Iselilja's offer to add coverage of the debate on the implications of the event is great, thank you! Yngvadottir (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I've further reverted the changes, but for now inserted the route number and reference; however I think the information about how many buses there are and how many different operators would be better placed in a Valdresekspressen article and/or at the existing Norway Bussekspress. Here and in the above section, I see an emphasis on asylum seekers that I have not seen in the news sources; the references I found and used instead emphasised that both killings occurred on the Valdresekspressen. So I believe we share the concern about coatracking or insertion of POV, but in my view it's coatracking to go into the prevalence of crime elsewhere on Norwegian transportation. If anyone feels there are enough sources to justify a short standalone article on the 2003 event, then that would be the most elegant solution - to have that as a See also here. That is what I see in the press. But unless I've missed coverage focusing on the suspect, or unless coverage has changed direction in the last few days, I think concern that the press is connecting them because of the asylum angle or that there is too much in the article about asylum seekers is misplaced - I have not seen much about that in the sources I saw, mainly just official spokesmen identifying the suspect as an asylum seeker. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

I cannot agree that the identity of victims is not notable, nor yet that the word "victim" is inappropriate until after determination of guilt in a court of law - it's not a parallel situation with the suspect, they have been killed regardless of who did it. And it seems to me that adding statements about "Reaction having included comparisons" is going too far from simply presenting the facts. What is the reasoning behind this radical rewriting? Why does it matter that the two incidents did not happen close together, when the sources are all mentioning 2003 as having happened on the same bus route? Unless some sources are actually saying these things, I think even the route number is going into original research or synthesis territory, but I can see the usefulness for the reader who doesn't have a Valdresekspressen article or a section on it at the article on the bus service. More than that seems to be outside editorialising - or are there sources saying these things? Yngvadottir (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Further - self-inflicted knife wounds is in at least one source I referenced; while I agree we should be careful to call the South Sudan man "suspect" and "alleged hijacker", someone killed those people, that does not require a source (and is in any case in pretty much all of them, as is the term hijack, which I would otherwise not have used since we don't know what happened before the killings); and the visit to the area to express grief and lay a wreath does seem to me like superfluous detail (although I have no big objection to it, info on who was killed seems far less irrelevant to me). Please discuss these changes here. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Since User:Funny linguist did not respond and since he/she and User:Oily bullies have now both been blocked as socks of a banned user, I've recast the article based on my last version and the newer references they had added, and spelling, categories, etc. contributed by some others. If it seems POV or poorly referenced, please feel free either to say so here or to make changes, in particular if there are still more recent sources that should be incorporated. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)