# Talk:Zug massacre

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)

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

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)

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)

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)
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)
Has that been mentioned in any massacre-related sources? il5v (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
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)

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)

@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)

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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)