Talk:2016 Ansbach bombing

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (It is a developing story and is significant) Telfordbuck (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 00:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

What should Wikipedia do when it is the mosaic, not the tile, that is so notable?

The Ansbach Syrian refugee bombing, in which nobody but the terrorist was killed (instead of the dozens he would have killed had he made it into that venue) is what Germany apparently accepts as the new normal. Mere stabbings and axe murders have failed, recently, to make it onto American news either. By itself, each little tile in a mosaic is trivial. It is the picture that the tiles form which matters. Ansbach comes hard on the heels of massacres whose victims aren't even buried yet. It comes during the British debate over how quickly to start the Brexit process. What should Wiki policy be about events whose significance is their place in the larger mosaic?Profhum (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There should be a page called 2016 Germany Violence. You would include information that is already on Wikipedia (sometimes without its own article), and link to it, including (1) the February Hanover Station stabbing of a policeman by Safia S., a 15 year old who was asked to do it by the Islamic State; (2) the Würzburg train attack by the 17-y.o. child refugee from Afghanistan; (3) the 21-y.o. Syrian refugee who decapitated a pregnant woman and injured 5 others on 24.July, and (4) possibly the Ali S. attack (he was 18 years old) where 10 died and 25 were injured. Interestingly enough, there are an abundance of WP:RS that compare one event to at the very least one of the others, so clearly there is plenty of material to show these all are inter-related and deserve an overall Wikipedia article. XavierItzm (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Aye. This has become a "wave". Individual events caught up in it will attract more coverage than similar events outside of it, and all figure collectively into stories about the political, police and press reaction. Such reaction (which may become, if it isn't already, the most notable part) would fit more nicely into an article about the wave itself, rather than repeated through various articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Immigration and crime in Germany. I have boldly made a start at such an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• • Note, however, that attacks discussed as a group, may also be independently notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the educated responses. Wouldn't "Immigration and Crime in Germany" become gigantic, though? You'd have to include the epidemic of groping women on New Year's Eve. I don't know the answer to this. And what about the German-born boy of Iranian descent who I have seen described as a "classic case" of psychotic teenage homicide, like Columbine, Colorado? Would he really belong in a website about "immigration?" In NYC, the Son of Sam was an adopted child of Jewish parents, yes, but-- he thought a dog was controlling his mind. Nobody played up the ethnic connection after they discovered that. Well, damned if I know. And at least I'm not alone, saying that. Profhum (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• It wouldn't become gigantic. It's clearly not meant to cover every single incident in detail. Rather it needs to be about the general picture, compare with Immigration and crime in the United States. Individual incidents like the ones mentioned are indeed notable. Some of you are raising the standard far beyond WP:N. Attacks connected to terrorism, be it Islamic or right-wing, are almost generally notable, but they certainly are in the "Western world", where they remain uncommon. Other incidents that are covered nationally in WP:RS beyond a mere routine coverage are also individually notable, period. If the coverage of individually notable crimes in the U.S. is substandard, then we need to do something about that. However, the threshold of notability in the U.S. may be different, simply because the sheer quantity of U.S. incidents comparable to the Reutlingen machete attack leads to such incidents not being reported beyond routine coverage, only see Gun violence in the United States. --PanchoS (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

String of attacks sentence necessary?

Several IPs have been including a sentence like this (1) (2) in the lead:

"It was the fourth "violent" attack in Germany in one week, including a machete attack that killed a pregnant woman earlier in the day, an attack that killed nine people in Munich several days earlier, and an axe attack in Wuerzbuerg."

Is it necessary to include a sentence regarding the "string of attacks" that have happened in Germany over the past week? From skimming through 2016 Munich shooting and 2016 Würzburg train attack, no sentence regarding the string of attacks has been made (or stayed) in the respective articles. I also looked at the Orlando "string of events" (Shooting of Christina Grimmie, 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, and Walt Disney gator attack) and no sentence was mentioned in those articles either. Should a sentence like the one above be addressed in this article as a precedent? —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

All current reliable sources are discussing the string of attacks. Should we use reliable sources as a guide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.231.58 (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Why have you deleted "According to Reuters, it was the fourth "violent" attack in Germany"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.231.58 (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:INTEXT. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:INTEXT could be a valid reason when in the description of the event itself. Nonetheless, if a proper section is created such as "media reaction" or other some such, it would be perfectly legitimate to state that the media characterised the attach as the "fourth 'violent' attack in Germany within the week," or some such. XavierItzm (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Islamic terrorist incidents in 2016

Shouldn't the Category:Islamic terrorist incidents in 2016 be added? According to the newspaper Der Tagesspiegel the Bavarian Minister of the Interior said that it was "undoubtedly" [German: "unzweifelhaft"]" a "terrorist attack with Islamist inducement" [German: "Terroranschlag mit islamistischer Überzeugung"]. 91.4.77.124 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

In my day, an Islamic terrorist was one who used terror to further Islamism. You could buy the bombs from a Jew with money from a Hindu, and listen to Christian metal while you did the thing, so long as it clearly sent a message to the government that if it doesn't change in support of the Islamist cause, the thing will happen again. It was simple.

Now, there's a talk page section like this about every single Muslim who does any single scary thing, especially before anyone claims to know why they did it. It's all about gut feelings, and how many tidbits we can find that seem to line up with the last scary Muslim we read about in the news. By this standard, it's always whatever it's believed to be.

So, if you share Herrmann's personal view that a thing done in revenge for a past action (standing in the way of Islam) is the same as a thing done in support of future action (not standing in the way of Islam), then yes, it's Islamic terrorism. If you think it's something else (like, normal revenge), it's not Islamic terrorism. Just some angry guy going "I'll show them!". That's what I believe. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Joachim Herrmann, Interior Minister of Bavaria, is clearly an official, and his statement is in the article, so the cats are correct. --Gerry1214 (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

First suicide bombing in Germany

The statement of this incident being the "first suicide bombing in Germany" is disputed by different sources. Wikipedia article Terrorism in Germany says that there was a suicide bombing in 1980 in Munich, Germany (no article for it though, but perhaps an article should be made on that event). Wall Street Journal and other sources in English (WSJ) (Market Watch) says that that the "suicide blast represents the first such attack in Germany in recent memory." However, German newspaper (largest national newspaper) Süddeutsche Zeitung claims that this incident was the first suicide bombing in Germany (using Google Translate) (source). What should be done in this scenario? —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The 1980 thing wasn't meant to be suicide, buddy just screwed up. "Allegedly" InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If it has been investigated that it was an accident / not considered a suicide bombing, WSJ still claims it was the "country's first suicide bombing in years." Not sure if that's just false reporting or unclear reporting. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Germany's founding was technically "years" ago, so it doesn't technically sugggest there were others in the interim. Perhaps WSJ just wants some wiggle room in case another comes to light. Same deal with "in recent memory", I presume. They can always later say, "Oh yeah, forgot about that one." Doesn't make them liars. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It was the first suicide bombing. Unfortunately. Not just in recent history. --77.10.5.33 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

At this point, would it be useful to create a page for June 2016 Germany attacks - there are so many in one country in such a short period of time, I think it might be useful to put them all together so readers can sort them out and find which one they are looking for information on.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism in Germany is good enough. Plus, creating an article like that would make it seem like they were all related. The only loose connection is that the string of attacks extended criticism over Germany's policy of immigration. 02:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeoneNamedDerek (talk • contribs)

Also, this is July. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I always get those confused.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

March and May do it for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

New report: attackers had contact with suspected IS members

"Transcripts of chats obtained by German authorities indicate that the two men involved in attacks in the German cities of Ansbach and Würzburg had repeated contact with suspected members of Islamic State via telephone numbers registered in Saudi Arabia, among other places, SPIEGEL has learned. Würzburg perpetrator Riaz Khan Ahmadzai, who is believed to have originated from Afghanistan and seriously injured several people on a regional train with an axe and knife on July 18, also left a goodbye message before engaging in the attack. "We'll see each other in paradise," he wrote."

spiegel.de/international/germany/attackers-in-germany-had-contact-with-suspected-is-members-a-1106271.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.137 (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning the attack in Reutlingen doesn't make any sense

The guy killed his former girl friend. Of course, this is tragic, but people reading the article will think that it has to do with islamistic terror. You/We should delete that part or, at least, inform the readers that, at first, some people thought it might be an islamistic terror-attack, too, but later it was confirmed that it was not. 2003:6E:CD1B:8099:6574:13EE:4626:B837 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

References