Jump to content

Talk:2016 Munich shooting/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Move this page to 2016 Munich shootings

This is being called a rampage and has already spread to Stachus. It's more than one shooting. Munchen throwaway (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Polite request concerning protection

This is a fast moving, important article. Please give everyone a chance to contribute and don't unnecessarily SP without a very good reason. Namely, massive vandalism or major BLP or sourcing problems; 'Major' being the operative word. Work according to policy and don't SP just to exclude IP editing. Thanks. 141.6.11.25 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Twitter channel of the police of Munich

You can find the twitter channel of the Munich police at https://twitter.com/PolizeiMuenchen with some tweets in English (which can be used for references). -- Stephan Kulla (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Olympia-Einkaufszentrum

Olympia-Einkaufszentrum (OEZ) is the name that many sources show, so I think it should be visible, at least once in the beginning. It could then be called "the shopping mall" or OEZ (as the locals say). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of section

@Stephan Kulla: did you mean to remove the 'Open Doors' section with this edit? Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dat Guy: What do you mean by "removing the open door"? -- Stephan Kulla (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@Stephan Kulla: Next to what I believe you intended to remove, there was On Twitter, people used #OpenDoors to tell people needing shelter where they can go. <ref name="focus.de">{{cite web | url=http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/unuebersichtliche-lage-in-muenchen-polizei-menschen-sollen-oeffentliche-plaetze-meiden_id_5755263.html | title=Polizei: Menschen sollen öffentliche Plätze meiden | accessdate=July 22, 2016}}</ref>. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dat Guy: No, I didn't want to remove this. I only wanted to add a reference to a tweet at the Munich police... I'll add this sentence again. -- Stephan Kulla (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dat Guy: Done Thank's a lot for pointing me to this issue! -- Stephan Kulla (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed suicide claim not found in sources

I removed the part in Events which claimed gunman shot himself, as neither source mentioned this. This unverified claim was previously modified here, for what it's worth. -84user (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (edit to fix)

Pretty high-traffic editing here

In all of my history of being here, I have never seen so much editors and editing present in an article before. Just saying. Because I can barely keep up and dodge the edit conflicts. Parsley Man (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: I requested semi-protection in WP:RfPP due to addition of unsourced content by IPs, however this probably should be pending-changes protected. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Hopefully that'll cut down the traffic by just a little. Parsley Man (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you not read the comment above about protection?? Rapid editing is not a valid reason!! 31.52.165.204 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Did I claim it was for rapid editing? Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
No. But you do seem determined to get the article closed down. 31.52.165.204 (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Stachus site is not confirmed

Please remove the unconfirmed Stachus site report. The source itself says it is not confirmed. I removed this once, but it is now back in the article.

The source has this:

"Polizei München: Zweite Schauplätze nicht bestätigt"

"Nach den Attacken an einem Münchner Einkaufszentrum hat es nach Angaben der Polizei bislang keine weiteren Attentate in der Stadt gegeben. Gerüchte über andere Schauplätze hätten sich nicht bestätigt, sagte ein Sprecher der Polizei. Zuvor war es zu Panik am Stachus in der Innenstadt gekommen, was diese ausgelöst hatte, war nicht klar."

"nicht bestätigt" means "not confirmed". -84user (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have now removed the Stachus site claim. -84user (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

So many Twitter citations

Another thing I have never seen before in my time here: an abundance of citations from Twitter. Are those considered RS? Or are we overusing it? Parsley Man (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Overusing it. Twitter is unsourced garbage for the most part.141.6.11.22 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
They're being overused. Davidcarroll (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Any suggestions on how to handle this? Parsley Man (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Twitter is okay when it is about themselves, e.g. official Munich police twitter making a Munich police annoncement or a politician making their own statement about the attack. Everything else is problematic and generally not RS. Basically WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:SOCIALMEDIA. 80.62.116.63 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Remove citations sourced from Twitter except those noted above (police announcements and politician's statements). Davidcarroll (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Appeal to show an emergency message at the top of the article - regarding an upload

Can we please create an emergency message/link to the following pages at the top of the article please?

  • Special upload portal for media, by the Bavarian Police, which asks for "umgehend"/"immediate" upload of materials: ([1] (in German) / [2] (in English)).

As one of the largest websites in the world, I feel we are morally obliged to do so.

See revision in the main article (on the right-hand side).

We are not a Newspaper or gov't organ. I vote a firm "no!" 68.19.2.236 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 Not done - Instead, this info has been incorporated into the "Domestic" reactions section. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be resolved

Per Munchen Police. Just leaving it here, in case someone wants to add it - though I'd wait for more official confirmation (e.g. a non-Twitter statement) first. ansh666 23:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Using a Die Welt source. [3] -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

ISIS claims

I have seen a few reports of ISIS taking credit for this. Is there any credible reports yet about this?[4] The reports he was from Iran would mean he was shiite muslim and not sunni. ISIS is sunni muslim so this seems to fly in the face of the facts since ISIS kills Shiites. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering ISIL claims just about everything nowadays, it's not really useful (and anything more than just reporting it would be WP:SYNTH anyways), but it's probably worth a note in the Reactions section if it isn't there already - provided of course that there are reliable sources for it. And, it could be interesting and more noteworthy if they back down from the claim later. ansh666 00:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
If the video of him is genuine, he denied having any such affiliation. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Roughly one in ten Iranian citizens are Sunni, although that population is mostly Kurds and Turkmen who for the same reason would generally keep as far as they could from ISIS. However, we don't yet know this person's name, never mind whether he was at all religious. It would be notable if ISIS, possibly for the first time ever, admit that they were wrong or that they have flawed logic. '''tAD''' (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that the claims that ISIS has taken responsibility are credible. My guess is that someone saw a random twitter post made by an ISIS-supporter praising the attack. I have heard no claims that ISIS has reported on this on any of their official news outlets 85.252.59.238 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Photos/maps

 Done - Can someone please find a free (un-copyrighted) photo of the mcdonald's, because the mall is not where any of the shootings took place. --JJBers (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I can add a map. -Jrobb525
There's a photo on German wiki (used in German article for shooting). It just has to be transferred to commons and it's already listed for this. 80.62.116.63 (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the map and photos. I really appreciate it.--JJBers (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Moving

Why is this page being moved so much? D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The article should be "2016 Munich terrorist attacks" not too wordy, not to long.Mogomaniac (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Mogomaniac 20:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop edit warring the article title. Mogomaniac needs to be blocked. 65.125.21.164 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mogomaniac:, IP: the page has now been move protected - please discuss any more page moves (edit conflict) -- samtar talk or stalk 21:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. You don't see an article being named "[blank] terrorist attacks". Those kinds of titles only exist as redirect links as far as I have seen. Parsley Man (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree, if not already done, Mogomaniac you may wish to redirect 2016 Munich terrorist attacks here -- samtar talk or stalk 21:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Whatever the article should be renamed to, any move should be done in a calm manner with the approval of most of the editors. The recent flurry of moves bordered on disruption. As it happens my comment added to the Talk page versions appears to be lost, but it was just to point out that the article page appeared to have broken templates, and that I am giving up trying to verify abd correct the various claims. -84user (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Until there is proof that the gunman went on the spree shooting to further political goals, we should refrain from using the term terrorist. Look up the definition if you have any doubts. Amin wordie (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete this article

wait at least 1 day folks this is not a newspaper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.133.45 (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but more than 6 people are dead. D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 Not done - Covering fast moving news has always been what Wikipedia does. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, this isn't a newspaper, because a newspaper wouldn't have published this yet. This is an encyclopedia, but an internet one. It's supposed to be up to date as possible. As long as there are verifiable facts (which there are), there is no reason for this not to exist.107.147.214.139 (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Islamist terrorist attack

All current news sources reporting this was an Islamist terrorist attack......except Wikipedia. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.58 (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not the style in Wikipedia. Also, where is your source for such information? -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Very few news sources are reporting it was an Islamist terrorist attack, what with the attack taking place on the 5-year anniversary of the 2011 Norway attacks and the gunman being recorded ranting against foreigners and all. See the discussion here for more. ansh666 23:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Why? Because the german police has stated that there is "no indications of Islamic terror". Ofcourse many people will automaticly assume that something like this is an islamist attack, however we can't have that in a wikipedia-article simply based on speculations, therefore it will not be stated here unless it is confirmed. Most likely, this is not an islamist attack, based on the latest information from german police (and that's exactly why we shouldn't call it an islamist attack before we can confirm that it actually is) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.252.59.238 (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If someone can provide definite, reliable sources: Fine. However, the problem is that currently no major German news source has a definite statement on what is (or is not) the motive, and a fast check of major UK/US are the same. Several include indications in their articles, but they're conflicting: McDonald attacker screamed Allahu Akbar (so Jihadism?), gunman on roof apparently screamed "I'm German" (so home-grown Jihadist or far right racism?) and in the recording gunman reportedly sounded "off" (so psychiatric patient?). Conflicting to say the least! The German authorities, very shortly after the shooting, stated that they did not have evidence that it was Jihadism (or whatever you want to call it), but they did not say they had evidence of anything else either. They've made no clear statements since, except that they have urged people not to speculate. Until sources start providing more definite info on the motive we're basically guessing and are better off keeping it out. Additionally, the speculative early info is rather WP:NOTNEWS. 80.62.116.63 (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
German police just announced he was an Iranian living in Munich since 2 years. Of course he could have non-religious motives but in connection with witnesses reporting his shouting that seems unlikely.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
: I agree with statements that there is no reliable sources on what is or is not the motive. Regarding the shouting, eyewitness accounts should be avoided in breaking news to prevent spread of unreliable information as per On The Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook and WP:RS Davidcarroll (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
press conference update: perpetrator had dual, German and Iranian citizenship. Not "a German of Iranian descent"!--93.130.193.246 (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
BBC: "The suspect was an 18-year-old Iranian who lived in Munich, police told a news conference, but his motive is unclear."[5] --93.130.193.246 (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
First line of the article you linked: "The suspect was an 18-year-old German-Iranian dual national who lived in Munich, police told a news conference, but his motive is unclear." EvergreenFir (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Guess what? They have updated the article. Stuff like that happens. --93.130.193.246 (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, protection please

Articles concerning civilian attacks should generally be classed as protected from the get-go... They always attract vandalism (sadly), and hence should only be editable by registered users. The downside is that it would hurt Wikipedia's open spirit. But I think everyone is with me on the fact that vandalism on such articles is still just unethical. Im with Parsley Man on this one... Algb12 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not with you on this, and neither is WP policy. 141.6.11.24 (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Duh, Anonymous, so you say that WP policy advocates vandalism? I asked whether everyone is with me rhetorically on the fact that it is unethical to vandalise historically significant articles, such as civilian attacks. If you disagree, the so be it. Algb12 (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I think anon was referring to your previous statement. From what I've seen, the anons have been very constructive in this article. More problems have been caused by registered users. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
No you didn't. You suggested that everyone is with you on the notion that articles such as these should only be edited by registered users. Everyone is not with you on that suggestion. 141.6.11.22 (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Must agree with algb12 here, as "this" refers to the part after the colon... I've edited it to be the way he intended it to be. 109.45.0.140 (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Changing title

The title of the article is '2016 munich attacks'. This is probably because of the recent terrorist attacka in europe. But latest reports are saying that it's not likely islamic terrorism and there seems to be only 1 gunman that commited suicide. So it seems to me just one deranged gunman or multiple gunmen. So can't we chang the title to '2016 munich shootings' instead? JBergsma1 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

There is not yet an official government statement on how many or who the murder(s) are. 68.19.2.236 (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
When all that title-moving madness was happening, I tried to move the article back to the original title of "2016 Munich shootings", but apparently, that wasn't possible, so I had to settle for something similar. But I understand that this doesn't sound like a traditional terrorist attack anymore. Parsley Man (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand but this seems to be just shootings. Not attacks like in paris with suicide belts and a hostage crisis. So to call the article '2016 munich shootings' is more close to the event itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBergsma1 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess we just have to wait for police response. Then we'll change the title. JBergsma1 (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC) JBergsma1 (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's the other way around. Until the police or WP:RS refer to the incident as a (terror) attack, the title has to be reverted to 2016 Munich shootings. Also, while the plural is okay for "shootings", it is not for "attacks", as the latter suggests at least two separate attacks, which doesn't seem to be the case. --PanchoS (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
If that change is going to happen, you might have to refer to WP:RM. I tried to move the article back to that title when it was first moved, and it didn't work. Parsley Man (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done - moved to 2016 Munich shootings - Fuzheado | Talk 22:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! God, that title-move madness was a pain. Parsley Man (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Fuzheado! JBergsma1 (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Good question. From what I can gather from this article, it seems there are two separate crime scenes, so "shootings" would be more appropriate. You could say the same for the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers article, but I would argue that all of the shooting took place in one general area: El Centro College, both inside the campus and immediately outside. Parsley Man (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the plural title was used because there seemed to be several shooters and/or shooting spots at the time it was moved, but as the investigation progresses and the events become more clear, we can decide on whether to keep it or move it back. ansh666 00:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
With the clearer picture now, I think the case can indeed be made to move it to the singular "shooting," but I'm happy to hear other views. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm in no rush but it's something to consider as things become clearer. It seems that the past few events like this have evolved from multiple shooters to a single shooter. Not sure if that's the case here. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Parsley Man and Ansh666: Any opinion changes since the few hours have passed? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Definitely looks like there's only one shooting scene now. Looks like the German media may have initially thought it was coordinated attacks by ISIS followers and ran with it. Parsley Man (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I know I didn't make it clear, but I've supported singular "shooting" since the beginning; like Dallas, I figured that the multiple shooter thing was just fog of war. ansh666 04:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by David Levy. PC78 (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


2016 Munich shootings → 2016 Munich shooting – Despite earlier reports and given more complete information on the events, it appears there was only one shooting by one person. There appears to be consensus for the move in the discussion above this request. Since the page is move-protected, I am making a request that an administrator move the page to the new title with a singular "shooting". Thank you EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Where is the motive?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

He was born in Iran. Was he also a Muslim from the religion of peace? Funny how Wikipedia is following the agenda of German media and government by withholding his motive. They initially blamed the shooting on white Germans too. So very shameful. I hope nobody here subscribes to the spin of nonsense. But anyway, some basic motives needs to be put up, is it safe to call this terrorism yet or do we have to wait a few more hours? 75.82.57.182 (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It's still early days. Allow me to quote the third sentence of the BBC's lead article: "No motive for the German-Iranian man's actions has yet been established". In that case, let's not put up any old nonsense. Let's wait for a motive to be established and reported. Until then, as far as we're concerned, it's unknown. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
according to German media former classmates and neighbours said the shooter was bullied during his time in school. The shooter also claimed to have been bullied for the last seven years. No islamic terror. Vicente2782 (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Again with the conspiracy theory that Wikipedia is intentionally suppressing info. You know, we're not going to say it is until reliable sources confirm it (in which case, it has not yet). You can keep your theories to yourself until investigators actually confirm this. I'm very tired of this crap. Parsley Man (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm just watching the press conference of the Munich Police Department. The motive is bullying. Islamist terrorism ruled out. Vicente2782 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The degree of brainwashing of the German society by the government-controlled media has clearly surpassed the levels of the Goebbels era. 212.79.110.9 (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm reading more into the talk section, but I came here and blasted this question quickly because the main article was so poor and clearly lacking a motive. But anyway, typically it takes only few sources and very little time to have a motive up. It seems the German government is trying to manipulate information here, but we as editors can follow our own guidelines, some common sense should apply here. 75.82.57.182 (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
This is not a conspiracy theory forum. Parsley Man (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Who's making conspiracies? It is well known the German government does this. Are you perhaps upset at something? Sorry but I am going to keep remind editors to use some caution in determining what is a reliable source here. Please don't be offended by this. Thank you. 75.82.57.182 (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, well, too bad. We're not going to abide by the mere concerns of a single editor and share unreliable information that can only be supported by one eyewitness or whatever the fuck else is wrong with it. I know you want this to be an Islamic terrorist attack now, but we're going to wait until officials involved with the investigation say it is. And if they're not going to say it because the German government's covering it up, well then too flipping bad, because Wikipedia is a flock of clueless sheep that don't know any better! And don't whine and complain about the article being "poor and clearly lacking a motive". We can wait years for a motive to finally be available to us, so keep your knackers in a bunch. If you're really not comfortable with any of this, you really shouldn't be here. Simple as that. Go to the appropriate forums if you want to vent about how Islam is such an oh-so-peaceful religion. But not here. I for one am sick and tired of people like you thinking that Wikipedia is outside of the realm of the New World Order/whatever conspiracy crud and can share unconfirmed/baseless information and conspiracy theories like they're the truth. Because it's not.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a conspiracy theory forum. Written by freaking clueless sheep! :D *sarcasm* Parsley Man (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record German authorities did try to cover up and tried to suppress information about Cologne attacks, it was widely reported later in the mainstream press(see The Independent here for example [6]. As to here, we will see, the attempts to link this to far right by some offficials seem dubious based on evidence. We will see.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The (((German media))) has already told us. He was an Iranian neo-nazi white supremacist who hated Turks because they are foreigners. Makes perfect sense. He also wore combat boots, which of course, only neo-nazis wear.[1] There you have it, case closed. --Ritsaiph (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The IP who started this section is now blocked; they apparently liked making derogatory and sarcastic comments on Islam on various talk pages. Drmies (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.thelocal.de/20160722/shots-fores-at-munich-shopping-centre

Ali Sonboly

Some people on Twitter have known that it was Ali Sonboly for 15 hours. For more than an hour, the name of the attacker has been officially revealed by the German police. For some reason, this Wikipedia page likes to obfuscate this point? Could someone please edit the page and add all the basic information that is missing, and remove the utterly absurd claims such as the claim that the motive is unclear? 212.79.110.9 (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done - the name is already in the infobox and in the Perpetrator section. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Perpetrator

Was he an immigrant from Iran who was a naturalised German citizen - or was he born in Germany to Iranian parents? Jim Michael (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Really not sure. The wording of both sentences that mention his German-Iranian citizenship conflict and seem to point one way or the other. Parsley Man (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
His parents were born in Iran and moved to Germany in the 1990s. The shooter was born in Munich. Vicente2782 (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? Parsley Man (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The article says that he lived in Munich for the last two years of his life, so it seems he moved to Munich when he was 16. Did he previously live elsewhere in Germany, or did he move to Germany from Iran two years ago? Jim Michael (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
These three sources, all say he was born and raised in Munich:
The suspect was also reported to have literally yelled "I am German" and "I was born here" (1st and 3rd reference). Dragons flight (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
We need a better source than the ranting of someone who murders children, as such people are not well known for mental competence '''tAD''' (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Which is why I gave three news sources? That he apparently claimed to be German is just an additional piece of context. Dragons flight (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless things have changed, someone must reside in the country at least 8 years to obtain citizenship in Germany. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism or mass shooting?

@62.194.114.208 and 117.192.173.8: According to the Telegraph, it is considered terrorism. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I would agree; this definitely bears the hallmarks of a terrorist attack. Islamist or German nationalist, however, I don't know about. Parsley Man (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
By definition (see wiktionary), a terrorist is violent to further his or her political goals. Not every spree shooting qualifies as terrorism. I agree with Lord Gøn, let's refrain from using the term. Amin wordie (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
wtf are you doing? 117.192.173.8 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe what happened there is that he reverted an edit and accidentally restored a bad version. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
That was indeed the case. My bad. Parsley Man (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I would refrain from labelling the shooting a terrorist attack until there is more information. Actually, after watching these videos I come away with the impression that it was the act of a single person that has no affiliations to either islamist, or right-wing groups, and that person appears to be dead. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC))
Not sure if this was shot down, but it seems there are three attackers on the loose. Parsley Man (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
It happens frequently that witnesses of a mass shooting describe multiple gunmen, even though in the end it proves to be the act of a single person. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC))

It is a terrorist attack, because it was made to kill civilians and to spread terror. Killing random civilians can't be anything other than a terrorist attack. 107.147.214.139 (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

We need RS to say it's terrorism. It might take a few days for investigators to definitely say one way or the other. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
So I guess we have to call mass shootings like Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook examples of terrorist attacks, right? Yeah, I doubt that's going to happen. I agree with EvergreenFir; we need RS to confirm that. In spite of the gunman's nationality, this looks like an isolated act of violence for the most part. I guess the bigger question is this: if a gunman's nationality is Middle Eastern and he goes on a rampage without any clear indication of Islamic fundamentalism as the motive, should we call it an example of Islamic terrorism? Obvious answer is obvious. Parsley Man (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the first sentence of the respective article here on Wikipedia describes in a very concise way what terrorism is and when the term is applicable. Terrorism is always a means to a greater end, so random mass shootings by single perpetrators with no ideological background, and not acting on behalf of a larger group cannot be labelled as such, because there is no beneficiary besides the perpetrator himself. If "killing civilians" and "spreading terror" were enough to consider something an act of terror then any man threatening and taking the lives of his relatives for personal reasons would also be a terrorist. (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC))

"Shooter"

I keep changing "shooter" to "gunman/men", Surely the latter is better? "Shooter" is un-encyclopedic, slang almost. 141.6.11.22 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how either terms differ encyclopedic-wise... Parsley Man (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I think gunman is more often used by officials, as it is more formal. Amin wordie (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Really don't see a significant difference between the two... EvergreenFir (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
"Shooter" sounds like gamespeak or copspeak to me. It is not encyclopedic in tone. It is slangy. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Shooter is more US, not sure which EngVar the article uses.Pincrete (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I noticed it earlier, and just changed another. I agree with the last but one comment. It's gamespeak, or what you'd expect in a low-end newspaper like the Sun (in the UK). 31.52.165.204 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere says no visible connection to Brevik

Says it is too early to claim any possible connection[7]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide an English- or German-language source? Nykterinos (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

'German-Iranian'

...an 18-year-old German-Iranian of dual nationality.

German Wiki:
Nach Polizeiangaben wurde der 18-jährige Täter in München geboren und war dort aufgewachsen. Er hatte sowohl die deutsche als auch die iranische Staatsbürgerschaft. Seine Familie lebt seit den 1990er-Jahren in Deutschland. <R name="SZ-Was-über">sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/mutmasslicher-taeter-von-muenchen-was-ueber-den-schuetzen-bekannt-ist-1.3091964 "Was über den Schützen bekannt ist". Süddeutsche Zeitung (in German). 2016-07-23. Retrieved 2016-07-23. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |day=, |month=, and |deadurl= (help)</R>
– He was born and grew up in Germany. I would think this makes him a German of Iranian descent, even though he was legally a dual national. Some German media reports said he shouted (in German), "I am German!" Sca (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The objective facts seems to be that he was born in Germany, was raised there, and at the time of his death held citizenship in both Germany and Iran. That's how I would suggest describing the situation. Beyond that, I would probably stay away from fuzzy descriptions like "German of Iranian descent" which may emphasize one nationality over the other. Keep in mind that under German law he probably was considered an Iranian at birth, since Germany doesn't allow birthright citizenship (in most cases) for the children of non-citizens. So he probably didn't become a German citizen until his parents were naturalized (whenever that was). Dragons flight (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, how about "an 18-year-old of dual German-Iranian nationality," then?

Terrorist attack in Munich, "Allahu Akbar" and "bloody foreigners"

There seems to be an edit war about the gunman having shouted "Allahu Akbar". I think that is relevant since it can go to establish a motive. However, there are other news article that report that at least one witness heard him shout "Bloody foreigners". If that first piece of information is included in the main article, then this second piece of information should also be included. See for example: Washingto Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/munich-police-hunt-for-a-motive-after-iranian-german-gunman-kills-nine-in-rampage/2016/07/23/5e3058d6-5055-11e6-bf27-405106836f96_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_munich-1pm-duplicate%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

My personal preference is to include neither of these until more facts are discovered about possible motivations behind the attack.73.45.181.173 (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Why no one has mentioned in wikipedia that he shouted "Allahu Akbar" ? This was a terrorist attack in Munich. --Rudolph Davis (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It is too soon to confirm this information yet. It was from one witness but there is no information on whatever it was confirmed by others. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Because there are conflicting reports from witnesses about the things the perpetrator was saying. As of now, only one witness hiding in a bathroom is reported to have heard that. We won't add something like that before the german authorities can confirm who this guy was and what his motives were. 85.252.59.238 (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It was confirmed by multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia is simply biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.231.175 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
If you have a source which shows other witnesses reporting the same or confirmation by authorities, please post them. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Posted multiple times and deleted multiple times. Please don't play games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.231.175 (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
What games? Just quote me the relevant part. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Post your sources on the talk page, please. ansh666 03:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
You and others are playing games. It was broadcast around the world by CNN six hours ago. Everyone has seen it multiple times. But Wikipedia denies it ever happened.[8][9][10][11]. And dozens more. Keep denying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.230.8 (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

They're all the same single witness, please watch carefully those videos. Thing is how you do reconcile this with this [12]. A recorded video of him, in which the gunman gives as sole motives, his bullying! It just is too soon. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree this is not a case of multiple source confirming what the shooter said but several CNN segments reairing what a single source, one witness, recalls.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
A second witness is not necessary to include something on wikipedia; there are no wiki policies that say that. We do have WP:NOTCENSORED. However, what definitely does matter is reliability. I can say that I think she sounds reliable (as I do, having heard her description; incidentally she's a Muslim herself), but that is completely irrelevant. To verify a level of reliability it is reasonable to require a level of general acceptance, preferably from several high WP:RS sources and not just quoting each other (i.e. they actually spoke to her and found her reliable). Alternatively acceptance from an official source, e.g. police, would do. Additionally, its relevance needs to be established. If he turns out to simply be a psychiatric patient with no evidence that the attack was Jihadism the screaming becomes irrelevant. 80.62.116.63 (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
eyewitness accounts should be avoided in breaking news to prevent spread of unreliable information as per On The Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook and WP:RS. This should not be included until a more reliable source states this as fact. In WP:RS, all breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS.Davidcarroll (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Dude, he was a terrorist. It's safe to say this. I would also ask everyone to keep WP:NOTCENSORED in mind. It may be possible the German government wishes to sensor or manipulate this incident for their own purpose. Please let this be considered when determining the reliability of sources. 75.82.57.182 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
A policy from WP:RS, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements. Davidcarroll (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. Looks like there is a double standard ....
2016 Munich shooting ... "Eye witnesses on breaking news cannot be accounted per talk" — diff, diff.
  • Interview with eyewitness: CNN News.
  • The Guardian: "CNN spoke to a woman, named only as a Loretta, who said she witnessed the shooting as she hid in a shop next door to the McDonald’s. She also said the man yelled: ‘Allahu Akbar’. She said she recognised this phrase as she herself is Muslim from Kosovo, according to CNN."
2016 Nice attack ... "Not a valid reason for removal." — diff, diff, diff. See also Talk:2016 Nice attack/Victims' religions and details. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It is not too much work to describe yellings by the attacker, even if they are contradictory. If we have a reliable source for those yellings, readers should not be taken for fools, as they can form an opinion themselves. (I added this statement above in an older discussion, but it might have been overlooked).--Gerry1214 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Gerry1214. Eyewitness accounts should be avoided in breaking news to prevent spread of unreliable information as per On The Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook and WP:RS and because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. Regarding your edit summary, no-one disputes the reliability of the source (CNN), the reliability of a single eye-witness is disputed. Please wait until it is confirmed or denied before stating an eye-witness claim in the article. Davidcarroll (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think the Breaking News phase is over, so this is not an issue of NOTNEWS. It would be misleading to deny those reports, because that would give the impression, everything is clear and fine, which can simply not be the case right now. To the opposite, it is imperative to mention different and contradictory reception by different people, as long as it is provided by reliable sources, which is the case here.--Gerry1214 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I urge people to stick to actual wiki policies. There are no policies saying we should avoid eyewitnesses. Not in WP:RS or anywhere else. None. The Breaking News Consumer's Handbook is not a wiki policy and is, as explicitly stated in RS, only linked for suggestions. Regardless, the Handbook does not say that eyewitnesses should be avoided either. Quite the contrary: It actually suggest seeking out eyewitness reports and this is repeated in RS (RS qoute: "The Breaking News Consumer's Handbook contains suggestions to avoid unreliable information, such as... seeking eyewitness reports"). However, the Handbook notes that eyewinesses should be carefully asked if they actually saw it and were present (i.e. not second-hand info). If you heard the CNN interview you'll know that this is exactly what they did. For reasons mentioned in my previous post I still think the claim could use further source to match RS, but strongly urge people to stick with actual wiki policy. 80.62.116.63 (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's just one eyewitness we'd need attribute the statement to that person. From what I gather, the media are not calling this am Islamist terrorist attack, only quoting that person. We can't say it in Wikipedia's voice then. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Typography

Why is the name of the man identified as the shooter, Ali David Sonboly, in boldface? Some readers may be scanning the article to find the perpetrator's name, but there's no expository or style reason to boldface it in the article text. Sca (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:R#PLA apparently allows (but does not require) bold text to be used in a section when the section is the landing for a redirect, in this case for the redirect from Ali David Sonboly. Personally, I think such bolding can be unnecessarily distracting (especially in the middle of paragraphs) and gets overused. I'd be in favor of removing it. Dragons flight (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It's a departure from normal encyclopedic and journalistic style – although some tabloid/supermarket papers might be expected to use it (along with larger type, colors, etc.). To me it smacks of an editorial comment on the villainy of the perpetrator. Just the facts, please. Sca (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)I
I have removed the bold.Pincrete (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Zzuuzz also removed it previously. Not sure who put it back in. Dragons flight (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Quick check on three other articles. Bolding first use of a name (or aka) in a lede is common; continuing to bold name in article text is not. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't we always bold names or terms that redirect? The Nice article had it. What's the problem? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said, it's allowed, but not required. To pick on London for a moment, there have been five notable 21st century terror attacks in London:
As one can see, there isn't a particular standard that requires us to bold his name. It is something we can choose to do. Personally, I don't really think it is necessary to bold such names. However, if we are going to bold his name, I certainly agree with placing his name at the start of the section rather than in the middle of a paragraph as it was originally. Bolded names in the middle of paragraphs look kind of ridiculous. Dragons flight (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Last news from Munich Police department

The gunmen shot himself when he was addressed by policemen. [13], translation:

1284. Shooting in Munich

During the ongoing investigations on reconstructing the course of events, today also many of the engaged police officers where interviewed on ther individual operations during the manhunt. This yielded additional information on the situation of finding the delinquent.

According to this, around 20:30 o'clock a patrol of Munich police had contact to the alledged delinquent in the north of the Olympia shopping mall. In reaction to being addressed by the officers he suddenly drew his gun, held it to his head and shot himself.

... --PM3 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking Forward: is there a taxonomy for mass killers in professional use that we could adopt?

Is anyone aware, from their reading, of a taxonomy of mass killers being developed by law enforcement? I'm not saying we should do original research. I'm saying, is there a classification system in use that we could quote, in good Wikipedia fashion. At the moment we keep having to invent a nomenclature, which is NOT what Wikipedia is supposed to do. "Iranian-German?" "German of Iranian descent?" "Isis inspired?" Surely there's some system out there? The Son of Sam, who believed a dog was controlling his mind, is different from the Columbine killers. They in turn are very different from the Unabomber or George Metetsky, the midcentury "Mad Bomber." None of them seem like the Boston Marathon massacre killers-- who in turn aren't like Mohammed Atta or the trained airplane hijackers on 9/11. Even to agree beforehand to separate the adult personal grudge killers from the religious and political killers would clarify things. (At the moment, the Munich shooter is looking more and more like a Columbine case.) But inventing a system isn't our job. I'm asking is there a taxonomy out there that law enforcement uses? There must be. Profhum (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I added a link to Turks in Germany and it was reverted as irrelevant. It was the closest I could find to give context to this anti-Turkish sentiment in Germany; there is also an article on Racism in Germany, which I considered. Our readers may wonder why the perpetrator, of Iranian descent, was subject to anti-Turkish words. It is useful to have a link that explains that Turks are (at least until the most recent wave of refugees) the largest minority in Germany. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Psychiatric disorders

The depression thing may have been a misinformation. The police said that it was an unconfirmed information by one source, and meanwhile the Süddeutsche Zeitung says that it was not depression but Social anxiety disorder and Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. [14] --PM3 (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Depression was repeated today in the police PK, should be ok. --PM3 (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"Most of the nine victims were lured by the gunman."

Apparently not.

Opfer waren vermutlich zufällig

Nach Angaben der Ermittler hat Ali S. seine Opfer nicht gezielt ausgesucht. Dass mehrere Jugendliche mit Migrationshintergrund zu den Todesopfern gehören, bewertet die Polizei als Zufall. Die McDonald's-Filiale am Einkaufszentrum werde oft von Migrantenkindern besucht, sagte LKA-Präsident Heimberger.

Mit einem Fake-Account bei Facebook habe der Täter angekündigt, dass er bei McDonald's eine Runde spendieren werde. "Das war wohl der Versuch, Personen dorthin einzuladen", sagte Heimberger. Nach bisherigen Ermittlungen gehörten die Menschen, zu denen der Täter auf Facebook Kontakt hatte, nicht zu denen, die er später tötete.

--

I don't remember a single article where "Most of the nine victims were lured by the gunman" was stated as a fact. This was a speculation, nothing more.

--Marcus Schätzle (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Btw. What the user extracted from the article is, that the police said, the victims were random at that they don't think he attacked foreigners on purpose. Usually, there are mostly foreigner or Germans of foreign descent in this McDonald's branch. Moreover, the victims were not lured there by the FB account according to the current research of the police. --Christian140 (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I've removed that claim from the lead. Nykterinos (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Single or multiple locations

The lead says the shooting was in multiple locations, but the body of the article says it was in the McDonald's and that he killed himself in the mall. I can't read all the sources (can't read German) but it seems like the latter is correct (?). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The shooting was inside the McDonalds, outside of the McDonalds and then inside the shopping mall. The man then killed himself north of the shopping mall, see the section below. --PM3 (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Were people shot in the mall? From what I can tell, they weren't. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, the lead says most were killed in the mall but the body says most were in the McDonalds. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The Munich Police, who until Saturday was the only authoritative source on the case (today the BKA takes over), published all of its press material online, at Twitter, Facebook and homepage. In this material, I did not see any information on the local distribution of victims or injured. --PM3 (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
"Fünf Tote wurden vor einem Schnellrestaurant gefunden, zwei weitere vor und ein Toter im Einkaufszentrum. Vor einem Elektrogeschäft wurde ein weiterer Toter gefunden." [15]
Five victims were found inside a fast food restaurant; two in front of and one in side a shopping mall. Another victim was found in front of an electric shop.
--PM3 (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@PM3: Thank you for the clarification. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Shiitic Ali David Sonboly : victims most were members of Sunni Islam

Ali David Sonboly was member of shia islam. Most of victims, which died in Munich, were members of sunni islam. 88.71.49.131 (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Source needed. Also given that the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni, this is not exactly surprising. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Pistol

Glock 17 (2nd generation)

Süddeutsche and Spiegel say Sonboly's weapon was a "reactivated" Glock 17 that had been used as a theater prop, and that he apparently obtained it on the darknet. Spiegel:

Die Tatwaffe war nach Angaben der Ermittler eine reaktivierte Theaterwaffe. ... Der 18-Jährige verschaffte sich die Glock 17 offenbar im Darknet.

Sca (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It is known that he tried to obtain a weapon via darknet, while the source of the Glock 17 it still unknown. May have been from darknet or not. --PM3 (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hence the qualifier "apparently" (offenbar). However, Guardian now says flatly that Sonboly was "was able to buy a handgun on the dark web," attributing that to investigators.
In some form, this element really should be added, with proper cites, to the perpetrator section. (I started out to do that but thought I should run it by here first.) Right now the only mention of the weapon is in the info box, which seems quite strange without corresponding elucidation in the text. Sca (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done – Sca (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Anti-depressant medication

Is there any sources on whether or not he was on such medication? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There are sources that medication was found in his flat. [16]
"In der Wohnung habe man ärztliche Behandlungsunterlagen gefunden, die auf eine Angststörung und Depressionen hindeuteten. Er habe sich sowohl in stationärer als auch ambulanter Behandlung befunden. Zudem habe man Medikamente gefunden."
In the flat medical treatment documents were found, that point to an anxiety disorder an depression. He had been in both stationary and ambulant treatment. Also, medication was found.
--PM3 (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Is Medikamente plural ⇒ medications? Sca (talk)

27 injuries, 4 by gunfire

That makes no sense unless they was some sort of stampede, right? This is the source. It just doesn't make sense. Are there other sources that can shed some light? Does Sky News have its facts right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Anschlag in München: Pressekonferenz von Polizei und Staatsanwaltschaft am 23.07.2016 from 2 minutes 30 seconds has Munich police president Hubertus Andrae stating 27 injured with four due to gunfire. He says included in the injured are those due to panic in other areas (at three minutes). -84user (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi 84user. Then perhaps that ought to be included in the article, or at least we should add "...it is unclear how many of the non-gunshot injuries were sustained...". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Munich_shooting/Archive_1&oldid=1073159572"