Talk:2016 Munich knife attack

Name

Perhaps this should be renamed 2016 Munich knife attack? Also, seems a bit excessive to have an entire article dedicated over the actions of some mentally ill and drug addicted person, could be added to the terrorist attacks list instead... Just my two cents. Dynamo128 (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability

I have tagged/prodded the article as I do not believe that this is anymore than WP:NOTNEWS. People are shot/stabbed every day due to gang violence around the world, someone needs to show how this event is non WP:ROUTINE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I strongly oppose deletion. Widespread international coverage. So WP:GNG is definitely met.--Gerry1214 (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Under WP:GNG "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Widespread coverage does not equal notability as there is no indication that this is not a splash in the news event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

After all I saw and read about the case, I am quite sure that the case has and will generate enough media coverage to justify an article, because there are facts that are definitely not routine. A case in which an attacker shouts islamistic slogans without an islamistic background (so are the facts right now) is something I haven't seen before.--Gerry1214 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The subject is notable enough and warrants a separate article. I removed the tag. --Mhhossein (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no proven link to terrorism though, the guy is a nutcase. I will hold off for now, but when all is said and done if nothing comes out of this event then it should at the least be merged into a list article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

But this isn't gang violence, this is attacking strangers at random on a train in the morning. That's nothing like two armed adversaries pulling out a gun in a back alley and one inevitably dies. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this incident may not meet notability; I've checked it against WP:EVENT (the guidelines of which are in italics below), and here's what I found:

Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.

It's too soon to tell if this event will have historical significance or a lasting effect, as it happened earlier today.

Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards.

While we seem to have sufficient national and international coverage, it's hard to tell whether this event will have a lasting impact. Again, it's too soon. (See below for more details.)

Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.

Those descriptions are:

An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.

Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.

I may sound like a broken record, but it's still too soon to know if these criteria are met; we must wait for new developments before we make a decision.

Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

Now we're getting somewhere! This event does seem to be a "routine event", as stabbings are relatively common throughout the world; thus, the coverage it's been getting cannot be taken to mean general notability. That means we need "something further" to prove notability; something that we don't have at the present.

In conclusion, I believe it's best to wait a bit before making a decision, because that's the only way we'll know if this article meets all of the above guidelines. However, it seems to me that this article is just an overreaction to a current event. Let's just remember two more little pieces of advice from WP:EVENT:

Don't rush to create articles.

Don't rush to delete articles.

Farewell. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 18:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree at this point that it is best to wait to see what happens. I have seen events though look like an apple at first glance only to really be an orange later on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I really do feel like this might not be notable enough to warrant an article, but I agree that we should wait and see what comes out of the investigation before making a clear, final judgment. Parsley Man (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Criminal responsibility and mental illness

It is, of course, perfectly possible to be both mentally disturbed and motivated by a politically ideology to act violently. Note that the insanity defense is rarely effective in murder trials, and that judges in first world countries regularly hold the mentally unstable to be criminally liable for their actions. Incompetence is a very high legal standard for a defense attorney to meet in cases of this sort.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

There still needs to be something that stands out for this event, if this trial dragged on then yes it would become notable over time. All we have now though is a splash in the news media. No proven links to terrorism, no evidence to support that this was motivated by a political ideology. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

lone wolf terrorism, which includes most/many attacks in Europe, is not a matter of "proven links to terrorism", but, rather, of individuals, including mentally impaired individuals, who act on ideas to which they have been exposed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a mention of "lone wolf terrorism" in sources for this event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

On the assumption that you are not being disingenuous, one way to proceed when you want to know what sources are saying is to google news on Munich + stabbing + "lone wolf" [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to interrupt this nice exchange between you two, but all of those results say either "possible" or "likely"; no one knows for sure. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 19:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

My point is that Knowledgekid87 is setting a false standard in implying that "proven links to terrorism" are necessary to establish notability. It is not; coverage is. Coverage has already been unusually intense because Germany has experienced so few such attacks, a point flogged in the papers I read today. This is NOT a case of routine news. In an event like this motive may never be crystal clear. Moreover, lone wolf terrorism is intrinsically hard to prove - they don't sign membership rolls, and it is not necessary to go online, let alone leave evidence of visiting Islamist sites, to be exposed to and influenced by jihadist ideas. We may or may not ever learn where the attacker picked up his ideas or what motivated him. But in this case the attacker has already confessed to shouting a jihadist sentiment (also attested by witnesses), "You unbelievers (infidels) must die!" As someone who frequently rides trains in Bavaria, I can state with absolute certainty that such expressions of Islamist sentiment are at all usual.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Calm down! First of all, "proven links to terrorism" are not required to establish notability for an event; you're right about that. However, we must have proof in any case before we put such claims into the article; find some reliable sources to back up your statements. Additionally, not all terrorist attacks are notable, so don't use that as your main reason for notability. Secondly, your assertion that this is not routine news may be contested; I believe it is, but we won't know who's right until enough time passes to allow us to assess the full scale and effect of the event, so let's not get angry. Remember: there is no deadline. And finally, don't start to accuse other users of wrongdoing, because proving someone else wrong doesn't prove you right; you're not helping anybody by doing that, and it can be taken as a personal attack. Ultimately, it is best to wait and see what happens before we make a decision, so let's try to keep calm here; right now, nobody is right, because the event can't be checked against the above guidelines yet. Thanks for understanding, and remember to assume good faith with other editors. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 19:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, nice to see such self-confidence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Now, now... no need to crack wise. ;) Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC) _{(Unless you were serious, in which case: oops.)}

AfD

Okay it has been a week now and I still do not see any notability that has come out of this event. Per WP:LASTING, and WP:ROUTINE I think this article should head off to AfD or merged/redirected into a list target. Are there any merge or redirect ideas from editors? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: Turning this article into a redirect will not impact the article's history, deletion should be a last option. Im sorry but I just don't see how this article is notable, yes it did get international coverage but we also have WP:GEOSCOPE which goes into WP:LASTING. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think the idea that militant groups can impel mentally disturbed persons to murder and mayhem merely by sending out compelling messages is very interesting, see new material in article comparing this to attacks in Sydney and Ottawa.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is pointing out that this event is part of a larger picture, it doesn't give notability this particular event though. It might be good to merge or redirect this to an article covering mental illness in relation to terrorism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we should let a little time go by. Rushing to redirect is not always wise.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

How much more time would be reasonable? If I were to put this up for AfD that would run a week, I had already let a week pass by so far. The pro is that an AfD would draw in new editors to take a look at the article's statue, the con is that it is AfD (last resort). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A few months. These things often look different after a few months.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I just want to point this out for you: [2]. Your hopes are acknowledged here, but how many of those articles on that page under the Notability unclear section do you think are as a result of editors saying wait a few months? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with E.M.Gregory. I see no reason for merging or deleting. There is widespread international coverage. Even if it is no terrorism at all, the event is excceptional, e.g. for the way how the perpetrator acted. And if the article can help to disprove any conspiracy theories, it is more than useful.--Gerry1214 (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

(page creator) Although I agree with Gerry1214 and E.M.Gregory, I should say that 'AFD' does not need a consensus to be started so I see the discussion pointless. Start an AFD if you think is needed, but remember that you'll probably just waste time and energy. --Mhhossein (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I do agree with E.M.Gregory on the fact that we should wait; however, a few months seems a bit of a stretch. I would recommend somewhere between three to six weeks from now, as, by that time, any gray areas will have been nicely filled in. Ultimately, however, I believe an AfD should be opened regardless of what we decide here. Whether it ends in "keep" or "delete", it will not be a "waste of time" (Mhhossein), as it would settle this notability issue through outside consensus, which is something we don't have now (there are only like four of us here, and, frankly, we all seem a bit biased in one direction or another). Let's let everyone who wants to have a say in this, in the true spirit of Wikipedia. It'll give us a result which is much better than anything which could be achieved in this same run-around discussion we're having now. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact is that AFD is overburdened - a great many articles have to be rolled over for 2 or 3 weeks until an overburdened editor finally has time to take an intelligent look at the sources. In some areas, such as the American presidential campaign and terror attacks, articles are brought to AFD and many editors weigh in, not infrequently in multiple AFDs, that read very like this discussion. See: January 2016 Paris police station attack. The reality is that some people view this sort of attack as notable, and see the news coverage as passing WP:GNG, others do not, and see the news coverage as inadequate. To me, one of the strongest reasons to keep this and similar articles, and to create them soon after the event, is that it is so much easier to create a good article in the weeks shortly after an event. It is far more time consuming to create an article on something like the 1996 Paris Métro bombing (which I recently created because I wanted to link to it) years later, and often requires access to news archives, academic articles, and academic books not readily available to most editors. And therefore we lack many articles (for example on the turn-of-the-century Anarchist terrorism attacks) that would be useful to have). WP:PRESERVEE.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You make a good argument, but I still feel that we could use some outside input into this discussion. If not an AfD, perhaps we could open up an RfC on this talk page at some point in the future, making a decision based on the results of the ensuing discussion. Now that we have most of the information we need to make a notability decision, it makes sense to get as much input as possible from as many people as possible. Yes, people will have different opinions, but that's an important part of making an informed and thought-out decision; it lets us take into account wide and varying viewpoints, and it raises new points that we may not have noticed. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 22:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have continued to expand the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Coverage continues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• An editor has removed the notability template. Correctly, in light of the renewed attention this attack is receiving in the wake of the 2016 Würzburg train attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

If enough sources are drawing comparisons between the two attacks, it may be enough to pass WP:EVENT ("events reanalyzed after the fact are likely to be notable"). I also see that someone has added Italian-language sources dated for July, though I haven't thoroughly checked them out yet. If they check out as reliable, they will negate WP:NOTNEWS, as about two months have passed since the event. Now isn't it a good thing we waited? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 01:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The Italian sources also deal with the similarities between the two attacks, and, being from La Repubblica, they seem reliable enough. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 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: No consensus. After eight days and multiple alternative suggestions, there is no consensus to move the article to another title. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Munich knife attack → 2016 Munich knife attack – Add year to the title. It's not the only knife attack in long Munich history. For example, from Munich massacre: ...slashed another with a fruit knife before being shot to death. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It should be renamed Grafing attack, because this didn't take place in Munich. Jim Michael (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• Move to 2016 Grafing knife attack, per Jim Michael. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 23:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
• Normally, I would say move, but note that the July 18, 2016 article on the BBC still refers to this attack as having happened "near Munich" and does not mention Grafing at all. I am ambivalent. XavierItzm (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Move to Grafing knife attack. While some sources may refer to the incident as having happened "near Munich", we're not some tabloid newsticker, so don't promote undisputedly wrong information that has been superseded by more correct information. --PanchoS (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely oppose move to Grafing knife attack. In English language reliable sources this is almost exclusively referred to as being a Munich attack.[3][4] That's how the public will understand it, and that's the WP:RECOGNIZEable title and the WP:COMMONNAME. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I agree with the original proposal though. Support move to 2016 Munich knife attack. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 28 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.

Terror connection

The investigation ruled out that this was a terror attack and just a mental ill person so I would remove all of the speculations at the beginning of this beeing a terror attack in the article and just state that this has been investigated but ruled out, including the mentioning of the conspiracy theory. Any objections? LucLeTruc (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

LucLeTruc: Was it a terror attack? Read your comment once again. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean? There have been speculations of this beeing a terror attack but this has been largely ruled out shortly after the incident. Much of the article is still about these speculations so I would propose to remove this. LucLeTruc (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

LucLeTruc: I see. Maybe we can trim those speculations and add the investigations result instead. Said that, we might have an 'Initial investigations' sections. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2018

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: not moved. Already relisted once and still no prospect of consensus to move. Andrewa (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Munich knife attack → 2016 Munich knife attack – 3 injured, one dead, but 18 months later: 2017 Munich knife attack, 8 more injured. Sickening but sadly we really need to set this into a guideline that we use year for common terror/crime incidents. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom and naming conventions. --Gonnym (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and Gonnym. In the interim following the 2016 RM above, this title has become even more obviously incomplete.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• I thought it was established at Talk:Manchester Arena bombing/Archive 5#Requested move 3 October 2017 that we don't include the year unless needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That was a world news making terror attck and hardly generic, wheras this is a title for something that happens every year. So you've got a local consensus there which bucks the normal trend. "city + knife" and "Manchester Arena" are not the same in titling precedent terms because all cities have knives, and have knife attacks regularly, sadly. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was about to closed this as moved, and then decided to check page views and found we don't even have an article on the 2017 incident, much less grounds to show that the 2016 one is not the primary topic. If we ever have an article on another Munich knife attack of commensurate notability, then we'll have reason to consider moving this one. But not until then, if it ever happens. @Crouch, Swale:, you are correct: for now, and perhaps forever, there is nothing to disambiguate here. @Gonnym: and @Roman Spinner: - were you aware of this? --В²C ☎ 16:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  Yes В²C if we get an article on the 2017 one, or that one is shown to be notable, then we can disambiguate. Given that its been nearly a year, I doubt that article will be created per WP:NOTNEWS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  I was, and there is no need for an article. You are mistaking disambiguation with precise. This knife attack article is specifically about a 2016 incident and not a 2017 one. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Conventions the year should be added. Not changing my vote. --Gonnym (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I likewise feel that unless Munich was the setting for only a single knife attack, the year of the specific attack should be part of this article's main title header.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's the only Munich knife attack sufficiently notable to have an article on WP. What's next? Moving September 11 attacks to 2001 September 11 attacks? Attack on Pearl Harbor to 1941 Attack on Pearl Harbor? Columbine High School massacre to 1999 Columbine High School massacre? --В²C ☎ 00:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The year is important for recognisability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. As Crouch, Swale says, this question is resolved. We don't include years unless they're required, which matches the policy of WP:CONCISE. Recognizability is the same either way, as someone who knows about the 2016 incident is not likely to see the title and think this refers to something else just because the year is omitted.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. No article? No notability. Unreal7 (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2018 (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.

Requested move 10 May 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to 2016 Munich knife attack. See general agreement below to keep "Munich" in this article title and to qualify it with the year, 2016. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  23:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Munich knife attack → Grafing knife attack – Didn't happen in Munich and "Munich knife attack" refers to different incidents. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• This has been discussed before, in fact I proposed the second RM in October 2018, which on re-reading consider an error, should have been to Grafing, hence resubmitting different proposal after 7 months. To go back to the pertinent sad fact: since Grafing was first proposed there has been 'another' knife attack, which really did happen in the city of Munich, which the Grafing one 31 km away did not. Searching "Munich knife attack" in news brings up this: Munich knife attack: Suspect sent to psychiatric hospital - The eight wounded were aged between 12 and 77 years old. It is believed that the suspect chose his victims at random in several locations around the city before he escaped by bicycle (2017) wheras the 2016 incident in Grafing is 1 dead, 3 injured in knife attack at German train station (2016). "Messer-Angreifer von Grafing" - likewise Reuters German police rule out terrorism in Munich knife attack refers to the 8 people attacked in Munich (2017) not the 3 in Grafing (2016). If it must remain at the wrong location then at least make it 2016 Munich knife attack. As for a potential argument "the 2017 Munich knife attacks don't have an article and therefore the 2017 Munich knife attacks don't exist", please note WP:CRITERIA, WP:RS, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Note: This RM was previously closed before being reviewed at move review. The prior close was:

  The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 21:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• The move review was closed as consensus to reopen the RM. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks to Danny for closing the MRV and relisting this. I'm opposing this move request because, although the attack was technically in Grafing, English reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to it as a Munich knife attack, presumably because they regard it as a distant suburb of the city. See, for example: [5][6][7][8] from around the time, and also [9][10] from more recent sources, still referring to it as related to Munich. Overall I get 19 results for "Grafing knife attack" so that's definitely not a name in widespread use. If others aren't referring to it by this name then it's not our place to do so. I'm neutral whether to include the year, given that we currently don't have any article covering other knife attacks in Munich. But since the recent trend is towards including a year in events, even when we have no other article (e.g. here) contrary to my !vote in the previous RM, I wouldn't be opposed to a move to 2016 Munich knife attack. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I did the following two google searches and got the corresponding hit counts:
  • "paul h" +knife +attack +munich: 30,500
  • "paul h" +knife +attack +grafing: 8

Obviously, no contest. It's simply not known as the Grafing knife attack. It is known as the Munich knife attack. --В²C ☎ 18:59, 5 June 2019 (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.

• Support 2016 Munich knife attack. Munich is close enough. 2016 is very helpful. I don’t know what a grafing knife is, is it like a grafting knife? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)