Talk:Würzburg train attack

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Bavaria Low‑importance

	Bavaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bavaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bavaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BavariaWikipedia:WikiProject BavariaTemplate:WikiProject BavariaBavaria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.

Anything at all notable here besides Allahu Akbar?

Nobody died except a guy shot by police as he was fleeing. The small casualty count makes this a routine attack, and the lack of media sympathy makes it a routine police shooting. If the only thing holding this up is its proximity to the Nice attack, and routine Islamophobia, it should probably be deleted and just mentioned at Würzburg. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This attack has no article. This attack has no article. This attack does have an article, but at least has 36 sources about a few aspects. This one has twelve repeating the same story. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This attack has no article, despite eleven attackers and fifteen deaths. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Paris police station shooting does have an article here. News events that are worthy of Wikipedia articles are usually the ones that top most international media regardless of the number of fatalities and this one definitely did get more coverage than the Hornsby shooting for example. The attack in Würzburg maybe would had gotten less coverage if Nice hadn't occurred but it is still the most notable terror attack in Germany since the Frankfurt shooting in 2011. If it were a routine attack like you said, the international media wouldn't have bothered covering just like the media got fed up covering every single terror attack in Iraq, Syria or Yemen. As for the China attack, Xinjiang is dealing with an insurgency and creating an article for every single incident there would be the same as creating an article for every bombing in Iraq which is redundant and pointless. 66.130.42.23 08:02, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

Fair points, thanks for finding that Paris article. If we were judging these on newsworthiness, it passes the test. So it gets a lot of press, which is part of notability here. I just think it lacks impact/lasting effects/persistence. Someone else will shout "Allahu Akbar" again in a day or two, and that'll be that for this kid's spotlight. Time will tell, though, so I'll give it a chance before nominating it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The small casualty count makes this a routine attack,..." Um, excuse me? I find this statement quite offensive. There is nothing "routine" about a family being attacked by a hatchet wielding refugee on a train in Bavaria. Your somewhat tasteless phrasing aside, we are not here to simply parrot news articles, but I believe the widespread reporting of this event does mean it is notable. We will see if high quality sources continue to build upon this event or not, and then decide accordingly. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not routine on a train in Bavaria. I meant on Earth. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How truly inhumane that some may deem an insufficient body count (by their lights) as disqualifying an terror attack from being included in Wikipedia. You know, innocent people were grievously and sadistically knifed by a militant, and some would rather delete this article because these victims were only maimed and mutilated, and are alive instead of dead? Heartless. XavierItzm (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know seven innocent people were grievously and sadistically knifed by a militant around the Silver City Galleria, and it fits just fine there? So could this at Würzburg. I'm not saying totally ignore it. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about the sources. If there is enough reception - as in this case -, an article is justified. That's how Wikipedia works. It's not our job to decide, it's only our job to find enough reputable sources.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced (see WP:RS) and notable facts include the fact this event involves at least three of the world's more populous countries.TVC 15 (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New report: attackers had contact with suspected ISIL 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)[reply]

Your edit war.

There are two versions of the first sentence of the article:

On 18 July 2016, four people were attacked and injured, [...]
On 18 July 2016, Afghan refugee Riaz Khan Ahmadzai attacked and injured four people, [...]

In my opinion, the second version is better because we know who the perpetrator is. The first version suggests that the perpetrator is unknown, so it is misleading. If we had many perpetrators, then naming them all in the first sentence would be awkward, but we have only one perpetrator, and we know his name.
Vikom ^talk 01:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]