Talk:2016 Munich shooting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Barnstar for (nearly) everyone

The Teamwork Barnstar

Not customary on talk pages I know, but reading the above, I'd just like to express my admiration to those who kept this account of an 'obviously Islamist, Iranian neo-nazi white supremacist who hated Turks because they are foreigners and who with his mates was making multiple attacks all over Germany', under control. Why do we bother with sources I wonder? Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help @Pincrete! Davidcarroll (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you keep under control? Sourced information which doesn't fit into your picture of the poor, mentally ill boy who accidentally shot nine people and wounded dozens more? A barnstar for suppressing unwanted information? LOL.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Gerry1214, I didn't see anywhere on talk that anyone suggested he was a 'poor, mentally ill boy who accidentally shot nine people and wounded dozens more' . I wish I had as I could have added it to my 'joke' description, of stuff that people above claim is WP:RS, which is mostly poorly sourced, speculative and most importantly turns out 12 hours later to be 90% nonsense. Pincrete (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I see the article claiming this, or maybe he is a right wing poor boy of Iranian descent who has kind of a Stockholm syndrome for Breivik, no matter if Breivik would have killed him first if he had ever met him. The article, as it is right now, seems to be "speculative" and "90% nonsense" to me, but it also amuses me somehow.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

That's because you are attempting to find entirely rational models to events which generally aren't sufficiently explained by cause and effect relationships. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Gerry1214, why assume that editors are trying to push some cliched agenda? We don't know yet means we don't know yet. Nobody knows yet means nobody knows yet. At least we know now that half of the theories which people were sure were obvious 24 hours ago, are totally in the bin now. We aren't a news channel where every latest conjecture gets headline treatment. Remembering that is what I was praising editors for. Pincrete (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, forgive us for following RS, which doesn't seem to be painting the picture you were obviously expecting... Parsley Man (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to find "rational models" or "painting a picture". I'm making a plea for putting all contradictory statements into the article with a good source, and also the statement of a witness (a muslim woman) who heard him shout "Allahu akbar", which can be read on CNN and Der Spiegel amongst others. This is suppressed here, so you are the ones who are not giving the full picture.--Gerry1214 (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, if he is a Breivik supporter, as some might want to suggest, why isn't this terrorism like the 2011 Norway attacks?--Gerry1214 (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't removed 'muslim woman heard him saying etc', I have modified it to 'early story' of 'unnamed witness' 'which hasn't been confirmed'. Which part of that is not accurate and 'due weight'? AFAIK this is still accurate. The story I read didn't mention her religion, only that she understood the phrase.

Terorism (far right version), isn't in because it is still speculation at this stage.

Putting all contradictory info, without context or weight, is simply creating a Babel IMO. Of course conflicting info, with some attribution that assigns some weight (the police are saying it, a small number of papers are saying it etc). Anyone can go to any news site, or hop from news site to news site to get a sea of unweighted headline grabbing 'maybes'. Why would we want to replicate that? Pincrete (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'm quite convinced that he was neither an Islamist nor a right-winger, but plainly a misanthrope avenger, fascinated by shooting rampages no matter the ideology behind it. But still I concur with Gerry1214 that contradictory statements that have been widely published and discussed belong into the article. While Pincrete's perception that whatever has been superseded at a later point, doesn't contribute to a neutral description of the event's aftermath, may be perfectly understandable, it is wrong. Superseded information or widespread speculation doesn't belong into the lead or the infobox and needs to comply with WP:DUEWEIGHT, but in principle it remains notable. --PanchoS (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

""However, there was no evidence of any political motivation" '''tAD''' (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

PanchoS, I agree in principle about 'back story', so long as it is clear that the info is superceded and so long as only significant 'strands' are noted. Otherwise we are writing a story about the unfolding of the 'event story', not about the event itself. Pincrete (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What makes you so sure that the info is superseded? Maybe he indeed acted contradictorily because of his supposed illness or used the yelling to additionally terrify the people or to lay a false trail? This wouldn't be that surprising, would it? Who is now trying to find "rational models" here?--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Or, maybe, he was such an intelligent, book reading gangster to use irony while shooting the people that he hated, if there is something to the Breivik story? We should know that we know nothing.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Gerry1214, I think one can be sure that 'whatever has been superseded', eeeerrrr, has been superseded. 20:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Site and timing coincidences

I removed the following from the lead:

The site of the shooting was also near the location of the 1972 Munich massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes and a German police officer by Palestinian terrorists. The date of the shooting was the fifth anniversary of the 2011 Norway attacks.

Doesn't seem appropriate for lead first of all. Moreover, it appears to be WP:COATRACK/trivia. News outlets are trying to add content to interest the readers, but these coincidental associations are not necessarily notable or necessary for the understanding of wikipedia readers. Unless the shooter choose the city/site or day because of these associations, I don't think we should include them. If it turns out they did, then that's something worth commenting on. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Agreed. For now, the site/date seem to be mighty coincidences. I also removed the Germany train attack link as well for the same reasons; I doubt the timing of the shooting has anything to do with the train incident. Parsley Man (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this is in anyway connected to Palestinians or a far-right Norwegian man, or even to an axe-wielding refugee. At this point mentioning these co-incidences is simply speculation. So I will go ahead and take that out of the article.VR _talk 04:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Combining with above section. Already removed on similar concerns. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the location and date may be coincidences. We might find, for example, that he chose the location because he lives nearby, or that he chose the date because of a personal difficulty (e.g., that he screwed up at school or at work earlier that day and lost his temper). Or, we might find that the sources' speculation was accurate, and that he chose the date because he was inspired by Brevik's idea of killing your fellow citizens, and that he chose the location to make an anti-Israeli political statement.

Multiple sources include this information (so it's potentially DUE). But if we remove all of the context, then I'm satisfied. I disliked having solely the train attack included, because the date and location have more apparent salience to this event than last week's train attack does. The strongest known (right now) connection between this shooting and the train attack is that the perpetrators' families come from vaguely the same part of the planet. Which isn't much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The BBC and German security experts in the source do not believe this is a "coincidence". The opinion of a Wikipedia editor living in his mother's basement does not override the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.229.55 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No, but consensus does. And I live in her attic, thank you very much. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't even know the motive of the gunman yet. We probably should wait until more RS clarifies things. Parsley Man (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the relevant part of the ref the IP is relying on is here and starts around 9:30 (bit after) and ends about 13:25. The newscaster mentions that "this is the second attack" (about 12:10) but the expert does not say the two are related. IMHO, the source doesn't even support the connection. The expert does say that Germany is being targetted for fighting ISIL/Daesh, but does not make the connection between this attack, the axe attack, and that targeting explicit. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Everyone really wants to be quick in their assumptions, eh? Parsley Man (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This seems trivial and likely coincidental. This guy seems to have a classic "school shooter" M.O. 24.15.165.125 (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• The killer's use of Breivik picture would seem to suggest that the coincidence of the date of his shooting to the Norwegian one may not be so coincidental. What do others' think?VR _talk 05:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Nationality table for victims

I'm a bit iffy about this implementation. Is that edit really necessary? A couple of fleeting sentences about the victims' nationalities could also work for the section, in my honest opinion. Parsley Man (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I added the table mainly because of the excessive verbage ("according to .....", "the government said ....."). I don't mind prose, but just the nationalities followed by a source. WWGB (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, well I guess some rewording is in order. I'm just nervous that IP users or autoconfirmed users might be tempted to add flags into the table and it could lead into trouble if doing so is deemed unnecessary. But I guess that's paranoia for you. Parsley Man (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the table is too short and prefer prose here. MOS:TABLE is not very specific. Gap9551 (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree EvergreenFir (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Nationalities now reverted to prose. Thanks for comments. WWGB (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Brief comment (RL calls), some of the sources I've read refer to ethnicity rather than nationality. Victims may be German-born. Agree prose is better.Pincrete (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it's relevant to point out that one of the victims is a Greek citizen but comes from the Muslim minority of Greece/Turks of Western Thrace minority of northeastern Greece?Damac (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's an excellent point. It will fit in well with the media narrative that this middle eastern Iranian shooter was a white supremacist neo-nazi, hell bent on killing foreign Muslims. --Ritsaiph (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Damac, I modified your text since the only ones to whom 'descent' made sense was the 'Greek' boy and the Kosavar-German boy. The rest weren't 'descent', it was their citizenship even though living in Germany. I also modified the table since it says 'nationality', not 'ethnicity ie Kosovo - 1, Germany + 1. Pincrete (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ritsaiph, please stop your disruptive posts here. There is no "media narrative", and if there was, Wikiepdia will cover it if and when it gets exposed. Parsley Man (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought the consensus here was prose and no bloody flags? Both of which I would endorse. Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure why the table is back either... Parsley Man (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Table has gone now, replaced by names, ages etc, which is an improvement, but note that one 'Kosovan', is only ethnically Kosovan, his father is a naturalised German (Gdn ref was added, but someone says it is already above the list). Pincrete (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

CNN: witness describes gunman shouting "Allahu Akbar"

[1] A witness who will only be identified as Lauretta told CNN her son was in a bathroom with a shooter at the McDonald's. "That's where he loaded his weapon," she said. "I hear like an alarm and boom, boom, boom... And he's still killing the children. The children were sitting to eat. They can't run." Lauretta said she heard the gunman say, "Allahu Akbar," or God is great. "I know this because I'm Muslim. I hear this and I only cry." --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:06, 22 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 Davidcarroll (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

We describe what reliable sources tell. Just be aware of the wording. Here is a transcript where the gunman says "F ... turks". Also see how is shouting "F.. Foreigners". http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/07/23/munich-gunman-shouts--i-am-german-.html. Nsaa (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've read another transcript, in which "F.. Turks! F... Kanaks (i.e. foreigners of middle-eastern origin)" is attributed to the "man in blacony", to which shooter immedietely answers that "I am German!". Makes much more sense than Iranian shouting "F* foreigners! I am German!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.40.122.198 (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Are you being disruptive by cherry picking bad sources? The initial reports of him screaming "F- turks" were quickly proven to be a mistake. It was a German on a nearby balcony who engaged in shouting conversation with the shooter, it was this person who shouted "F- turks" at the shooter because he assumed the shooter was Turkish due to his ethnicity and religion often associated with ethnicity. The shooter indeed was shouting the holy chant from the Muslim religion of peace of "God is great" in his native tongue. 75.82.57.182 (talk) 09:39, 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.--Gerry1214 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

His native tongue? Bavarian or Persian? Neither his ethnic background, nor that of his Turkish and Albanians victims are connected to IS terrorism, none of them speak Arabic. I can understand that the police is prepared for an IS attack and treats it as one until they have evidence it is none, but the media should be calm and critical, and separate the facts from the fears. Stupid girl (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

There are several reports that the shooter espoused Islamic monotheism.--98.88.130.194 (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind linking those reports (outside of CNN)? Also, just because you discussed it on the talk page doesn't mean you get to reinstate that edit mere seconds later. A discussion involves at least two people. Parsley Man (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with PM here. One witness' account that appears quite dubious given more recent information is not worth mentioning. Just because something's reported doesn't me we're obligated to include it. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We're obligated to give a balanced picture of the sources. And we're obligated not to leave out well sourced facts that wouldn't seem to fit into the picture which some want to paint.--Gerry1214 (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

At an earlier point, I attempted a 'weighted' version of this claim. Frankly, a single unnamed witness, uncorroborated in any way, (eg the police saying that one witness had heard this), sounds extremely dubious. From the purely practical point of view, I don't object to its inclusion, since a suitably 'weighted' version is more informative than silence on the matter and may discourage repeated re-insersion of an unweighted form. Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, i'm pretty sure the "Allahu akbar" witness claimed to have HEARD someone say it, not actually seen that the perpetrator said it. This is relevant because three of the victims were albanians, three of the victims were turks, and one of the victims was a greek muslim. This means that there were possibly 7 muslims who were being shot at and killed at that very moment. Has it occured to you that maybe it was one of the actuall muslims who said "Allahu akbar" ? Instead of the non-religious iranian who shot himself in the head(have you ever heard of a muslim terrorist shooting himself? Because there is a reason for that; It's illegal to committ suicide in Islam). If you didn't know; Religious muslims use the phrase Allahu akbar in many situations during daily life, and also several times during the daily five prayers, it's one of the most common phrases for a religious muslim to use to express lots of different feelings including shock and even as a little call on God to help them in this situation. 85.252.59.238 (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

85.252.59.238, I took the liberty of moving your comment here. It seems the single source was actually an unnamed witness, but the rest of your observation is correct. We would reasonably expect police confirmation or other witnesses if this were reliable info. Pincrete (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

EngVar?

Does anyone know what the Engvar is? It appears mainly UK, but quite a few US. There is clearly no strong link to either, but I didn't want to 'tread on toes' by imposing either unilaterally. Pincrete (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Events are in Europe, so I'd lean toward going with UK English. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you heard about the 'Brexit' vote? Sca (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat related, but since this happened in Germany metric is main unit for measurements (WP:UNITS). To avoid "double convertion" inaccuracies, I've used the flip value in the single measurement in the "Event" section of the article, but it might be preferable if someone can find a source for the distance that uses metric. 80.62.116.63 (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Closeness to UK (geographically), isn't actually a policy, only 'strong link' or 'retain'. Retain seems to suggest UK.Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. UK makes most sense here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Bear in mind you'll get 'shopping centre', not 'mall', 'shopping centre' is actually closer to German 'Einkaufkenter', literally one-buy-centre. Pincrete (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to do with one-buy-centre. Einkauf mean shopping (einkaufen = to shop), so Einkaufszentrum "literally" means shopping centre. If you must separate the ein- from the kauf, it "means" in, rather than one. --Boson (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for crude, schrecklich schoolboy German. I was about to suggest we go for UK Eng but use 'Shopping mall', which is not true UK Eng, but understood in UK and elsewhere. 'Mall' on its own is US. Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I would use "shopping centre" instead of "shopping mall", "mall". It's international English. My-wiki-photos (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

For the time being it is 'shopping mall'. Most existing spelling/use was already UK, but 'mall' was used throughout. I'm happy with either as being widely understood in Eng. Pincrete (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Closeness to the UK is only one aspect amongst others. More relevant might be the fact that American–German bonds since WWII have been much closer than British–German bonds have ever been, leading to Germans enjoying some phenomena associated with American culture (such as Hollywood films, but also books by American authors, American TV series, American youth culture, American fitness trends, American fast-food), and using loan words such as "Einkaufscenter" or "Shoppingcenter" (certainly not "Einkaufscentre" or "Shoppingcentre"), or "Servicecenter" (not "Servicecentre"). British culture, on the other hand, is widely unknown and hardly influential. At the same time, English school books in Germany generally follow Oxford English spelling. The result may be characterized as a variant of International English, merging Oxford English with some Americanisms. --PanchoS (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN is clear "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change".

Munich would not count as a 'strong national tie' with either UK or US, which might apply if victims were predominantly US for example. UK appears to be established, so in the absence of a consensus to change, UK it is, though I'm happy to use 'universal' terms when available.Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Neo-nazi

The latest coming out of Germany is that the shooter is possibly a neonazi who was upset with all the immigrants allowed into the country recently. Keep a watch out for this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

actually the latest is it was a muslim. Iranian to be specific. Since two years in germany. Surprising isnt it? 80.38.105.147 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Conflicting narratives is common. IMHO, prepare for both, but wait until we know for sure. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

no conflicting narrative here. It was cpnfirmed by police.80.38.105.147 (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of people keeping watch, but regardless I can't find the neonazi claim on any of the major German news sites. If, and that's a very big if, he really was a neonazi that was mad about immigration it would be even more tragicomical. It has been confirmed by German authorities that he's of Iranian descent with dual citizenship AKA not "real German" if you're a crazy neonazi. Regardless, the police have promissed to hold a press conference in some hours (morning) where they'll say what they know. 80.62.116.63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

On the video, the person seems to deny any Islamic ideologies behind the act. Also, Aryanism based ideologies are not foreign for Iranians. It just is too soon to confirm anything. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No, multiple witnesses heard the man yell "Allahu Akbar". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.231.175 (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources please... ansh666 03:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

See above. CNN covered it many times as have other sources. Denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.230.8 (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

An Iranian neonazi? Are we really pretending that's a viable narrative? At first it was seen as an option, but we know more details now.107.147.214.139 (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I never wrote it was, I just wrote that it was a possibility even if unlikely. But for sure claiming ISIS for someone of Iranian descent (if he is) is not much more likely. There's no point in continuing this discussion, unless you have something new to provide. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, there is no evidence of multiple witnesses confirming what the shooter said. All the CNN links 107.147.214.139 have provided are segments that quote the same witness. If there is a CNN article or video where a second witness has come forward if should be presented.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 04:55, 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 irreleant.

Regarding the other claim in a comment above: There's no video where the shooter disowns Islam. However, there is a video where he apparently speaks badly about Turks and I guess this is what confused the previous poster. It is reported by the major German sources I checked (Süddeutsche Zeitung, Spiegel, etc) and can be heard in the video, too. The reason I say "apparently" is that several people can be heard and it's not entirely clear who said what (an uncertainty also noted in the media). It is anyone's guess why he apparently talks badly about Turks. Basic racism, dislike for Turks bombing ISIS and allowing other countries to use Incirlik Air Base, or whatever. We simply do not know. 80.62.116.63 (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem to mistaken disown Islam with denying Islamic ideologies being behind the attack. In the video when confronted he identified himself as German. In Islamic ideological attacks, the attacker doesn't identify himself with the national he targets. More denying there is when his rationals for the attack are his bullying... nothing about Islamists. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you seem to have forgotten what you wrote. Here's the first sentence from your comment 02:51, 23 July: "On the video, the person seems to deny any Islamic ideologies behind the act". That claim is factually wrong, as I said in my reply. Your most recent modification to your original statement, that someone saying he's German equals no islamic ideology, is extemely flawed (there have several attacks by converts in the EU and North America). Regardless, as I also said in my previous comment, this is largely irrelevant when another pattern has emerged: It's now quite clear that this was neither Jihadism nor neonazism, but a mentally ill young man who had been bullied for much of his life and was fascinated by mass murder/shootings. 80.62.116.63 (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, not alone, that he claimed to be German (Because when his ethnicity came, the only identity he brought was German.) and brought his bullying..., at no time Islamic motives were brought. That's why I initially wrote he seems to deny. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Multiple editors are repeatedly trying to confuse people by posting misinformation. To clear this up:

• there is no neonazi involved in this attack
• the attack was made by an Iranian who is a German national
• witnesses heard the man yell Allahu Akbar
• this is the second attack in Germany in less than a week
• German security experts believe that IS is targeting Germany for its role in the military campaign against IS

These are the facts. Now stop with the misinformation. This is Islamic terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.229.55 (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, we have the second bullet down, and if we have multiple RS verifying the rest, then yes, we can include that as well. But I don't see how refraining from posting that kind of information equates to deliberately posting misinformation. Please assume good faith before you go around making wild accusations. Thank you. Parsley Man (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

lol @leftwing media + German government trying to make out the Iranian as an immigrant hating neo-nazi so the government can save face. My sides. --Ritsaiph (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I know, right? The conspiracy theorists are just boundless. Parsley Man (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Facts are the perp was researching mass shootings, targeted mostly adolescents and comitted the shooting exactly 5 years to the day after Breivik's Utoya massacre. Somebody who doesn't see that is either blind or stupid. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/23/europe/germany-munich-shooting/index.html 212.15.178.150 (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No IP, what you are engaging in there in numerology. Correlation is not causation. The same date has happened across the world for as long as we have used a calendar. The idea that a person living in Europe, with origins from the Middle East, would idolise a racist like Breivik who would have had him deported, is risible. At least, unless they find this in investigation and it is sourced to a reliable source '''tAD''' (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Source is Munich Police - http://www.thelocal.de/20160723/munich-gunman-inspired-by-rightwing-breivik-not-isis-police And I won't go into the patopsychology of the perpetrator, but there are examples when a person idolises someone who would want them dead. Just one example is when Croatia was a Nazi puppet state and the fascist leader Pavelic supported Hitler, and Hitler actually, in the long run, wanted to exterminate Slavic people because they weren't Aryan. Throw in some bullying to psychological problems, and you get a maniac shooter. 212.15.178.150 (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Won't apply here, the term Aryan recycled from NAZI Germany was initially used to refer to Iranians. Rosenberg classified Iranians as Aryans who were according to him contaminated by Turks, Mongols and Arabs. The SUMKA was funded initially by Hitler sympathizers. There are bunch of materials on this issue and white nationalism among Iranians. Generally Iranians living in Europeans countries are not religious and it is not rare for them to endorse European nationalisms and be strongly opposed to immigrations (particularly of Turks and Arabs). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like you learn something new every day, Yahya Talatin. :) Parsley Man (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User Yaḥyā ‎Touré obviously knows something we all do not.

Generally Iranians living in Europeans countries are not religious and it is not rare for them to endorse European nationalisms and be strongly opposed to immigrations (particularly of Turks and Arabs).

Note there are no sources provided for this claim. Possibly a German government funded troll. --Ritsaiph (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The animosity between Iranians and Turks and Arabs is nothing new. Neither the fact that generally European Iranians are not much religious and a significant proportion of them endorse white supremacist ideologies. It is even more true for those residing Munich, (because of Davud Monshizadeh legacy). A simple search on the internet will reveal that I am not making things up. Notice that most victims were even not German. This doesn't mean that this was the reason behind the attack. Generally the authors of such acts are motivated by several factors that could not be easily rationalized. I was just replying to the claim that just because he is of Iranian descent, he could not have been motivated by what might (mistakenly) be considered as solely European ideologies. Thats all! Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Who has been on here for about a year and has been editing on articles outside of this? Yeah, no. Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Parsley Man (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

A significant proportion of them endorse white supremacist ideologies Holy sh!t, there you go again. Where are your sources for this revelation? Citing an Iranian man who died in 1989 is not proof that a 'significant proportion' of Iranians in Europe are neo-nazi white supremacists who want to lampshade 6 bazillion jews and middle eastern foreigners (the irony in this). You are trying to steer this discussion about the suspects motivation in this direction, just like most media outlets have been doing. It's kind of how in the Trayvon martin shooting the media was making out George Zimmerman to be an evil white male and the whole case a racially motivated white-on-black hate crime. Even though Zimmerman was multi-racial/mestizo. Now we have an Iranian neo-nazi white supremacist killing foreigners in the name of the Fourth Reich. lol. --Ritsaiph (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't expect me to directly provide the materials on this site are you? I replied here [2]. As for the rest, if you are really interested, you could read about the modern Iranian secular nationalism (start with Reza Shah). Noteworthy names include Mohsen Pezeshkpour (Irano-Aryan supremacist) and from that name, I'm sure you'll find the rest. Mostly Iranians in Europe are expats who escaped the Islamic regime, they are not really religious. An interesting read for you. [3] Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ritsaiph, I think the dark pits of 4chan /pol is where you should be, not here. You're a racist white male. Diversity in Europe is culturally enriching and hopefully, it will breed out bigots such as yourself. --Donenne (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this does not appear to be terrorism, the neo-Nazi theory is still on the table but we don't know yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Greek of Turkish descent ?

I've removed the description of the Greek boy 'of Turkish descent', this is a very problematic description. The Muslim minority of Greece, mostly from Thrace, sometimes called 'Turks', sometimes called 'Greek Muslims', are a Greek minority who have lived there from the days of Ottoman rule of Greece, who are mainly ethnically allied to Turkey, but whose ancestors have never been Turkish citizens, since Turkey did not even exist then. Either we describe the boy as being from this 'Greek Muslim' minority, linking, or we simply say 'Greek'. Pincrete (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Bolding of perpetrator's name

In a previous discussion, now archived, several people commented on whether or not the perpetrator's name shown be bolded. I've now started a more general discussion on the question of bolding "title" text from redirects in article subsection. Please participate, if you are interested. Dragons flight (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Far-right connection

This article seems to tie several facts together, including the killer using the pic of Breivik and choosing the 5th anniversary of his attack to say he was "influenced by right-wing extremists". Should we mention this in the article?VR _talk 05:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Salon is generally RS, but are there any others that make this connection. IMHO, if we have a few sources saying it, it's safe to say in Wikipedia's voice. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with EvergreenFir on this one. To be honest, I'm a bit wary about actually classifying the shooter or this shooting as an example of far-right extremism, or even saying that far-right extremism played a part in the motive. The Salon article also says that he was "obsessed" with mass shootings. Plus, there's also sourced information in the main article about the shooter keeping a scrapbook of other mass shootings and going as far as traveling to Winnenden, location of the Winnenden school shooting, to take photos. More reliable sources seem to lean on the shooter's fascination with mass shootings as an integral part of his motive, and considering Breivik's island rampage ranks as the world's deadliest mass shooting committed by a lone gunman, I wouldn't be surprised if the Munich shooter admired Breivik solely because of that fact. Parsley Man (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's not forget that 36 hours ago everybody was convinced this was ISIL. The possibility of a 'Norwegian connection' is stated by police, let's wait until something more solid is established before using WP voice to say there is a 'far-right connection'. Pincrete (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @EvergreenFir, Parsley Man, and Pincrete: It is correctly stated that the shooting was obviously "linked" to Breivik, and that Sonboly was "inspired" by Breivik's mass-slaughter, to the point that he might even have imitated him. All of this may be cited in our article. However, it is nowhere suggested that Sonboly was ideologically inspired by the far right, or that he might be a right-winger himself. Although possible, it is actually not particularly likely, and there's not even an indication it would be the case. A Nazi salute or otherwise a faible for Nazi symbolism, white supremacist literature, hate speech against foreigners, fellow Muslims or at least support for AfD or Pegida might be indications, but currently we don't know about anything like this. Police will probably find out in the course of the next weeks – until then we should stay calm and precisely cite WP:RS. --PanchoS (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

His alleged admiration for Germany's hard-right AfD party might however be a first indication that he ideologically supported right-wing terrorism. If confirmed (!), that might be a game changer, linking the massacre to right-wing terrorism apart from generic hate and violence. --PanchoS (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is much too early to draw final conclusions. Right now it seems to be a strange mixture out of "Allahu akbar", Breivik and Winnenden, but let's wait for more information---Gerry1214 (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Always the case in an ongoing investigation with unreliable witnesses, varying eyewitness accounts, and contradictory evidence. Parsley Man (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

One problemer, however, is that while people have decided to include supposed admiration of Alternative for Germany (based on claim by online game player) and supposed change of WhatsApp photo to Breivik (based on claim by x-classmate) in the wiki article, it does not include supposed call of "Allahu Akbar" (based on claim by eyewitness). Earlier on this talk page I expressed my reservations about including the Allahu Akbar claim because it seemed to fall short of WP:RS and I have not changed my opinion, but the same applies to the two other claims. These claims are now (apparently?) being used to push a theory, just like the Allahu Akbar claim was being used to push a theory. From a WP:RS point of view they are equally (un)reliable and (un)confirmed, but somehow we're choosing to include only one part. We should strive to keep the same high standard, regardless of the "side" of the claims. However, the apparent connection to Breivik mentioned by the police falls into another category and definitely belongs in the article, but exactly what this connection means has not been stated. It's confirmed that he checked the shooting by Breivik, but if there is more to it (e.g. political connection) remains unclear. I note that high WP:RS German sources are still leaning away from any form of terrorism as motive and several things also suggest the far-right theory is wrong: He was fascinated by all sorts of mass shootings (both far-right Breivik and school shootings with no political agenda), the absense of Breivik's manifest among his belongings (an absolutely fundamental part of Breivik's beliefs), and the statement by Munich police chief that this appeared to be a classic shooting rampage and not terrorism. Far-right would, of course, be terrorism. When some people, early on, suggested that Islamic terrorism should be explicitly added to the article, fortunately it was refused as clear evidence/statement (e.g. by police) was lacking. I do hope the same high standard will be applied to other claimed motives. Whatever they may be.

(sorry about this potentially TL;DR post!) 80.62.116.63 (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No agenda-pushing here. As I said before, the Allahu Akhbar claim should clearly be included as well, as it has been cited by WP:RS and widely discussed. However, none of this is sufficiently concrete or certain to support any theory of a terrorist motivation. Anyway, our job here involves citing sources, but not doing WP:OR. --PanchoS (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The 'Allahu Akhbar' claim can only be included if 'weighted', ie this is an unnamed single witness, an early report and police have not confirmed even that a witness says they heard it, they have presumably interviewed all key witnesses by now. Speculative stuff about 'far-right' connections should be equally treated with care and attributed to the speaker. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course only properly attributed to speaker and context (CNN interview). --PanchoS (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think 'online friends say he was a fan of AfD etc.' is also terribly weak. Not the police comments though. Pincrete (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes today: "He was proud to born on 20 April like Hitler ... not part of the far-right scene, but definitly racist. ... He was proud to ba an '[Aryan]'. ... Sonboly hated the Turkish and Arabs. [4] This is attributed to unnamed "security circles" and evaluation of interviews of people close to him. --PM3 (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

PanchoS, both the 'Allah' and 'online friends' claims IMO are now properly weighted. Being a cynic, I think it better to have such a 'weighted' version in the article than having unweighted, factually phrased claims repeatedly re-inserted. This is over and above the fact that the claims are part of the history of the investigation. Pincrete (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: LOL. Obviously, I can only agree, given that both paragraphs were worded by me. But thanks for your compliments. :) --PanchoS (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

He wanted to kill Muslim foreigners

Almost all the victims were Muslim foreigners or people of foreign descent or who looked foreign...why not mention this? I know the attacker was of foreign descent himself and probably had serious mental and identity issues but it makes sense to call it what it is...or is it only terror when the victims are of a certain religion or nationality?

prev comment left by User:Zec Pincrete (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Zec, these are theories at present, the police think that 'foreigners as target' might be coincidence as foreign teenagers are users of the MacD. We say both of these at present, we don't decide which is 'true'. Maybe that will be clarified during investigation. Until then it would be speculation.Pincrete (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Der Spiegel writes of "seine Wut auf die Türken" (his rage against the Türkish", [5]), attributing this to fellow counterstrike players.

There are other sources which say he had no connection to religion. --PM3 (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The authorities want to play this down, obviously. According to the people, who knew him personally, the bullying that Ali S.'s had to endure by Turkish students was very severe ("Der Junge wurde damals in seiner Schulzeit richtig zerpflückt" and "Da ich ihn persönliche kenne (oder kannte) weiß ich, dass er damals in seiner Schulzeit schon sehr hart fertig gemacht wurde."), so that's where the hate came from — nobody needs a "Neo Nazi ideology" for that. Fulcher (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The one question is why he did it at all, and the other question is why he shot only immigrants. The answers need not to be the same. --PM3 (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)