Talk:2016 Munich shooting/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reactions

Can we please keep the (mostly Tweeted) responses of sympathy out of here? A response that includes a note that the borders will be closed or some such thing, that's useful--"we express our sympathy" is not of any value. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

AND any comments from various people NOT in office who are CANDIDATES for various offices in various countries - their opinions are not notable. 68.19.2.236 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Gerry1214, please take a swig of your own medicine and stop reverting, and stop talking. Besides, your edit summary is obviously mistaken: it does not take a genius to realize that my edits were very discriminate. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• I see the stuff has been removed again, fortunately. One experienced editor, I can't remember if it was EvergreenFir or Softlavender, elegantly phrased some objections when this came up at a different article, and I hope that they took it to a broader and more official forum to set up guidelines. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: There are several different issues here, among them: (1) whether mundane nearly identical expressions of sympathy from unrelated world leaders should be included in these articles; (2) whether Tweets should be included as official statements in articles; (3) whether the current seemingly unstoppable trend of creating "Reactions to the [tragedy or fiasco du jour]" articles should be stemmed per official guideline/RfC, etc. Frankly I'm against all three, and no I haven't taken any of these issues to an official forum for a broad consensus and resolution. My main concern is the current mania for "Reactions" articles for celebrity deaths, shootings and bombings, political events, and so on. These "Reactions" articles don't exist for most items of the same import prior to this mania, so it seems rather absurd and non-encyclopedic for them to exist for every news event henceforth. Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Reactions to is as ubiquitous as List of awards received by celebrity X. I'm with you on 1, 2, and 3, by the way, but I think what you and I are failing to understand is that events that are happening Now are so much more important than events that happened Long Before Us or Even Before Twitter Existed. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: I think we do need a site-wide discussion on that topic. My past experiences with suggesting that something is TOOSOON or NOTNEWS is that I'm in the minority (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reactions_to_the_2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting). Seems folks think reactions to mass shootings are notable, but reactions to celebrity deaths (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reactions_to_the_death_of_Prince) are not. I don't want to be POINTy so I've be pulling back from pursuing AFDs for those types of articles. (Also just remembered we discussed this at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_127#Proposal_to_do_away_with_including_world_leader_responses_to_terrorist_incidents once).

That said, I think a small, concise reaction section in articles like this one is appropriate and eventually necessary. But it might be a bit soon for that. I agree with Drmies that platitudes and condolences are generally not notable. Over on the US shooting articles we tend to include comments from the President and the state's governor. So here we might want to include Merkel's comments and the Munich mayor's? Just a thought. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I think, given the renewed controversy over this, that it may be time for another RfC on the matter. ansh666 04:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking this page off my watchlist, so if there are any developments along these lines, please ping me or let me know some other way. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The only reactions to be included are the Iranian and the Czech? This is far from showing the actual reception that the case found throughout the world and absolutely misleading.--Gerry1214 (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I added a POV template for this issue.--Gerry1214 (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I pruned 'Iranian' and removed Czech (related to sealing borders). I endorse those above who say Merkel, local Mayor and or Bavarian leader + brief 'Iran' only. Plus any measures taken. There is nothing useful about messages of condolence from all and sundry. Obama/May/Tusk etc are shocked and saddened, so are we all. Pincrete (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you ever read a Wiki article for an event? Reactions by important statesmen are notable. There are political measures in reaction as well, domestic and international. And nothing of all this is in the article. To say it straight, the section and this discussion don't meet any Wikipedia standards.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It isn't the importance of the individuals which is contested, it is the value to the event article of these 'notables'. Recent practice (Orlando, Dallas, Nice some others) is to limit the article reactions to those immediately connected and to Govt actions and, if people want, to create an 'International reactions' article. If we include Obama here, why not May, Hollande, every European and international leader? That is why some of us arguing for Merkel, Munich Mayor and any country with a direct connection to the incident. Pincrete (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It's better to include no one, than to suggest that the Iranian statement is the only notable international reaction. And I don't know of any "recent practice". I only know of Wikipedia standards.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Then expand it not delete it. Refs to Obama and Putin I believe are there. Merkel+local can be added, I agree that the Iran one on its own is inadequate. Quote the WP standards please and tell us where they override talk page consensus because I see no one above arguing for delete. Pincrete (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict Gerry1214, has here, and again here removed the entire 'Reactions' section. I see various opinions expressed above as to how to improve it. I see no one advocating removing it. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Gerry1214 does not intend to rewrite the section. I have warned Gerry on his talk page that if he removes the section again, he will be reported for WP:3RR. I will probably not be around tomorrow, so will not be able to contribute to discussion. I have given my opinion that reactions should be confined to closely connected, with perhaps a general statement about Obama, May Tusk, whoever.Pincrete (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldn't remove it altogether. Reactions to a tragic incident are notable, if that WP:VPP discussion is anything to go by. However, we must also be careful about whose reactions to include. Several US mass shooting articles (mostly recent ones) have included responses from Obama and the state's governor, and appropriate groups when necessary, which is definitely one of the best ways to go. I agree with someone else's statement above that Merkel's statement and the Munich mayor's would probably be the most notable and appropriate content for a potential "Reactions" section. Parsley Man (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The reactions section looks much better today. Thank you to user User:PanchoS who seems to have a more appropriate understanding of what is notable and what is not. And I will never back down on 3RR threats. I'm only acting in order to keep Wikipedia standards which are applied in thousands of events articles.--Gerry1214 (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything resembling an agreement on this issue? Present 'reactions' seems random. Merkel, fine, but why Obama, Trudeau, the Czech Int Min discussing border? Iran probably OK, but why are Greece, Hungary, Kosovo or Turkey missing. What is the logic? Pincrete (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Reactions of statesmen are notable in general. But not every statesman has to be included in the article, though more reactions could be included. Obviously, a sensible choice has been made here, based on relations to the issue or to the country (Germany). This is the job of an editor, nothing more nothing less. It's just the same as in the rest of the article.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

WP editors aren't the only ones to 'jump to the wrong conclusions' it seems!. Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the self-deprecation that you provide here.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should hold a small informal (or maybe even formal) RfC on what reactions are appropriate. (I think we should hold a large, general one as well, but this may do for now.) My view - and I know I'm not alone - is that only reactions from leaders whose jurisdictions were directly involved (Munich, Bavaria, Germany), whose people were directly involved (victims' nations, perp's nations: Iran, Greece, Serbia/Kosovo, Hungary, Turkey), or who had unusual or notable responses (distinct from WP:notable) reactions (i.e. in this case Czech border security) should be included. Others - US, Canada, and UK, in this case - should not be included as violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and as routine coverage (and in this case, as systemic bias as well). ansh666 23:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The guideline that you're citing is absolutely not applicable, no lists, excerpts or anything like this can be found here. And how often do American and Canadian Presidents comment on German events? This is notable per se, aside from the fact that Obama directly warns "his" citizens. I'm sorry, your deletion is completely off track.--Gerry1214 (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The section is a collection of reactions presented indiscriminately or not. So the guideline somehow does apply. Maybe replacing this with paragraphs contextually, with a chronology of events (reactions). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning reactions of top people from leading countries such as USA, Canada and UK cannot be an indiscriminate collection of information. It does matter what they say. My-wiki-photos (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Anything other than their sympathy is mostly outdated info in light of what we have now. If we are going to include them, the info should be covered contextually, with a chronology of the reactions. From soon after the event to later after more info became available. Also most of the info on sympathies are redundant, they may be grouped together without having to quote each word by word. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, it matters historically, but does it matter encyclopedically? That's what WP:NOT is trying to describe, and such reaction-quotefarms fail by providing undue weight to what has become ordinary reactions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack, for example. ansh666 06:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you here, but with a modification to include Gerry proposal. The other nations not directly involved by at large offered their sympathy. So maybe adding that several countries (and enumerating them in the references) offered their sympathy, instead of listing them individually. Also from what we know currently about what really happened, is it really necessary to add Czech Republic borders comment? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how it was before, it would work. And, the Czech response was rather noteworthy, as I don't think I've seen anything like it in other attacks like this (though maybe others thought they weren't noteworthy and removed them). ansh666 06:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

how often do American and Canadian Presidents comment on German events? Every time there is a significant event actually, but you don't get to read them in WP normally unless there is a significant US or Canadian connection. Unfortunately these messages of condolence (from EU to US or the other way) are regular events lately, but what info do they add? Pincrete (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

ansh, I believe the Czech 'border' response was when it was still believed that 2 others were 'on the run', so an offer to temp. impose border controls with Germany in those circumstances, is not unusual. Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: This question seems no closer to being answered, however there does seem to be quite a bit of support above for restricting this to 'immediately involved', ie Merkel, leader of Bavaria and/or Munich mayor + 1 brief comment from each of the countries of perp + victims (some of which we don't have at present). Thoughts? Or do we need to RfC this? Pincrete (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Not only I see no sense in such regulations, they could turn out as counterproductive. What do you want to achieve? A reactions section is often used to assess notability. Here it maybe clear for some people (maybe now, but what about a reader who reads this in 10 years?), but in other cases this could lead to the situation that you want to add statements by notable people to establish notability, and you can't because it would be forbidden to do so. Do you really want Wikipedia to get more and more regulated? I don't. I can accept the section as it is now, though I see no reason not to allow further statements by notable persons.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned regulations, though there are existing guidelines. What is being proposed is a local agreement on what is useful on this article. If someone wants a larger 'list of reactions' article, so be it, that has happened recently at 'Orlando'. There must be some limitation here, the head of state of the UK is Queen Liz, who has made a statement, May has made a statement, Boris Johnson has made a statement, Sturgeon, who is Scotland's First Minister, has made a statement, so perhaps has someone in NI and Wales. That is one European country, there are over 30 European countries all with Prime and Foreign Ministers. 4 other continents and probably hundreds of notable individuals and organisations, plus the Pope, Archbishops, Mufti, Chief rabbis and church leaders, all who have made statements.

How on earth is A reactions section … often used to assess notability? Where is that policy or guideline? Relevance to the subject is the appropriate criteria here, not notability of the speaker. I'm an admirer of Obama (wonderful writer), but what on earth is the relevance of his 'condolence message' to understanding what happened in Munich? Pincrete (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The section and each statement is part of the reception of the article subject. And not only the reactions of statesmen are usually collected in such a section, but also other statements. If you begin to create rules and regulations for it (and you even see some established by mentioning a "recent practice", I think) this will have consequences for other articles for sure. As I wrote above: a good choice of statements has already been made here, six or seven and not 60 or 70. This is fairly appopriate.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

So in your opinion the US state dept telling people to shelter, Obama's condolences, the Czech For Minister announcing border controls to stop the (dead) perpetrator leaving Germany are the reactions most relevant to a shooting in Munich? Difficult to understand your criteria. Pincrete (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There are many different criteria when to include something into a Wikipedia article. Different users prefer different criteria. And you definitely can't reduce it to administrative relations. But the common sense will work sufficiently most of the time if it's not obstructed by dumb and rigid rules. Counter-example: when you tried to reduce it, more and more people deleted stuff and suddenly only the Iranian statement was left. And there were users who thanked me when I deleted this senseless rest completely. So obviously Wikipedia doesn't work that way.--Gerry1214 (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

'There are many different criteria', simply avoids the question. Nobody has suggested only Iran nor only 'admin relation' (with Germany?). I am trying to establish what general agreement is on what should be here. You appear to be in favour of 'no criteria', which is why we have a perfectly routine communication from US state dept telling Americans to stay indoors during the attack. Very informative! Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of no criteria. I'm in favor of flexible criteria, depending on "who says what". I don't really want to discuss if and why to include US government statements in an article. They're notable and definitely NOT routine for a German event. And yes, I find this informative. It underlines the dimension of the event.--Gerry1214 (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that most Europeans would think that argument, unbelievably US-centric. The US State Dept. sends out a perfectly standard warning to its citizens, so we all now know the event must be important. WOW! Thanks for letting 750 million of us Europeans know. Pincrete (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, this discussion has become a bit academic, the usual flood of responses from May, Johnson, Hollande, etc, just haven't arrived here. Perhaps WP editors are just getting 'compassion fatigue'. Unfortunately the motley collection left in the article might just leave the impression that, in fact, nobody cared that much. Ah well! Pincrete (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

School bullying

What was the problem with my version? Why don't we mention it ( born Ali Sonboly) in the lead, where it first appears? And why my related article Shia–Sunni relations was removed? Why are you so sure that he was not bullied by Sunni Turcs because he was Shia? Where is that, he changed his own name only when he became 18?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source saying he was bullied by Sunni Turks because he was Shia? Because I have not seen any. Parsley Man (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Parsley Man. There's no mention of Sunni-Shia relations in the whole article or in reliable sources. We don't add "see also" articles based on speculation and OR. Nykterinos (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, just because the infobox says the motive is "under investigation", doesn't mean there's room for OR. Everything that's presented to us at the moment is nothing more than educated guesswork until officials involved with the investigation say otherwise. Parsley Man (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

His motives are still being investigated - it is in the lead. If it is irrelevant, why was he hunting especially Sunnite muslims, and not blacks or Shia guys? They are auslanders too. Look at the last month's riot between Turcs and Kurds - they fight their own conflicts even in Germany. Linking it to the "Related articles" only opens to a possible explanation

Reliable source? Just like in the Cologne rape case? LOL--Ltbuni (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that he was particularly targeting Sunnite Muslims? Because the article doesn't really say that anywhere and I have not seen any news articles saying that. Parsley Man (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the article says the opposite: according to authorities, he didn't target any specific group and the migrant background of his victims was a coincidence. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, for speculation open a blog. Nykterinos (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

LOL!!! And according to HIMSELF he hated Turks. The video cleary proves that he was shouting insults at TURKS, or at those whom he THOUGHT were TURKS, and not Blacks for example (even though they are easier to spot and are obviously auslanders...)...He targeted a specific group, but could not carry out perfectly his plan --Ltbuni (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

And what is more, why don't we mention his original name in the lead?--Ltbuni (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Uh...according to the article itself and several news articles, it was a BYSTANDER who was shouting the anti-Turkish abuse. As for the original name being in the lede, I'm not sure why it should be there. It's best suited in the "Perpetrator" section. Parsley Man (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact that he appeared to have anti-Turkish sentiments is sourced and written in the article (though that he insulted Turks during the shooting is not so clear according to transcriptions, as other people also shouted anti-Turkish abuse at him). This does not imply he specifically targeted Turks (denied by authorities), let alone that he targeted them because he thought they were Sunni Muslims (ethnicity and religion are two distinct things). Nykterinos (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

several news articles The FAZ for example states that he did shout at them. Why is his name in the lead at all? The Shooting section begins with "The gunman was identified as" - it's a bit odd, when We identified him in the very first sentence... Concerning the sunni-shia issue - I am not the only one who brought it up. Above, on this talk page, there was an another user, with the same concerns, see in the He wanted to kill Muslim foreigners section. I don't know what user Fulcher wanted to say, but he cites sources about being bullied by Turks. And unfortunately in this case, there is a close connection between ethnicity and religion - when we talk about Shias, the majority of them are Persian. When You are not Arabic/Azerbaijanis/Kurds, but Persian it is a 89% probability that You are Shia. By the way, Sonboly is a name of some regions in Persia, and Sonbol is the Persian name of a flower - and given that, he spoke only german and farsi he was easily identified. And bullied for that. It is not that complicated, and not original research. The separation of these two sects are visible, even in Münich: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6FVOqSyZ3w --Ltbuni (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

And it is a source, that he was bullied by Arabs and Turcs: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/23/victims-of-munich-shooting-were-predominately-teenagers It is the article.--Ltbuni (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"The identities of the nine mainly young victims of the attack have emerged amid claims that 18-year-old Sonboly may have targeted people of Turkish and Arab origin, groups he apparently felt had picked on him at school." Apparently. Which means there is some room of doubt in that statement. Parsley Man (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, just so we're clear, I also removed all mentions of Sonboly in the "Shooting" article. Parsley Man (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

According to his parents, he adopted Christianity, I wonder, would that be Shia or Sunni Christianity? I agree with Parsley Man, there is far too much conflicting or incomplete info to even begin to conclude what motivated the perp. Pincrete (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Where is it mentioned in the article that he adopted Christianity? And it does not matter at all- the only thing which matters is what others think of You. I don't think that school bullies checked data before bullying. And is it true, that he changed his name only when he became adult--Ltbuni (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Sonboly's parents told police that their son had possibly converted to Christianity, but that he was not religious. Sources: Munich gunman lured victims with a fake offer of free McDonald's meals + Munich gunman 'obsessed' with mass killings. However the main point is not what combination of 'school shooter', racial and religious motives are possible, it is that there is no single clear motivation supported by RS and it would be improper for us to suggest there is.

I believe the 'real name' source says that he officially changed his name only when he became 18, and that legally he could not have done so sooner. He may of course have chosen to use 'David' before then without it having any legal backing. Having worked briefly in Germany, many years ago, I find it easy to imagine why he would dislike 'Ali', which, certainly when I worked there, tended to be used by some Germans for any Muslim that they couldn't remember the name of, especially Turks. I bit like 'Paddy' or 'Jock' or 'Fritz' are used in the UK for Irish or Scots or Germans. Pincrete (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"it would be improper for us to suggest there is" Agreed, I don't bring the Shia-Sunnite issue untill I find source. But You are suggesting too that he may have been converted or he may have wanted to change his name earlier. But maybe not. According to several articles, he had been planning the killings for years, before he changed his name or his religion - so I don't find it unimaginable that he was bullied due to religius issues. And seeing the German Officials efforts to deny that there may be connection between the crimes of the "Bloody Week" and the problems either with the Muslim identities,or the with the migrants, I highly doubt that they would do any investigation in this direction - they don't want to incite the religious sentiments. For German motivation see this --Ltbuni (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't find anything 'unimaginable', but here we follow what the bulk of WP:RS say explicitly. Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"find an English/German-language source, otherwise not notable"

Why not? If You got problems with the translation, ask help from the Hungarian WikiEmbassy. Or on this Talk Page. The lady was there, hiding in a shop. --Ltbuni (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

First, it was not an early report. We report the "Allahu Akbar" witness because it was widely disseminated in the media since the beginning and generated confusion concerning the motive. If another witness's claims are reported only by a Hungarian newspaper and not by German- and English-language sources, they are not notable. Nykterinos (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

First, You are right, here is a day earlier version of the interview: http://nol.hu/kultura/ha-jobbra-nez-halott-vagyok-magyar-lany-mesel-a-muncheni-pokolrol-1624853 Hope, it is early enough. It was published in the printed version of the Népszabadság on the 24th of July. Obviously it was made a day earlier. Secondly, notability does not depend on the language, but on the content - for example You accepted the SZ version on the issue how Ali/DAvid/ whatever name was, even though the others for example the focus.de is still using the Ali Sonboly version. It would be cultural racism to omit a source, just because it is written in a language You don't know. It was appeared not only in one Hungarian journal, but in the whole media, including the Hungarian version of RTL. She was a witness, she was there, and she escaped back to Hungary. That is why she was not asked by the international media. But I am now searching an English source--Ltbuni (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Not an early report, but WP:RS, regardless of the language. Subject to WP:DUEWEIGHT considerations, though, given the limited dissemination and therefore limited scrutinity. --PanchoS (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"shit Turks"?

Could someone whose German is better than mine check the Frankfurter Algemeine claim. I thought this was settled that it was not the perp. who shouted this. I've attributed for now to FA. Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The audio is not very clear, and transcriptions differ. Apparently, both an onlooker and the gunman shouted anti-Turkish abuse. This transcription in the Guardian attributes the first insult to an unknown speaker ("possibily the shooter"), then an onlooker insults Kanake, to which the gunman replies he is German. The FAZ says the gunman himself insulted Turks: "Für die rassistische Gesinnung spricht auch der Wortwechsel, den S. sich nach seiner Tat mit einem Anwohner des Olympia-Einkaufszentrums lieferte, der ihn von seinem Balkon aus beschimpfte. S. rief dabei unter anderem „Scheißtürken!“. Außerdem legte er Wert darauf, dass er Deutscher und in Deutschland geboren sei." ("The argument S. had after the attack with an in inhabitant of the Olympia shopping mall, who insulted him from his balcony, points to racist convictions, too: S. shouted "Shit Turks", among other things. He also stressed that he was German and was born in Germany"). Nykterinos (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is what one of the onlookers states he shouted at David S.: http://www.focus.de/politik/videos/muenchen-das-ist-der-mann-der-den-amoklaeufer-beschimpfte_id_5757365.html --Ltbuni (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The CNN also states that he shouted anti-Turks words. Last 2 sentences: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/23/europe/germany-munich-shooting/ --Ltbuni (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I will read and also listen to the original videos later and respond, does anyone have better/more vid-links than [1] [2] [3]? --SI 10:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe its quality is better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMy5SJCzvDw --Ltbuni (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

could not be verified

User:PanchoS regarding this edit. Do you understand the difference between 'could not be verified' and 'has not been verified'? 'Could not be verified' means that the police and others have tried (extensively?) to verify and been unable to do so. Does any source state that? 'Has not been' is a simple statement of fact, no verification has been found or announced by the police, perhaps they will tomorrow, perhaps never, we don't know, but it properly balances the witness account. I think the witness is probably wrong, but we cannot imply that the police have concluded she is wrong without a source. I'm not going to argue about 'on the phone', though it seems trivial, a witness in Munich is hardly going to visit the studio of a news station in the US. Pincrete (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: "Could not be verified" is a bit ambiguous in that regard, yes. The sentence you left was wrong however. Also, "on the phone" is not trivial, because it means the correspondant didn't personally meet the witness to prove her credibility. If the correspondant was in the U.S. rather than in Munich, that'd be even worse, but as he had previously been to Nice, he might well have taken the first available plane to Munich. Frankly, your cardboard argument makes me a bit suspicious. --PanchoS (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious of what for God's sake! "Could not be verified" is not at all ambiguous, it is simply wrong. 'She could not have children', means something completely different from 'she has not had children'. The source makes it pretty clear that the police had no record of such a witness (on 25/7) but goes on to say that they hadn't collated all statements. Yes, the source itself (and I as a matter of fact), think the witness is probably mistaken, but you cannot imply that the police have concluded she is wrong, from statements that say they have no record of her account. Pincrete (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Speculations section

I wonder whether it would be useful to have a 'speculations (as to motive)' section. This could include early 'gaffes' by Boris Johnson and others about 'Islamist/refugee' connection and some of the later 'targetting foreigners/ those of muslim descent' speculations. My logic is that such speculations are, and have been, a notable feature, but putting them in a distinct section would make it easier to give them due weight. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. --Ltbuni (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that speculations are notable, and that WP:FRINGE claims (like this) deserve an additional section. Claims by notable politicians like Johnson can be added in the "reactions" section (but I would leave them out, too). Nykterinos (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

What I was suggesting, was speculations which have received a certain level of coverage, not an 'open door'. Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That kind of section sounds like it's going to leave room for WP:OR and WP:FRINGE... Parsley Man (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

What is this?

• https://redice.tv/
• https://redice.tv/news/brave-man-who-stood-up-to-munich-shooter-now-facing-prosecution-for-insulting-killer

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Not true. Just sensational headlines. See my previous comment. --Ltbuni (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Perpetrator's name

Browsing the news I've found several variations of the name:

Ali David Sonboly - David Ali Sonboly - Ali David Sonboli - David Ali Sonboli

Which one is correct? -- My-wiki-photos (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Most sources appear to be using Sonboly, but some are Ali Sonboly, some David Sonboly, some both, ADS appears most common, though police initially referred to him as just David S. Pincrete (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Do note that according to the article, David S. (which I assume is supposed to be short for David Sonboly/Sonboli) is the name used by the police to refer to the shooter. Parsley Man (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe that was only initially, until the full name was given. One source said that his parents recognised him on TV and voluntarily contacted police while event was ongoing, worthy of inclusion? Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Is there any reliable source that doesn't refer to him as either "Ali David Sonboly" or "David S."? I think not.
  Also, I don't understand all the fuzz about his name. He obviously has two given names, Ali and David. Apparently "David" has been specified as the primary forename (German: Rufname) in either his birth certificate or his naturalization certificate, generally no unusual practice for German nationals, with or without migrant background. In that case, the Bavarian police would be absolutely correct to refer to him by the name "David S." --PanchoS (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources who use "David Ali Sonboly",[4][5] with the BBC having made a notable change from using "Ali David Sonboly". According to reports from his classmates he was commonly referred to as "Ali".[6][7] With the Police using "David S." and the bit about the Rufname (if verifiable) I'd have thought his official first name would be David, but I think we'll have to wait for an official verifiable declaration before knowing for sure. Until then we should probably go with Ali (on common name grounds), but it seems we might have a choice about how to present it. Also, I think most sources use Sonboly with a 'y'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

According to this source [8] his name used to be Ali Sonboly, but he officially changed his first name to David. Some of his allegedly friends still called him Ali and he hated that (Seen this on TV. I try to find a source for that). So his official name at the time of the shooting was David Sonboly. That's also the name the police published. He used to be called Ali Sonboly. David Ali Sonboly and Ali David Sonboly are both incorrect. 146.155.121.166 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, have changed it. --PM3 (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This updated source ("Aktualisiert am Freitag, 29.07.2016, 07:29") is still using Ali. --Ltbuni (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Der Spiegel stating Sonboly "had his name changed to David" could mean anything. On the other hand, BBC's changing the name order while others don't, doesn't mean anything. Here's another report by Swiss tabloid Blick, but we don't know for sure until there are more precise, more reliable reports. --PanchoS (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

His name was never "Ali David ..." or "David Ali ...". The munich newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung[9] explains (like Der Spiegel already briefly did[10]) that he was born/baptised as Ali Sonboly and shortly after his 18th birthday, not long before the attack he had it changed to David Sonboly by German authorities on his own request. In Germany this is by far more difficult and restricted that in the U.S., so there is nothing in between, only the "amtliche Eintragung" at the "Meldebehörde" is accurate. --SI 18:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, it might be true, but the focus.de is STILL using the Ali, even though the editors DID READ the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Why? --Ltbuni (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It is always difficult to speculate why journalists keep to their own prior statements. I will keep my eyes open and come here again if I find anything better / newer. Only the Einwohnermeldeamt München could give the official dates of the Namensänderung (name change) - the reason would be really interesting (Namensänderungsgesetz). Afaik they never publish such things, so we depend on police, officials and journalists. --SI 19:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What is more, if I am not mistaken, the Süddeutsche Zeitung states that he changed his own name in his official papers (passport etc.) only when he became adult, in May. During his first 18 years he was called Ali - that is why people were accostumed to this.I think that this should be added to the article.--Ltbuni (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ltbuni: Unsure if Focus did know or not – the two reports are just few hours apart – and what they made of it. But whatever their editorial guideline may be, it is plainly irrelevant to us, unless they went on to explicitly challenge the Süddeutsche Zeitung findings. I agree the SZ findings should be added to the article in detail. --PanchoS (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Schmarrnintelligenz: Thank you very much for the link. Today's report on Süddeutsche Zeitung indeed is the first highly reliable, highly specific source on Sonboly's official name, and is clearly binding for us here. The German authorities really did a terrible job by not reacting at all to the widespread speculation and conspiracy theories. Then again, they could say, that's not their problem, but in the end it is. Anyway, according to what we know, his name was David Sonboly, born Ali Sonboly. --PanchoS (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Media are still referring to him by both names, therefore any 'legal name' would only be first in the list, for exactly the same reasons that W J Clinton is 'Bill', regardless of whether it is a 'birth name' 'nickname' or any other reason. Both names are what he has become notable by. Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Persian?

Is there any reliable source for the translation/transliteration " علی سنبلی " / " دیوید سنبلی " ?--SI 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Schmarrnintelligenz:The name in Persian entered into Google Translate produces Ali Sonboli in English. Searching Google News with the same name in Persian produces a list of links all leading to websites written in Persian. I personally don't know which of those websites are reliable sources.--My-wiki-photos (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, My-wiki-photos! @Parsley Man: As you reverted my "cn" could you please tell us in which source you saw that exact information? I have checked all sources again but can't find it. (Google translate cannot prove what was written in David's/Ali's iranian passport.) --SI 06:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The Süddeutsche Zeitung citation before already covers the whole thing, right? Parsley Man (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

They (all) only give the name in Latin letters. I found not a single reliable source how the original Farsi / Arabic / ??? letters of "Ali / David / Sonboly/Sonboli/Sunbuli/Somboli/..." were in his iranian passport. That's why I "cn'd" it. --SI 06:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No reason to imagine that any reader would benefit from knowing the Persian. Pincrete (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The name "Ali Sonboly" is written "علی سنبلی" and pronounced Persian pronunciation: [æliː-e somboliː] in Persian (The -[e] after æliː is the Izāfa, which is a grammatical marker linking two words together. It is not indicated in writing, and is not part of the name itself, but is used when a first and last name are used together. The "m" sound in "Sonboly" has a morphophonemical reason). If you need a source to confirm, I've found you a Deutsche Welle article. Pahlevun (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the transliteration is correct, but what point is there in including it, since no sources refer to him thus, and there is even no reason to believe he could even write in this script or is recorded anywhere thus. He was born in Munich.Pincrete (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the only reason to include the Persian equivalent is the Wikipedia tradition descibed in MOS:FORLANG. If there is no consensus to include it, remove it. Pahlevun (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Pahlevun, I don't have strong feelings either way about 'Persian name', IMO not necessary but not harmful. Guideline says "If the subject … is closely associated with a non-English language", rather than simply being 'foreign person'. I was only able to 'google translate' your 'D Welle' link, but noticed that there were some distinct German-Iranian reactions to the event. Are any of these worth including? Pincrete (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is covering reactions in social media among Iranian users and the rumors surrounding the event, such as the claim that the shooter comes from Syria, or is a member of IRGC. Pahlevun (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: Where exactly did you see consensus here to re-insert that still unsourced translation-guess as if it was a fact? Yes, some media are using this re-translation to Persian from his Germanised name, therefore it would justify a redirect, but the way you put it in the article again and like your wording here above you state it as a well-sourced fact to be his original iranian passport-name and how his family pronounced it.

That is like a man by the name of Piet Meier going to China, getting his name transliterated to "用信統", then someone in Chinese Wikipedia with no or little knowledge of Germanic languages looking up Google and stating "his original name is Pete Myer, and he pronounces it "...".

If we really get a consensus on the need to publicize this media speculation, then only marked as such and without the even more speculative pronunciation guess. Please consider that readers highly trust Wikipedia as giving facts. --SI 21:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Where did you take the IPA "æliː-e" from? - it must be wrong! He got this name here in Germany, not in America or Enlgand. In Germany we (including the Iranians that live here) pronounce the "A" in "Ali" like English speakers pronounce the "u" in "nut" or "sun", not "æ"; and we pronounce "Ali" with emphasis on the "A" and a very short, dropping "i" at the end, not connected to a last name. Also German authorities use an "m" when it is spoken like that, so they would not accept "Sonboly" when it is spoken "Somboli". Also, as already posted above - do you know all the dialects spoken in Iran and which one Mr. Sonboly's family speaks? --SI 22:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The 'Persian name' is sourced, but I don't think it's a just a question of source or accuracy, rather one of relevance. Sonboly is not a Mao, an Eisenstein or a Theodorakis, all of whom were and are known by names in their own script. AFAIK, Sonboly is not. Pincrete (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not sourced to be his actual Iranian passport name. It is only sourced, that media is using this re-translation-guess. --SI 22:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No reason to think he has ever had an Iranian passport, can write in that script, or has ever used it himself. Same conclusion as you, but for different reason, I think it's not relevant. We don't anyway ask to see someone's passport, merely how they are being referred to in sources. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Iranian passport (German = "iranischer Pass"/"iranischen Pass"): Staatsanwaltschaft/Bayernkurier[11] + Süddeutsche Zeitung[12] + Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung[13] + Deutschlandfunk[14] + Augsburger Allgemeine[15] + ... --SI 00:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Schmarrnintelligenz: "it must be wrong!"? Interesting, you want to teach a fish to swim? For your information, my Persian language knowledge and awareness of dialects spoken in Iran does not come from a perception of their Wikipedia articles, It's my daily life. Regarding the name, which is obviously an original Iranian name (hence, not a German name), Ali is a very common male name in Iran (or actually the most popular male name in Iran, according to authorities) and in Standard Persian (which Template:IPA-fa represents) it is pronounced "æliː". Sonboly (meaning "related to Sonbol=hyacinth") comes from Sonbol (not necessarily meaning hyacinth here) which in Standard Persian, is pronounced "somboliː". Last but not the least, the "-e" between "æliː" and "somboliː", is the Izāfa connecting first name to the last name. So, contaririly to what you claim about "man by the name of Piet Meier", It is originally علی سنبلی getting his name transliterated to "Ali Sonboly". I really don't give a damn about either including the Persian script and pronounciation in the article or not, but the only one I see here objecting my edit is you, obviously not a "consensus to remove it" and considering MOS:FORLANG, it is "suggested" to include it. Anyway, I tend to judge about something that at least, I have the slightest idea about and this case is not an exception. Pahlevun (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a bit off topic here, but dear Pahlevun, do You think that it is possible that Ali was harassed/bullied, because he was Shia? Could his Turkish and Arabic schoolmates identify him as a Persian by his name? Is this Sunnite-Shia tension that harsh?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't know your background, Pahlevun, I'll try to find time and words for a better answer within the next days. --SI 10:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ltbuni: It's really hard to judge on that. The name Ali is also used in Turkish and Arabic societies, but I guess it's hard for a schoolboy to recognize Sonboly as a Persian name. Pahlevun (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Schmarrnintelligenz: It's always OK to ask for a reliable source or challenge such material, and I'm sure you want to protect Wikipedia from unverifiable content. Pahlevun (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: As his original name is Persian, I really don't see a reason for not including the transliteration of the name in the article if we just can find a reliable source citing it. I believe there is at least one reliable source in Persian that we could use as a reference. Are you able to point out that source? Perhaps this list may be of help?--My-wiki-photos (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: Thank You !--Ltbuni (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@My-wiki-photos: Almost all Iranian media outlets are citing international agencies on the event. This is Iranian government's official newspaper, Iran citing his name Ali Sonboly. Pahlevun (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pahlevun:Thank you! That will do it. I will include it later on.--My-wiki-photos (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I included his Persian name under "Native name" in infobox yesterday, but it was reverted by @WWGB:, who justified the revert saying a German born person could not have a Persian native name. I disagree. However, I again included the name, this time under "Other names", but I am not happy with that. The meaning of "native" does not exclusively imply the place of birth. As one can see in the dictionary native adj also indicates b. Being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place. I think his name in Persian is his native name, regardless of where he was born.--My-wiki-photos (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

What is the rationale for including someone's name in an ancestral language when they were not born in that country? If we are to include Sonboly's name in Persian because his father was born in Iran, then by the same logic we should include Barack Obama's name in Swahili because his father was born in Kenya. WWGB (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, Barack Obama is not a Kenyan citizen. On the other hand, Sonboly held both German and Iranian citizenship --My-wiki-photos (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

He had his name changed from Ali to David in May, 2016. Why is it a problem to add the original name he had been living with, for almost two decades (18 years)?--Ltbuni (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

What I don't see is any argument above as to how adding Sonboly's Persian name benefits the reader, use of that name is so extremely thin that it has been difficult to establish exactly what the name is and how to pronounce or spell it. That he was born an Iranian national by virtue of inheritance and German nationality law, seems a very meagre connection. I agree that 'Ali' should be included though, since use is widespread in RS. Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedia is based on facts. He was a dual citizen having his original name in two different scripts. His native name is in Persian script, as I explained above. Both should be included. If any of us were in that kind of situation, would we not treat both variations equally, and expect everyone else to respect that? --My-wiki-photos (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, WP is based on relevant facts. The guideline says to include other names/scripts "If the subject … is closely associated with a non-English language". I have met people of Greek descent, with the right to Greek citizenship, who cannot write their own names in that script. It is an accident of German nationality laws, that until a certain age, Sonboly was legally Iranian. As far as we know, no one does, or has ever, referred to him in Persian script. WP would treat any 'alternate names' equally, only if they were widely known or used. This person is now a Russian, his name in Cyrillic is not in his article, because it is simply never used by RS, though it is presumably on his present passport. Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Why would it be irrelevant? It's in the core of his problems with his own identity - that is why he kept repeating that he was German and not something else. The comparison with Dépardieu is incorrect: Dép. is a well-known actor, who has been creating a trademark from his name - it is obvious that he is still referred by his previous name. " It is an accident of German nationality laws," - Are You sure? "WP would treat any 'alternate names' equally, only if they were widely known or used" - everyone called him Ali, it is written in the sources. And as far as we know, no one does, or have ever referred to him as David in Latin letters either - given the fact, that he had his name changed only 2 months before the rampage. So, shall we delete the David as well?--Ltbuni (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to make it short, because it's pretty obvious. Sonboly's first/native language is Persian. It is clearly indicated here Native name 'The person's name in their own language, if different.' My first edit included the name as Native name, then it was reverted, and after that I put it as Other names. My first edit was the correct one.--My-wiki-photos (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

So who exactly is using his Persian name? There's a fair bit of WP:OR and (intelligent) guesswork above to even work out what it was in Persian. I'm only querying the name, the dual-nationality is RS and clearly relevant, as is the widely referred to 'Ali'. Sonboly was born in Germany, it is probable (but not known), that he could speak Iranian, completely unknown whether he could even read Persian script. When I see RS using his Persian name, then I'll be persuaded that it is relevant. Pincrete (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

RS was pointed out to me by Pahlevun on this page yesterday who said, "Almost all Iranian media outlets are citing international agencies on the event. This is Iranian government's official newspaper, Iran citing his name Ali Sonboly." I used the source as a reference for the edit.--My-wiki-photos (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Well of course they use Persian, presumably they render Clinton, Depardieu and the Pope in Persian too. As I've said above, I don't object to including as an 'other name', though I still don't see its value. Extrapolating 'birth name' or 'born' from that is SYNTH IMO. Presumably when he was born, the hospital doctors and nurses didn't learn Persian to record his birth, presumably his birth was registered in Germany, once again in Latin script. Yes, presumably, at some point a parent would have had to register him at an Iranian consulate, when Persian (and Latin?) script would have been used. I just don't see that there is any evidence that the Persian script name has ever been used by him or anybody. We don't render Sadiq Khan in Urdu, simply because he has Pakistani parents. Iranian-born parents, as far as we know, are Sonboly's only link to Iran. Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Since he visited Iran (for example in 2015, as footnoted in the article) it is really pretty obvious that he is connected to Iran, used his name in Persian script, was addressed as Ali and he could sign his own passport in Persian.--Ltbuni (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I feel that my point on the issue here has been completely missed. The discussion on the issue is not sufficiently focused. Therefore, I will postulate it in simple and clear terms. Think about it, do not rush it, and voice your opinion only if you disagree with it. 1. A person’s identity is described in an appropriate infobox. 2. If a person is confirmed to be a dual national, both nationalities are part of the person’s identity, and therefore equally relevant, both languages and language scripts must be included and treated equally. --My-wiki-photos (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Re part two, only 'identities' which are generally referred to, ie not examples like Depardieu, Khan, or others which may exist, but which we don't find being used. The issue has become academic however. Pincrete (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That may well be another topic to discuss regarding well-known people with celebrity status; however this basic assumption that applies to people not previously known has to be established. Failure to do so amounts to bias.--My-wiki-photos (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's normal practice, we don't go 'looking for names' that are not in the public sphere, nor for instance do we render the Greek name of the victim, but let's agree to disagree in this instance. Pincrete (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No, this only applies when filling in a person's detailed identity card, such as an infobox.--My-wiki-photos (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In this case, Sonboly's original native name (Ali Sonboly in Persian script) is in the public sphere referenced by reliable sources.--My-wiki-photos (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You said you disagreed. So let me get this straight. Are you claiming that Ali Sonboly does not have a native name because he was not born in Iran even though he is a confirmed national of Iran, and his first/native language is Persian? --My-wiki-photos (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

According to the Iranian nationality law "Iran does not recognize dual citizenship as such. For the Iranian government, in practice, dual citizens are IRANIAN citizens only.[5] However, article 977 of the Civil Code of Iran deals with multiple citizenship. As a consequence of Paragraphs 4 or 5 of Article 976, some Iranian minors may have multiple citizenship. If they wish to retain the non-Iranian nationality after age 18, they have to inform Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs"

Iranian passports valid for only a 5 or a 10 years term. For the reneval, one should fill in the following application form: http://iranianembassy.nl/en/form/101.htm

Ali was Persian citizen, because of his father's nationality, could speak Persian, visited Persia, could fill in the form in Persian (He had his name changed in all documents, plus, he declared that he wants to retain German citizenship) - so, I don't really get the problem with his name in Persian script. --Ltbuni (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already said I don't object to Persian as 'other name', so I don't know what is being discussed. Cat Stevens, has a Greek name, as well as a 'stage name' and an adopted name. We don't render his name in Greek script, because there is no reason to believe he has ever used it or can write it even, nor that it would be useful to the reader. Melina Mercouri however has a recorded life as a Greek, and it would be insulting to not render her name in Greek script. Most of the extrapolation about Sonboly seems WP:OR, I see no evidence that he meaningfully had any 'Iranian' life, I'm not even certain that he could speak Iranian or write Persian script. Michael Dukakis and Spiro Agnew are both of Greek descent and have Greek names, they may even have visited grandparents, we don't render their names in Greek, because they simply have no Greek life that we know of. Pincrete (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

What is being discussed is whether or not Sonboly has a native name. So, once again, are you claiming that Sonboly does not have a native name because he was not born in Iran even though he is a confirmed national of Iran, his original name (Ali Sonboly) is obviously Persian, and his first/native language is Persian? --My-wiki-photos (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

'Native' language or script is SYNTH IMO, if a single legal document (a passport), probably using the script is the sole justification. Countless Greek, Russian, Chinese, Jewish descent people may have names/scripts which they have never used or been widely known by and which they may even be unable to write. Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's SYNTH at all. Being a confirmed national of Iran, Sonboly was a native of Iran merely by definition of native -> b. Being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place., and consequently he had a native name. --My-wiki-photos (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have to resort to dictionary definitions, and surmisals about what language and script was 'native' to Sonboly, it's SYNTH. Sonboly was a native of Germany, whatever language, script or nationality he originally had or learnt. Pincrete (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

We all have to fully understand English first. That’s the sole purpose of using dictionary definitions. Whether or not Somboly had used the Persian language or script is totally irrelevant to having a native name. What’s relevant here is that he originally belonged to a particular group of people by his name and his citizenship, and that’s what made him native to that group of people. He was a German merely by his place of birth. --My-wiki-photos (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As an example, if you bring seeds of a plant from Asia into America, and grow the plant in America, you say that the plant is native to Asia, not America. I have nothing more to say on this topic. --My-wiki-photos (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

People are not plants, neither the potato nor the tomato will ever be 'native' to most of the world, regardless of their ubiquity. Also 'native' has multiple meanings, 'native Americans' are not simply all those people born in America, whereas 'I am a native Oxfordian', refers solely to my place of birth, not ancestry or citizenship, or first language. In that latter (literal) sense Sonboly was a native of Germany, who acquired Germany nationality at some unknown later date. Pincrete (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

---