Open main menu

Talk:2019 Halle synagogue shooting

Could page title be more accurate?Edit

From initial reports, there was no shooting at or in the synagogue, and those who died were a passersby and a client in a kebab shop, both unrelated to the synagogue. Perhaps "2019 Halle attack" or something similar would be better. Jontel (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I support this suggestion! Maybe the synagoge was the first aim of the nazis, but they shot people randomly, cause the victims where enemies of their ideology (yewish garveyard, turkish kebab shop). --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
As per your suggestions and WP:BOLD, I moved the title from "2019 Halle synagogue shooting" to "2019 Halle attack". Wakari07 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I've moved to "2019 Halle antisemitic attack" in keeping with sources. Example: "Germany: mass shooting attempt that killed two was antisemitic attack, minister says" Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Antisemitism wouldn't have been the motive for shooting the person in the kebab shop, nor shooting the electrician. We don't usually include the motive in our article titles. If we were to routinely do so, February 2016 Ankara bombing would be renamed February 2016 Ankara Kurdish nationalist bombing & 7 August 2019 Kabul bombing would be renamed 7 August 2019 Islamist bombing. Jim Michael (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Consider these excerpts from a source:

"a gunman in a military-style outfit tried to force his way into a synagogue in an attempted mass shooting"

"Based on current information, we have to assume that it was at least an antisemitic attack"

"Security at synagogues around Germany was boosted in the wake of the attack"

"Between 70 and 80 people had gathered in the synagogue in the area to celebrate Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year in Judaism, when they heard the shots outside the building. Via a security camera, they could make out a man trying to enter the building by shooting at the locks."

"The attacker repeatedly shot at the door and also threw several Molotov cocktails, firecrackers and grenades to force his way in,” the head of the the Jewish community in Halle, Max Privorotzki, told Der Spiegel magazine."

"But the door stayed shut, God protected us. The whole thing lasted perhaps five to 10 minutes,” Privorotzki added. Worship continued after the attack, he said."

It was primarily an antisemitic attack. Bus stop (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I've made this edit as I actually think the original title was best: 2019 Halle synagogue attack. Bus stop (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Jontel writes "there was no shooting at or in the synagogue" but this source says "Between 70 and 80 people had gathered in the synagogue in the area to celebrate Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year in Judaism, when they heard the shots outside the building. Via a security camera, they could make out a man trying to enter the building by shooting at the locks." I would interpret "shooting at the locks" as "shooting at or in the synagogue". That source says "The attacker repeatedly shot at the door". If they "shot at the door" then there was "shooting at or in the synagogue". Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The synagogue was the initial target, but there were also attacks away from the synagogue on the same day, apparently by the same man. This article is about all the day's linked attacks. The reason that the article was moved from its original title was that the synagogue wasn't the only target. Jim Michael (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The assailant created a video in which they said "The root of all these problems is the Jew."[1] Based on this I'd say the attack was primarily antisemitic, and the source I just quoted uses the headline "Assailant Live-Streamed Attempted Attack on German Synagogue". The headline used in the source would support our terminology 2019 Halle synagogue attack. Bus stop (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
There are other aspects of his ideology, and it's unlikely that the attacker was looking for Jews in a kebab shop. Having antisemitic and/or synagogue in the title makes it sound like that was the whole attack. Jim Michael (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
This was primarily a synagogue attack. All indications in presently available sources are that this was an instance of antisemitism. "A heavily armed gunman with a live-streaming head camera tried to storm a synagogue in eastern Germany on Wednesday as congregants observed the holiest day in Judaism. Foiled by a locked door, he killed two people outside and wounded two others in an anti-Semitic spree that smacked of far-right terrorism."[2] The gunman was "Foiled by a locked door". The locked door prevented the gunman from getting in the synagogue. The subject of the article is primarily a "synagogue attack". Bus stop (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It was a primarily a killing spree after a failed synagogue attack. It's being investigated as murder, a hate crime if you wish. If it was 'only' the synagogue attack, it wouldn't have its own article. The background is worse than antisemitic. Wakari07 (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it was an attack spree after failing to attack the synagogue. The spree is more notable than the initial attempted attack. Jim Michael (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant guideline, rather than subjective impressions of intended or actual target. IMO, sources endorse use of 'Halle synagogue' attack as the title. Pincrete (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Wakari07—I don't think merely shooting at the locks of a synagogue would be construed as a minor incident and therefore not worthy of news coverage. You are saying "If it was 'only' the synagogue attack, it wouldn't have its own article." Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It would have received some news coverage, but there wouldn't be a WP article: lone attacker, minor damage, no casualties. Jim Michael (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
"there wouldn't be a WP article" Seriously? "Between 70 and 80 people had gathered in the synagogue in the area to celebrate Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year in Judaism, when they heard the shots outside the building. Via a security camera, they could make out a man trying to enter the building by shooting at the locks. 'The attacker repeatedly shot at the door and also threw several Molotov cocktails, firecrackers and grenades to force his way in,' the head of the the Jewish community in Halle, Max Privorotzki, told Der Spiegel magazine." This is occurring post Christchurch mosque shootings. And there wouldn't be an article? We have an article on Mike the Headless Chicken. We have articles on Graffiti "artists". But 70 to 80 people narrowly escaping death would not warrant an article? That incident alone would not garner major news coverage? Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
If the article had existed, it would have been deleted or redirected as insufficiently notable due to there having been no injuries. The media coverage is largely because there was a 'madman on the rampage'. Four people were killed in the Kansas City, Kansas bar shooting and another four in the 2019 Lower Manhattan killings. Both were quickly redirected. Jim Michael (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
You say "Both were quickly redirected." You may be correct. I just don't know. But where would we find evidence of that? Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I am. Look at the histories of the redirects, which state the times and dates that they were created as articles as well as the times & dates that they were turned into redirects. Jim Michael (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Bus stop: Click here. Quickly means one hour and twenty-four minutes. Wakari07 (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, the attack failed to hurt the people inside the synagogue. The motive was deeper than 'only' antisemitism. The title shouldn't reflect a reductionist viewpoint. The killed and injured occurred on the street and in a kebab restaurant. Wakari07 (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, it wasn't limited to Halle, so the title should be Halle and Landsberg attack. Or perhaps because there are other Halles and Landsbergs, it should be 2019 Saxony-Anhalt attack. Jim Michael (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Jim Michael—the synagogue that was attacked is the "Halle synagogue". It is referred to as the "Halle synagogue", as in "A total of 51 congregants, including 10 young American visitors, were in the Halle synagogue during the assault, committed on Yom Kippur, the most solemn religious day for Jews. Officials said none were believed hurt." (Emphasis added by me.) Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Jim Michael—you are the editor who created the now-redirected "Kansas City, Kansas bar shooting". Doesn't that indicate that in your assessment such an article was warranted? And the other article you refer to—the "2019 Lower Manhattan killings"—what indication do we have that that there was ever such an article? Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Click on 2019 Lower Manhattan killings, which redirects to Crime in New York City#2010s. Go to the top of that page, click on 2019 LMk at the top of the page, then click on history. You'll see that the article existed for 9h 36m before it was redirected
I think that both that article & the Kansas one should exist as articles rather than redirects. Jim Michael (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, you created that article too, Jim Michael. Well I certainly agree with you there. I was thinking of creating an article on the bludgeoning deaths of the 4 homeless men. (And the critical-injuring of a fifth homeless man.) I certainly think that warrants an article. (And thanks for the lesson in how to use the "history" in redirects.) Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, & I was disappointed with the media coverage being limited & few people editing the article, then it being redirected. As with the Kansas article, if it's turned back into an article, I'll add to it. Jim Michael (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Wakari07—yes, I am aware that the "the attack failed to hurt the people inside the synagogue". How would that obviate the existence of an article? You are writing "If it was 'only' the synagogue attack, it wouldn't have its own article." I don't understand the significance of "The title shouldn't reflect a reductionist viewpoint." If you could clarify, it might help. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Bus stop: I don't feel the need to WP:BADGER this section, since I made my point. Wakari07 (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably "2019 Halle attack" is more accurate. The attack at the synagogue failed, so he started to shot on bystanders and to the kebab shop. Gianluigi02 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The attacks weren't confined to Halle. Jim Michael (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
And they weren’t confined to the synagogue either. At the very beginning, the attacker talks about “feminism” and “the Jew” (sic) being the roots of all evil. He pledges to kill as many “non-whites” as possible. So the female passerby (who mildly challenges him over making noise) isn’t merely shot during his escape. She likely incurred his wrath by simply being a woman who dared challenge him. He then deliberately murders her. The same can be said about the man in the the kebab shop, who the terrorist (falsely, it later turns out) mistakes for an employee of likely immigrant and/or Muslim background. He deliberately murders him, going back several times. This is very different from the male passersby he encounters outside. Being neither female nor likely to be immigrants, he fires a few warning shots, but doesn’t pursue them. Bottom line, he was targeting women and (non-white) immigrants just as much as Jews. Good that the article name now reflects this. —ThorstenNY (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Where the attack(s) took place is largely irrelevant. WP:COMMONNAME applies - if sources refer to the synagogue in their headlines and do not refer to this event as plural 'attacks' and do not refer to Landsberg, - then this present title is wholly wrong. Accessibility trumps pedantic notions of accuracy when it comes to titles. Where will the reader expect to find the article? I came here knowing only Halle and synagogue, as I suspect will many other readers.
History is littered with accepted names which are inaccurate or incomplete (Battle of Hastings wasn't in Hastings - the attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't solely in PH, but coincided with other attacks on installations throughout Hawaii - a recent terrorist attack in London started at London Bridge, but continued in the adjacent area of Borough Market - the commonname is London Bridge attack though). Pincrete (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
nb, the use of the plural 'attacks', causes the grammatical nonsense of "The Halle and Landsberg attacks was a .... attack". Then throughout the article we continue singular 'attack'. I believe that no sources have referred to this as other than a singular event with several phases, and the present title is pure WP:OR. Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Temporarily, I have made the title singular, though I think that "2019 Halle attack" or "2019 Halle synagogue attack" both reflect more accurately the commonname as it is being used in English language sources.Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

This title (2019 Halle synagogue attack and subsequent shootings) is admittedly long but I think it addresses this dispute. Bus stop (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Bus stop, this is the third time that you move the article title according to your agenda instead of consensus. Wakari07 (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

"2019 Halle synagogue attack and subsequent shootings" is a long title. The preovious was more accurate. Gianluigi02 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Wakari07—I think WP:CONSENSUS prefers WP:COMMONNAME. I have added to the common name ("2019 Halle synagogue attack") additional wording ("and subsequent shootings") to address some of the issues raised here by you and others. You are apparently taking issue with the title I have chosen. Why don't you be specific and critique the title I have chosen? In other words—what is wrong with it? Please be specific and please avoid unclear phraseology such as "reductionist viewpoint". Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Bus stop, I think it's a reductionist viewpoint to think that WP:Consensus is just what I think. Wakari07 (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Please critique the title I've chosen. In other words—what's wrong with it, in your opinion? We aren't necessarily discussing philosophy. We are trying to choose the best title. You make the valid point that the incident involves more than just the synagogue attack. My strategy is to include both the synagogue attack and the subsequent shootings in the title. Where have I erred? Bus stop (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It's far too long, isn't the common name, isn't what readers will put in the search bar & is unlike the titles of all our other crime articles. Jim Michael (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
"2019 Halle synagogue attack and subsequent shootings was a far-right terrorist attack". This title is very long and (slightly) has the same singular/plural problem as 'attacks ...was' had. I agree Bus stop that 'synagogue' locates the event and is very widely used in the sources - even if the killings/shootings were not confined to, or even necessarily aimed at the synagogue itself. Pincrete (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Sources compare this incident to the Christchurch mosque shootings. An upgrade in security is commonly understood to be a significant difference between the two incidents. This article could just as well be titled 2019 Halle synagogue attack. Had the door failed the gunman would have killed many within the synagogue. I think we follow the concerns of sources in devising a title. Although subsequent deaths and serious injuries occurred, it is the synagogue congregants and their narrow escape from death that sources commonly note. Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
There have been many failed attacks, the large majority of which don't receive much media coverage. Had the attacker been arrested outside the synagogue after his failed attack there, the media coverage would have been a small minority of what it was. It was him shooting people afterwards and being at large that caused fear among the general public & coverage by the media. There being a 'madman on the rampage' was a bigger story than someone having perpetrated a failed attack which did only a small amount of damage & didn't injure anyone. Jim Michael (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely NO-ONE is calling this incident "Saxony-Anhalt attack spree", hardly anyone is calling it a 'spree' AFAI can see. 'Halle synagogue attack' or simply 'Halle attack' scores many times higher on search engine hits - can we actually settle on a term that someone wanting to find this page is REMOTELY likely to actually type in and kill the name pedantry of what people OUGHT to be calling it? Pincrete (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The synagogue was the initial target, but the attacker quickly abandoned it due to being unable to gain entry to it. Our title should cover all the attacks, not merely the initial (failed) one. If the synagogue had been the only attack location, then it should be in the title. However, as it wasn't, it shouldn't. There were no casualties in the synagogue, and the damage to the building was minor. Someone was killed in the kebab shop, yet no-one has indicated that kebab shop should be in the title. Jim Michael (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Jim Michael—you say "There were no casualties in the synagogue, and the damage to the building was minor." We don't determine article titles by casualties or property damage. I don't find any such criteria mentioned at WP:TITLE. We determine titles by the representation of terms in sources. All sources talk primarily about the synagogue. In the synagogue were approximately 50 people. That is a high concentration of people in one place. And it was the gunman's first place of attack. The synagogue's security systems were recently upgraded and fortified. The gunman repeatedly shot at the lock and used an improvised explosive device to gain entry. But all this failed. From a security camera, also part of the recently upgraded security system, those inside could watch the gunman's attempts to gain entry. It took the police another 10 minutes to get to the synagogue despite this being Yom Kippur. In all likelihood the fortified door and lock prevented this attack from being similar to the Christchurch mosque shootings. And sources make that point too. The synagogue was the gunman's first objective. This clearly suggests the synagogue was the gunman's priority. Titles of articles should reflect coverage as found in reliable sources—not concocted criteria. Please bring WP:SOURCES that fail to position the synagogue as being of central importance to this incident. You are gliding over what sources actually say to tell us that "Someone was killed in the kebab shop, yet no-one has indicated that kebab shop should be in the title." This happens to be the article about the 2019 Halle synagogue attack and subsequent shootings. Who cares if the title is lengthy? Such a title addresses your concerns while still reflecting the prominence given to the synagogue by reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I have asked an admin to restore the stable title Halle and Landsberg attack until there is consensus on a different title. WWGB (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I have actioned the page move to restore the previous title. Please open up a requested moves discussion in order to decide on a page move if needed. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 02:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Jim Michael, at the risk of repeating myself, I think titles are always a trade-off between accuracy/completeness and accessibility (what the reader is most likely to search for, based on what they have read/heard elsewhere). This 'trade-off' is to an extent subjective when the event has not yet fully established a commonname - as here. Personally, I think the 'order of memorability' here is 'Halle' first, then 'synagogue' ..... with 'Landsberg' and 'Saxony-Anhalt' being both less used in sources and less memorable/recognisable to English-speaking readers. It really doesn't matter 2d to me if hardly anyone was shot at or killed at the synagogue itself, if the synagogue was the memorable and initial location - and if it is the location most referred to in sources. There are countless articles on WP where some parts of the event took place outside, adjacent to or somewhere other than the 'memorable' location used in the article title. Pincrete (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Steven Crossin, It was not original title please look at the logs --Shrike (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
He did not say it was "original", it was a stable title until individuals started to move it without consensus. WWGB (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
WWGB, The policy its pretty much clear the first move was without proper move discussion and it was challenged so we need to restore to original name and if anyone want to move again they should gain a consensus. Shrike (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
There's no consensus for any of the several titles that this article has had. I maintain that the current title & Saxony-Anhalt attack spree are the best 2 of those. The fact that attacks took place outside Halle's synagogue both in that city & in Landsberg needs to be covered in the title. To limit the title to Halle &/or synagogue wouldn't be accurate. A page move discussion needs to be started. Jim Michael (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The current title is neither concise, natural (it wasn't an attack on a synagogue, it was an intended attack on people in it) nor precise (doesn't mention any shooting) although it might be recognizable and possibly consistent with other similar articles so that's maybe 2 out of 5 on WP policy for article titles although those are not hard and fast rules. What about "Halle shooting"? I get 118,000 hits on Google for that compared to 54 for "Halle synagogue attack" and lots of RS seem to be using that expression. Antisemitism may have been the motive but there are no Jewish victims. https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-music-lover-a-painter-victims-of-halle-shooting-identified/ and https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Israeli-journalist-in-Germany-I-wasnt-surprised-by-the-Halle-shooting-604419 and https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/halle-shooting-far-right-violence-leaves-shamed-germany-reeling-7qmc3bxb8 Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed - the attack on the synagogue failed & the gunman quickly moved onto other targets. Halle shooting would be better than the current title, but the same attacker also shot people in Landsberg on the same day, so the title needs to include either Landsberg or Saxony-Anhalt. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Well, if people will agree that the present title could be better (I think it could), then we could vote on a suggestion or suggest something else. If we try to go straight into an RFC it might get a bit messy and take a while.Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Selfstudier—why should Wikipedia accept your posited logic that "it wasn't an attack on a synagogue, it was an intended attack on people in it" when sources say "The suspect in the synagogue attack, Stephan B., has confessed"? Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I assume this is a roundabout way of saying you are quite happy with the existing title?Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
He's confessed to all of it, not solely the attempted attack on the synagogue. The title should very briefly describe what actually happened, not merely the attacker's intentions. Jim Michael (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
If we look at similar incidents titles on WP [3] then it seems to be we either have "Date/Place/shooting" or "Date/Place/Building where shooting of people occurred//shooting" and there appear to be no cases like this one where we have "Date/Place/Building where NO shooting of people occurred/shooting" so for example 2019 Dayton shooting or Orlando nightclub shooting so the current title does not meet the consistency guideline either. For what reason is "synagogue" included in the title? Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree - that's why we need an RfC to bring more people here to discuss a page move. Jim Michael (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Selfstudier—I posed a question to you: Why should Wikipedia accept your posited logic that "it wasn't an attack on a synagogue, it was an intended attack on people in it" when sources say "The suspect in the synagogue attack, Stephan B., has confessed"? How can you say "it wasn't an attack on a synagogue"? Aren't sources contradicting you? Your response thus far is "I assume this is a roundabout way of saying you are quite happy with the existing title?" That may be a response but it does not address the question. The sources are telling you it was a synagogue attack and yet you are asking "For what reason is 'synagogue' included in the title?" This is an article about a synagogue attack, not just according to me, but according to reliable sources. We follow reliable sources. The content of our article and the title of our article should be a reflection of that which is found in reliable sources. That should be the way Wikipedia operates. Does that not explain why "synagogue" would be in the title? Here is another reliable source, this time using the terminology "synagogue shooting" in its headline: "How the Synagogue Shooting in Germany Fits Into a Global Pattern of Far-Right Terrorism". All we are trying to do is adhere to sources. If you wish to deviate from sources then I think the onus is on you to present some reason for deviation. Can you tell me why you don't think the word "synagogue" should be in the title, despite almost all sources referring to synagogue attack or synagogue shooting? Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't have to address your questions any more than you have to address mine; if we can't agree, we'll go to an RFC, simple.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Jim Michael—you say "The title should very briefly describe what actually happened, not merely the attacker's intentions." What do you mean by "what actually happened"? Would that not include attacking the synagogue? Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
What you seem not to (want to) understand is that 2 people died and 2 more were injured that had nothing to do with a synagogue, nor were they were Jewish. The whole article has a tendency to read as if the antisemitism aspect is the only thing that really matters when that is clearly not the case.Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Qualification of terrorismEdit

[4] "Hinweise darauf, dass hinter der Tat eine terroristische Vereinigung stehe, gebe es bislang noch nicht, sagte der Sprecher, das könne sich aber noch ändern."

- According to the [prosecutor's] spokesperson, for now there are no indications of a terrorist organisation behind the action, but that could still change. Wakari07 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The definition of terrorism differ from one national legal systems to another. The German federal legal system reflects the shape of terrorist-organizations of the 70th, prominently the RAF. It is not incoperating the differnt right-wing structures in the past and recently. The German statutory offense is "building of an terrorist organization" (three or more individuals) and "membership of an terrorist organization". This idea don´t reflect the on going lone wolf strategy, which is executed by right-wing terrorists. The term domestic terrorism is not used in Germany.
In fact the attack in Halle was domestic right-wing terrorism, cause the attacker was motivated by an (stupid) antesmitic and xenophobic idiology. --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

[5] Now Justice Minister Christine Lambrecht is unequivocal in naming it as a terror attack. Netanyahu did so too [6]. Wakari07 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Terror is not synonymous with terrorism. 'Terror' is often used by politicians and media when they are not yet certain what the motive is. 'Terrorism' has precise (legal) definitions, 'terror' doesn't. Pincrete (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Like I mentioned before, the legal definition of terrorism differ quiet much. 'Terror' is often used by political intentions, thats right. But even if the German Prosecture take it as a "far right motivated crime, heavliy affecting the internal security of Germany", is this discribing what in political science is called right-wing terrorism. It is terrorism against a society democratic represented by a federal state. In parts of German society (including de.Wikipedia) there is the tendencie to lower the fact and discripe it as an "crime of an individual, right-wing motivated". But this is not reflecting what we know from other right-wing terrorist attacks like NSU and others. We should stay true. --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

StreamingEdit

Now sources saying it was not streamed but uploaded afterwards. --Itu (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Most sources I'm seeing include Twitch itself say it was live streamed with 5 viewers watching the live stream. The stream was automatically made available as a video on demand which was watched by 2200 viewers. Now of course copies of the VOD (I assume) are being shared on 4chan etc. He apparently threw his smart phone out the window [7] and was I suspect arrested not long later so I don't see how he would have uploaded it afterwards anyway unless he says streaming it but privately to some service or person who uploaded it. Nil Einne (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Reading the current article, it seems likely that the time between arrest and when he lost his phone was quite long so I guess if he had the recording stored somewhere else he may have had the chance to upload it somehow. But all the sources seem to agree it was a live stream AFAIK. Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

birth place of shooterEdit

The shooter is from Eisleben, Saxony-Anhalt. I couldn't cite the source, because somebody put the newspaper article on wikipedia's blacklist. Here it is https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/09/two-people-killed-in-shooting-in-german-city-of-halle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:13B5:DD40:A578:6A2F:BE3E:957B (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If the source was on the blacklist you wouldn't be able to post it above unless it was whitelisted for this page which I find unlikely. Some one could have added the source to an edit filter to block it being added to an article which isn't what is normally meant by the blacklist but even that seems unlikely. More likely your edit triggered an edit filter. But most likely you did trigger the blacklist but not because the article is banned. When you tried to add the source to the article you provided a different URL to the one you linked above. Do note that URL shortener services like t.co, tiny.cc etc can't be linked to, you need to link the article proper. Likewise links from Google search results google.com/url? and also Google AMP links that you may end up with while browsing on mobile devices can't be used. Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Where was the link to the stream posted originally?Edit

The perpetrator streamed the attack on Twitch, but where did he post the link? 4chan? 8chan? Some other forum or chat? Is it known where he spent his time online and radicalized himself? If anyone knows and has a source, it would be an informative addition. --Jata1919 (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

He streamed it on Twitch. This is not a political platform, but a streaming platform for gamers. https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/halle-wie-sich-das-taetervideo-auf-twitch-telegram-und-facebook-verbreitet-a-1290841.html
The OP clearly knows it was on Twitch. And they never said Twitch was a political platform. They asked if it was known where he linked the stream. The OP is probably correct that the way people found the stream was not simply via finding it on Twitch, in fact Twitch themselves have suggested this, but via an external link probably coming initially from the perpetrator themselves. (I'm sure later it spread via "fans" and similar spreading it.) Of course this could have been private and we may also not know depending on what is made public. Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC about article titleEdit

Should the title of this article, 2009 Halle synagogue shooting, be changed?

Enter Yes or No with one-sentence explanations in the Survey. Additional and back-and-forth discussion may be in Threaded Discussion.

Responders may wish to refer to the discussion section "Could page title be more accurate?" above. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

SurveyEdit

  • Yes. The current title unnecessarily includes the word "synagogue" where no-one was shot, the (non-Jewish) victims were shot elsewhere.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Except perhaps to change 'shooting' to 'attack', since improvised explosives were involved as well as guns. Possibly amend to 'terrorist attack' if suspect is charged with terrorist offences. The synagogue was the initial target and the first victim was shot dead immediately outside the synagogue, and, regardless of what/who was the primary target - the synagogue is referred to frequently in sources and helps 'pin' the event in a way that subsequent/other locations involved do not.Pincrete (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Repeating the RFC instructions, "Enter Yes or No with one-sentence explanations in the Survey."Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, because this spree included attacks elsewhere in Halle, as well as outside Halle. Jim Michael (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Most sources are primarily concerned with the central importance of the synagogue to the incident. Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No Synagogue was primary target and most of the sources refer it as attack on the synagogue [8],[9],[10],[11] so per WP:COMMONAME there is no need to change --Shrike (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No.The phrase "Halle Synagogue" should remain per WP:CommonName. Furthermore, per sources cited above, it seems clear the synagogue was the primary target. No opinion on whether "shooting" or "attack" is better. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Right-wing extremists caused this, but most of the media is more sympathetic to the Zionists than to the Palestinians, so I'd favor a more neutral title here. Jzsj (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Sources use synagouge attack: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-synagogue-attack-who-were-the-victims-in-halle/a-50875421 DW from 18th.
  • No It is accurate as is HAL333 20:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussionEdit

  • A better title might be "2019 Halle and Landsberg shooting" or, to emphasize antisemitic and far right extremist aspects at the cost of length, "2019 Halle and Landsberg antisemitic and far right attack" or similar.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Selfstudier—do you have sources for any of your claims pertaining to who is Jewish and who is not Jewish? I haven't seen that sources have reported anything about that. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
https://www.jewishpress.com/news/global/europe/germany/report-neither-of-halle-synagogue-shooters-victims-were-jewish/2019/10/11/ "Report: Neither of Halle Synagogue Shooter’s Victims Were Jewish"Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

AFAIK, Landsberg is where the perp. 'ran to' having killed two people in Halle. Landsberg is barely mentioned in either the article or in sources. If the synagogue is deemed to be neither v important in the narrative, nor helpful in 'locating the subject', Landsberg seems even less so on both counts. Pincrete (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The synagogue is mentioned, as well as it being Yom Kippur, only to emphasize the antisemitic aspects of this incident, which are anyway included in the article body. I also gave an alternative possible title that recognizes that. Where the victims are is more important than a building, imho; if it had been a cafe, say, would you then have called the article 2019 Halle cafe shooting? I don't think so.Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
You say "Where the victims are is more important than a building, imho; if it had been a cafe, say, would you then have called the article 2019 Halle cafe shooting? I don't think so." A cafe is a different sort of entity from a house of worship. Again, we follow sources. We don't make up our own criteria—not for the content of articles and not for article titles. Sources repeatedly talk primarily about the assault on the synagogue, and it was the gunman's first assault, logically representing a priority, and a high concentration of people—about 50—awaited the gunman's firepower within the synagogue. It is likely that if the gunman had breached the door, the unfolding of this event would have been similar to the Christchurch mosque shootings, and this is not merely my opinion, but the opinion expressed by many reliable sources, actually too numerous to mention. But here are a few:
"Of those, the March 2019 Christchurch massacre in New Zealand — which left 51 worshippers dead in two mosques — has proven to be most influential."
"The methodology of the assailant bore a striking resemblance to the rampage by a far-right extremist against two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, more than six months ago, in which he broadcast his killings live on social media."
"In a chilling echo of the Christchurch mosque shooting, the gunman recorded the attacks on a head-mounted camera and uploaded it online with an antisemitic and rightwing extremist rant."
"The filming of Wednesday’s attack echoed another horrific shooting halfway around the world when a far-right white supremacist in March killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand and livestreamed much of the attack on Facebook."
"The two attacks are very similar, suggesting that the Halle shooter took inspiration from Christchurch."
"The video, which was filmed from the shooter's perspective, bears striking resemblance to the video filmed by the suspect in the March attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand."
"“He armed himself with many weapons, some possibly self-made, and had a large quantity of explosives,” Frank said, adding Balliet said he was inspired by the attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, which killed 51."
"By livestreaming the attack, the shooter was apparently trying to mimic the actions of the shooter who also livestreamed his attacks on a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand last spring."
"The filming of Wednesday's attack echoed another horrific shooting halfway around the world when a far-right white supremacist in March killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand and livestreamed much of the attack on Facebook."
This article is primarily an article about a synagogue attack, according to reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This article should be about 2 dead people and 2 injured people, victims of a right wing extremist, not a synagogue. I can produce just as many sources without synagogue (I already produced 3 yesterday with no effort whatsoever). Just look at the lead, there are 7 references in it, only one says synagogue in the title.Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The title needs to cover all the events in this attack spree, not merely the first (failed) one. Jim Michael (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
It's an RfC because we have several editors who favour several, considerably different titles for this article. It's not a simple case of whether or not to move it from x to y. The RfC will bring more editors here & help to decide the title. Jim Michael (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64:There have been quite a few moves as below, as can be seen there is variation in the attempted titles, the inclusion of "synagogue" having been preferred by the page creator and by editor Bus stop (with and without) and alternatives by 3 other editors (4 if I had had time to include myself) so it is not simply a page move at this point, thus interim RFC:
9 October as 2019 Halle synagogue shooting
9 October Wakari07 moved page to 2019 Halle attack
9 October Bus stop moved page to 2019 Halle antisemitic attack
10 October Jim Michael moved page to 2019 Halle attack
10 October Bus stop moved page to 2019 Halle synagogue attack
10 October Jim Michael moved page to Halle and Landsberg attacks
11 October Pincrete moved page to Halle and Landsberg attack
11 October Bus stop moved page to 2019 Halle synagogue attack and subsequent shootings
11 October Jim Michael moved page to Saxony-Anhalt attack spree
12 October Steven Crossin moved page to Halle and Landsberg attack
12 October Anthony Appleyard moved page to 2019 Halle synagogue shooting: (Requested by Shrike at WP:RM/TR)

Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

nb The above list omits me (Pincrete) moving Jim Michael's 10 October move from "Halle and Landsberg attacks" (plural) to "Halle and Landsberg attack" (singular). Done not because I endorsed the name, but because the name 'messed up' all the text which had been written as singular 'attack'.Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, missed that one, I included it now (and fixed the date on another), hopefully its OK now.Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Selfstudier—you say "Just look at the lead, there are 7 references in it, only one says synagogue in the title." Where do you find a requirement that a source should contain a term in its heading? I had not noticed that at WP:TITLE. There are plenty of sources with "synagogue" in their headings. But you seem to be correct that only one out of seven of the references presently in the lede of our article contains the word "synagogue". Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of those sources found in our lede, does not contain "synagogue" in its headline but its first paragraph reads "A heavily armed culprit has tried to cause a bloodbath among dozens of believers in a synagogue in Halle / Saale. The Jewish community narrowly escaped disaster on its highest holiday, Yom Kippur." That article also tells us that "He is said to have said that his goal was to enter the synagogue." That article also writes "The alleged right-wing extremist Stephan B. from Saxony-Anhalt wanted to storm the synagogue by gun violence on Wednesday afternoon, according to security sources, but failed. The 27-year-old German shot dead two people in front of the synagogue and then in a nearby Döner snack and injured at least two others. He fled the scene and was arrested in the afternoon" and that "The act caused horror worldwide. The Central Council of Jews spoke of a "deep shock" for all Jews in Germany." That is according to Google Translate. Are you trying to tell me reliable sources are not supporting this as primarily about an assault on a synagogue?

You say "I can produce just as many sources without synagogue (I already produced 3 yesterday with no effort whatsoever)." Sorry to contradict you but you did not in this edit of yesterday produce 3 sources that did not contain the term "synagogue". You might have produced one source yesterday that did not contain the term "synagogue". I don't know because the source is behind a paywall. But the other two sources you produced contain extensive references to the synagogue event

I find it incomprehensible that you are arguing to remove "synagogue" from the title. I think it likely that had the gunman entered the synagogue there would have been mayhem on the order of the Christchurch mosque shootings. This is an article primarily about a gunman's attempt to enter a synagogue and cause bodily harm to the many people therein. Bus stop (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I merely responded to your cherry-picked list of sources (which I presume you chose intending to demonstrate common name). As for what MIGHT have happened, one can equally write MIGHT NOT with no difference in meaning, best to stick with what actually happened rather than speculate.Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Jzsj—is that actually a reason to remove "synagogue" from the title? You wrote "Yes. Right-wing extremists caused this, but most of the media is more sympathetic to the Zionists than to the Palestinians, so I'd favor a more neutral title here." So, we are supposed to counterbalance an alleged biased media? I thought we were supposed to reflect sources. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, this incident does not have anything to do with Zionists and Palestinians afaik, clearly we want the article to reflect sources, I don't think anyone has disputed that as such, we are just talking about the article title here (I note that one stage you also favored a title that did not include the word synagogue so perhaps you are not entirely sure about it yourself?)Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Our dependence on Western sources warrants wisdom in the utilization of these sources. Jzsj (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
If one imagined a person who knew English but knew nothing about this attack seeing this title, they would not unreasonably assume that either a synagogue (the building) was shot or (as is common in other similar WP articles) that a shooting took place in the synagogue. The thing is just completely misleading.Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Jzsj (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Jzsj, I puzzled by your response in RFC what the attack has to do with Zionism and Palestinians? Shrike (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jzsj: What the heck does "most of the media is more sympathetic to the Zionists than to the Palestinians" have to do with anything relating to this article or its title? Neither Palestinians nor Zionists seem to have been either targets or primary victims of the attack, nor was the perpetrator either. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Guys, this is an RFC about the article title, if you want to berate someone about their understanding of the situation, do it in a separate talk section, please.Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems that Jzsj's saying/implying that many media sources prominently mention the synagogue due to what he sees as a pro-Israeli/Zionist/Jewish bias, & that we should be neutral in regard to the national/political/religious aspects of this & not follow the media. Jim Michael (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
If that's what he means, fair enough, I'd leave the Palestinians out of it though. The manifesto included "Burning down a mosque would be like a "crusty kebab," [12] but no-one mentions it, so he might have a point at that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Jim Michael, What does Jewish bias means? Shrike (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Bias in favour of Jewish people & organisations. Many people claim that much of the European & North American media have such a bias. I'm not claiming that. Attacks on places of worship (of any religion) typically receive more media coverage than similar attacks on other types of target. Jim Michael (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Jewish and Zionist are separate things. If Jzsj doesn't understand that, I'm not sure they should be commenting in this discussion, or any discussion where Jewish people come up. It's clear from the manifesto, video and synagogue that Jewish people were a key target of the attacker, but I haven't see any evidence Zionists were. It's not like the attacker said "I want to kill Jews because many of them are Zionists" or some disgusting crap like that. If Jzsj wanted to say "Jewish" the should have said so and they can still clarify their comment. Although this still doesn't explain how Palestinian came in to it. As I understand it, kebab shops in Germany tend to be associated with either the Turkish or Muslim population and not the Palestinian one. Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
BTW, the above comment could in part be interpreted as berating "someone about their understanding of the situation" but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest someone who conflates Jewish with Zionist may not sufficiently understand the issues surrounding either Jewish people or Zionism such that their feedback is not likely useful in a discussion. And frankly I think others will be a lot less polite than me. Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Selfstudier: It's entirely reasonable to ask someone for an explanation for their stated reason for supporting or opposing the change. This is not berating "someone about their understanding of the situation". It's trying to advance the discussion of the proposal to change the article title. If there's something we're missing that Jzsj is aware of that justifies the change in the article title, then it will be good if we know but Jzsj needs to explain further since clearly many of us do not understand. If on the other hand, their stated reason actually provides no justification for what they're proposing, then they will likely want to reconsider or reword the !vote as it's likely to be ignored by any closing admin if there is no coherent rationale. If this was a normal RM, I would have replied directly to Jzsj which is what I did at first before I noticed it was not an RM. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

A failed attempt to carry out a mass shooting at Halle's synagogue was abandoned within minutes. It was followed by an attack spree both in Halle and outside it. Although the initial plan was probably limited to the synagogue & its worshippers, most of the spree was unrelated to it. We have articles which include the name or type of building in the title, but in those are cases in which that was the sole attack site and/or where most/all casualties occurred. Jim Michael (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Jim Michael—may we please follow the sources?

"Local media reported that Balliet is from the Saxony-Anhalt region of Germany, and a document posted online said he had driven 45 minutes to the synagogue from his home ... He repeatedly called himself a 'loser' in the footage for failing to break into the synagogue or kill more people, after his homemade gun repeatedly jammed."

Reliable sources are telling us he drove 45 minutes to the synagogue from his home. They aren't saying he drove 45 minutes to the Turkish kebab shop. And the woman that was fatally shot outside the synagogue was chastising him for making too much noise. And he calls himself a "loser" for failing to break into the synagogue or kill more people. Most of this suggests that the synagogue was his primary target. He drove 45 minutes to arrive at a synagogue where he failed to gain entrance, and then targeted others.

"The Twitch video, reviewed by the Guardian, suggests that the attacker was on the street outside the synagogue for more than five minutes, during which time he shot and killed a passerby, without being approached by law enforcement."

Not only was the synagogue his first stop after driving 45 minutes, but the attacker was on the street outside the synagogue for more than five minutes. This is showing us the centrality of the synagogue to this incident.

"Frustrated by his failure, the man went on a rampage in the surrounding streets, while about 70 people inside hid behind chairs and tables."

This is once again showing us that the primary target was the synagogue. According to that source it is frustration with failure to enter the synagogue that leads to a "rampage in the surrounding streets". Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
At the risk of repetition no-one is disputing that the shooter set out with the intent of killing Jews.(ie the antisemitic motive). That's all laid out in the article. We are talking about the article title which is totally misleading and leads one to think that Jews were killed when none were and in effect elides the fact that 2 non-Jews were killed or even that there was an attack anywhere except at a synagogue.Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Selfstudier—sources are generally not "misleading". Perhaps some exceptions exist. But the burden is on you to to substantiate that sources are "misleading" in relation to the subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I never mentioned the sources, I said the article title is misleading, not the sources.Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
"2019 Halle synagogue shooting" gets 7 hits in my browser, all from WP, this article.Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
You say "I never mentioned the sources, i said the article title is misleading, not the sources." We derive titles from sources. Any discussion of titles involves sources. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Certainly one takes into account what the sources say in coming up with a title but the sources say a lot of things, not just synagogue shooting.If some number of Jews were killed in a synagogue I wouldn't even be discussing this.Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
We need a title which covers all the events of this spree. The current title makes it misleadingly seem like the attempt to break into the synagogue was the only event, or the only one that this article covers. Jim Michael (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Selfstudier—you don't even know if all the people in the synagogue were Jews. Couldn't there have been non-Jewish guests? "In light of the previous shootings at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and an attack on a synagogue in Poway, California, the attack on Halle marks the third attack on a synagogue this year." It is a "synagogue attack", according to reliable sources. There is no reason to broaden the title to include anything of secondary importance to the "synagogue attack". All sources position the "synagogue attack" as being of primary importance to this particular incident. Wikipedia doesn't function on who is Jewish and who is not Jewish. WP:TITLE does not make decisions based on whether someone is Jewish or not.

A source tells us "Frustrated by his failure, the man went on a rampage in the surrounding streets, while about 70 people inside hid behind chairs and tables." A source tells us "Local media reported that Balliet is from the Saxony-Anhalt region of Germany, and a document posted online said he had driven 45 minutes to the synagogue from his home." Sources say the gunman spent 7 minutes at the synagogue. Sources tell us he shot a woman because she "reprimanded Balliet for making so much noise near the Jewish house of worship, where Yom Kippur prayers were taking place". WP:TITLE says "Article titles should be recognizable". Sources invariably discuss the "synagogue" first and foremost in any addressing of this incident. Discussion of the "synagogue" makes up the bulk of every source that I've seen on this subject. Speaking of sources, you and Jim Michael haven't presented any sources. Why is that? Aren't there any sources that downplay the centrality of the "synagogue attack" to this incident? I have omitted citations from this post because they are elsewhere on this page. But please don't hesitate to ask me if you would like to see any citations for any of my assertions. It is inexplicable that your argument is to remove "synagogue" from the title of an article primarily about a synagogue attack. Your arguments are just based on your own reasoning with no reference to any sources whatsoever.

This source. It says: "Were it not for a dark wooden door, the authorities say, Stephan Balliet may have succeeded in carrying out a massacre of Jews he had planned to broadcast live around the world. He chose Yom Kippur, knowing the synagogue in Halle, Germany, would be full." Why would we omit the term "synagogue" from the title? This source is not an exception. Every source (that I've seen) on this incident positions the attack on the "synagogue" as being of central importance. There were 2 other deaths and 2 other injuries. They are of peripheral importance—according to reliable sources. It doesn't matter who is Jewish and who is not Jewish. Selfstudier is making up their own criteria when they argue "anyone reading the title would assume that Jews in a synagogue had been killed when what actually happened was that 2 non-Jews were killed elsewhere". Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC) ───────────────────────── I moved the above material here, I think that must be where you meant to put it. You can repeat it all when the RM is up if you want to, we haven't decided on the wording yet.Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your claim that all the casualties are of peripheral importance. Jim Michael (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I hope I've clarified: "They are of peripheral importance—according to reliable sources." Please see above, and I hope you don't mind my altering my post after it had been responded to. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
At the end of the day, consensus is about policy and it's clear that we have differing interpretations of policy in this case so while it would have been good to have been able to agree on something, it seems we needs must defer to the RM process and bring in more voices to the conversation.Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The amount of time & distance that the journey to the synagogue took is of little relevance, because the journey there wasn't part of the attack spree. After a few minutes of trying to force his way into the synagogue, he abandoned that & decided instead to target people who showed no indication of being connected to the Jewish community. Most of the spree wasn't antisemitic; the only part of it that was had no casualties & was a completely failed attempt. Jim Michael (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

A recurring difficulty here is the confusing of article title and article content; no-one is or has disputed that the initial motive was antisemitic and that the initial object of the attack was the synagogue (nor did the would-be shooter go to the synagogue because he expected that there would be non-Jews in the congregation, the contrary) and the article (content) covers that in detail as would any source. But just because sources cover it does not produce a requirement that the source title (or our title) mention the word synagogue (or a kebab shop) and a simple google check confirms this ("Halle shooter", 103K hits and "Germany synagogue shooter", 63K). The reason is simple, the initial attack was frustrated, the attacker switched horses and shot and killed two people (not just shot up a door) as well as injuring and threatening others in different locations away from the synagogue. In the outcome, the shooter was driven not only by an antisemitic but a far right extremist one, which facts are also covered in all sources and should not just be ignored or treated as "secondary". In many respects, they are primary, not secondary.Selfstudier (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course any 3-word search will always produce a smaller number of 'hits' than a 2-word search - in fact I'm surprised how little the 'hit count' is reduced in this instance. I for one would never argue that the inclusion of 'synagogue' is essential, but I would argue that 'synagogue' is a memorable and helpful, one word addition in the way that 'kebab shop', 'somewhere else in Landsbach' etc are not. Another possibility is the addition of motive to the title (far-right?), though that isn't normal. The objections don't seem to hold up in my opinion 'synagogue attack' does not necessarily mean 'in the synagogue', it can equally mean 'at the synagogue '(in both senses ie targeting the synagogue and present at/outside the synagogue). Nor is an attack any less of an attack because it does not penetrate defences - or fails in its aims, which here appear to be to kill Jews (it appears to be sheer incompetence that those killed were neither Jewish, nor foreigners, nor in any other way 'apt' targets to a right-winger). There is not much WP:OR required to conclude that the later events - including the second killing and injuries - only occurred as a result of, (in his terms), the dismal failure of the initisl attack on the intended target - the synagogue. Pincrete (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
How was shooting a man in a kebab shop the result of failing to get into the synagogue? It was what the attacker chose to do, having abandoned his initial plan to target Jews. Jim Michael (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
He "abandoned his initial plan to target Jews", because he couldn't get into the synagogue! He looked for another target because he couldn't kill the Jews he originally intended to kill. There is no suggestion anywhere that the shop was part of any plan. Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Those subsequent targets weren't Jewish. Only the first few failed minutes of the attack spree were antisemitic. Jim Michael (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Where do I suggest anybody was Jewish (except the original targets inside the synagogue)? I don't believe I have used the term anti-semetic anywhere in this discussion - though sources use the term of both the original assault and the rants and manifesto (and conversely, unless the perp was a very angry vegetarian, the kebab shop was probably chosen because of its connection to foreigners/middle easterners/Muslims - so his antipathies are not confined to Jews). Pincrete (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I had to do 3 words to get a respectable number of hits for anything including synagogue, try it yourself.Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Jim Michael—Wikipedia doesn't care who is Jewish or not. You are writing "Those subsequent targets weren't Jewish. Only the first few failed minutes of the attack spree were antisemitic." Let me address this to Selfstudier too, who says "anyone reading the title would assume that Jews in a synagogue had been killed when what actually happened was that 2 non-Jews were killed elsewhere". According to reliable sources the primary topic being addressed here is an attack on a synagogue. Neither of you are bringing sources. I brought many sources demonstrating the centrality of the attack on the synagogue to the topic being addressed in our article. Every reliable source that I have seen devotes the bulk of coverage to the attack on the synagogue. The Nation is a typical source. Its headline reads "The Halle Synagogue Attack Is an Ominous Sign of the German Far Right’s Growing Prominence". And the bulk of that article addresses the attack on the synagogue. It mentions the other casualties of course but coverage of those shootings is found only in a few sentences. This issue is receiving coverage because of the audacity of an attack on a synagogue in Germany. No one has forgotten that Kristallnacht also occurred in Germany. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
You're saying that the attacks in which people were killed & injured are so peripheral to the day's events that they shouldn't be represented in this article's title?! Jim Michael (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
A limited amount of material can fit within a title. Our title should conform to material as it is represented in sources and the rest of our article should conform to material as it is represented in sources. Bus stop (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
All this is just repetition. So I will as well repeat that my interpretation of policy differs from yours and that you yourself at one stage did not think that it was necessary to have the thoroughly misleading word synagogue in the title.Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
This article should conform to the concerns found in reliable sources as concerns its title and as concerns its content. Sources are showing us what is more important and what is less important. We can have sympathy for the loss of life and for the injuries. But a preoccupation with those casualties should not guide us to wrongly state in the title the subject of the article. This article is primarily about the Halle synagogue shooting. Sources focus on the Halle synagogue shooting. For instance: "Around noon on Wednesday, a 27-year-old German man drove to a synagogue in the city of Halle in eastern Germany with the aim of killing as many Jews as possible." Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The article body does conform with RS, we are discussing the title. Our article is a source just like a third party RS; ALL sources dealing with attacks cover all aspects of them, including the planned attack on the synagogue AND the shootings/attempted shootings AS WELL AS other aspects such as antisemitism/far right extremism/streaming/manifestos and so on.Example BUT a check of RS titles shows that the word "synagogue" is not present in the majority of titles ("Halle shooting(s)" is the most common element in titles) and viewed objectively, there is no reason why it should be although I can well understand why some RS editors might choose to do so. I would have no objection to its inclusion if other aspects were also included but we are, as you have pointed out, limited as to length, unlike third party RS.Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Our other articles which have synagogue/church/mosque in the title are about attacks which occurred only/primarily there. We have articles about multiple-location attacks, including: Zama and Shibuya shootings, 2014 Montgomery County shootings, 2016 Maryland shooting spree & 2017 Schofield/Rothschild spree shooting - they aren't named after one attack location only. The media love to overemphasise attacks involving religious buildings, but we don't need to follow them in valuing some types of buildings above human lives. Jim Michael (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Coming at it from the other direction, the nearest equivalent to our case might be 2015 Copenhagen shootings which had 2 deaths (3 including the shooter) one of whom was Jewish and shot outside a synagogue. This on the face of it would seem to be be more deserving of the word "synagogue" and yet it is not there.Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, it perhaps is worth reiterating that there is no consensus for the current title, the current title only exists because it was administratively reverted to that not because it had consensus. It was given two other names (neither of which included the word synagogue) on the same day that the article was created.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
2015 Copenhagen shootings is not even remotely comparable. The initial and 'key' event in Copenhagen occurred at a cultural centre event where a controversial cartoonist was speaking - the synagogue shooting in Copenhagen (which occupies all of 4 lines in that article) occurred hours later and appears to be more akin to the kebab shop shooting here (ie a subsequent event treated as periphereal by sources). Since no one in this discussion has suggested, or implied IMO, that the synagogue should be named just because it was a synagogue, or just because Jewish people were the initial target - I find dredging up fatuous comparisons, borderline tasteless. If the building attacked initially were an army base, and sources focused on this extensively - I would favour including this initial/main target in the title - not engage in extended discussion about whether enough/any soldiers were killed to justify inclusion of 'army base' in the title. If a mosque or church were the planned target, I would support inclusion regardless of how few/many Muslims or Christians were killed. Being the initial primary target IMO is clearly a very significant, if not the only, defining feature of an 'attack'.Pincrete (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
If it is not "remotely comparable" why is it in List of synagogue shootings?Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Because it was a shooting at outside a synagogue I imagine! I have already said how the two incidents differ IMO. Pincrete (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This attack is outside a synagogue and it is in the list as well. According to you, I should take the Copenhagen one out of the list.Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually I say the total opposite! That "synagogue shooting" can mean shooting 'at' 'in' 'on' 'near' or 'outside' a synagogue/whatever, so long as RS actually use the term. Even truer for 'attack'. But I think by now it is obvious we aren't going to agree, so perhaps we should both wait for the RfC to run its course. Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I think you're just making it up as you go along now, in one breath you say it is not "remotely comparable" and now you are at the other extreme arguing that it is comparable. I gave up on the rfc a while tbh, I would as soon as go straight to rm and argue the policy, just waiting on Jim to decide if he wants to do it or not.Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Almost every article in the initial 30 I looked at in my search engine (I don't use Google), had synagogue in the title or in the first para. All gave greater prominence to synagogue than to kebab-shop. None mentioned the later shooting in Landsbach until well into the article, if at all. None used the term 'spree' (though some referrred to 'rampage' for the Kebab shop phase). The only one to refer to an (implied) plural 'attacks', was from the very earliest coverage when it was still not clear whether Halle and Landsbach had the same perps or were even connected. The sources were a cross section, inclusing a few Jewish/Israeli sources - who might have been slightly more inclined to give prominence to the synagogue part of the narrative, but mainly UK/US mainstream media. Pincrete (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Which search engine and what was your search term?Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
DuckDuckGo - "Halle attack" Obviously you have to ignore a small number of WP and Ebay results (How Ebay gets onto "Halle attack" is beyond me!) My settings are UK results.Pincrete (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Heh, first result is Halle and Landsberg attacks - Wikipedia....~That'll do me.Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, it gives me 10 at a time for halle attack (without quotes) so stripping this article out (which it refers to as Halle and Landsbergh attacks) the other 9 in Firefox (ads are stripped so no ebays and things):

/halle attack germany right /halle synagogue fortified... /german jews plead for state security after halle attack /the halle attack was a watershed moment for german jews /German Jews: gunman kills two after attacking synagogue /halle attack /shooting near synagogue in germany... /germany shooting synagogue attack /germany synagogue attack halle grenade... which is 5 synagogue and 4 not.

If I put halle attack in quotes only 1 title contains synagogue. If I put halle shooting in quotes I get 0 titles containing synagogue which is about the kind of results I would expect although none of this very scientific.
The fact is there many more articles about the attacks that do not contain the word synagogue; possibly the BBC title is the best but it misses out on the far right aspect. ..../German Jews: gunman kills two after attacking synagogue Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Selfstudier—even if a term does not appear in the headline of a reliable source, the content of the reliable source can suggest to us that the term belongs in the title of our article. You provide a source called Spiegel Online. The word "synagogue" does not appear in its headline. But most of the article is about the attack on the synagogue. Yes, the two deaths are mentioned too, but only in a few sentences. Here is a quote from that source: "Balliet had apparently scoped out the synagogue complex in advance, because in his manifesto, which he apparently posted online before the shooting began, he described his target in detail. He explained where surveillance cameras were installed, the number of doors and the security precautions in place. 'If I won't get lucky and they have a door standing open, I need to force my way in or lure the rats out,' he wrote. He also said he chose that particular synagogue because it was the nearest place where so many Jews could be found -- and he appeared to be aware of the fact that the police don't guard the building around the clock, but only patrol it from time to time." The source has a primary concern. I am not saying the two deaths are not tragic. I definitely think they are tragic. They are two innocent people. They do not deserve to die by being shot to death for no reason. But the primary concern of Spiegel Online's article is the attack on the synagogue. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
We are just back to the policy issue again. You want to look at the content of sources in order to argue that the title should contain the word synagogue which is a non-argument because all sources contain the attack on the synagogue. The problem is you just want to ignore everything else the articles say because it doesn't suit your POV. There is a lot of material in the example I gave you and most of it has nothing to with the synagogue which is why the title is:

Far-Right Terrorism Deadly Attack Exposes Lapses in German Security Apparatus The 27-year-old German man who went on a shooting spree during the Yom Kippur holiday was out to kill Jews. He apparently self-radicalized in the darkest corners of the internet, beyond the reach of police or intelligence officials, who are woefully unprepared for this new breed of terrorism.

I only provided Spiegel as an "example" I was not intending anything other than a demonstration of a detailed article examining the attack that does not have the word synagogue in the title.Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Selfstudier—as I said in my previous post "even if a term does not appear in the headline of a reliable source, the content of the reliable source can suggest to us that the term belongs in the title of our article." Yet you are now writing "I only provided Spiegel as an 'example' I was not intending anything other than a demonstration of a detailed article examining the attack that does not have the word synagogue in the title." The reliable source that you provided, Spiegel Online, devotes much more of its text to the synagogue attack than it does to the two deaths and two injuries in this incident. The WP:COMMONNAME for this article would be the 2019 Halle synagogue attack. That is because reliable sources focus primarily on the synagogue attack. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Write as many walls of text as you like, it will not alter the fact that I do not agree with your interpretation of policy, that's why, since we have achieved no consensus on the RFC (nor are we likely to), we now move to rm in order to argue the policy and perhaps get some additional voices since we seem only to have a 2 versus 2 at the moment (although policy is not just about numbers, it would help imo to have more POVs).Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
It is also worth noting, Selfstudier, that the term "Landsberg" does not even occur in the entirety of the above Spiegel Online article[13], which you refer to as a "detailed article examining the attack", yet your argument is to remove the term "synagogue" from the title of our article and to insert the term "Landsberg" in the title of our article. Bus stop (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
That's fine with me, I have no problem not including Landsbergh, I won't make any fuss about that at all. if you recall, way back at the start I said that I was quite happy with the simple Halle attack which is in line with other wp articles.Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Selfstudier—I think we follow reliable sources. The article is primarily about a "synagogue attack" or a "synagogue shooting".

There are many more reliable sources that refer to this incident as either a "synagogue attack" or a "synagogue shooting". The WP:COMMONNAME would be either "synagogue attack" or "synagogue shooting". Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and present that as your policy argument in the RM.Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Selfstudier—you have argued that "anyone reading the title would assume that Jews in a synagogue had been killed when what actually happened was that 2 non-Jews were killed elsewhere". Is that why you want to remove the word "synagogue" from the title—because a reader might think Jews were killed rather than non-Jews??? I think Jim Michael is expressing a similar sentiment when they say "Those subsequent targets weren't Jewish. Only the first few failed minutes of the attack spree were antisemitic." I think this represents very misguided reasoning. We don't determine article titles based on whether Jews or Gentiles were killed. The only reason for the term "synagogue" in the title is because that is by far the most frequently encountered term in reliable sources, often in combination with "attack" or "shooting". WP:COMMONNAME calls for titling articles in the most recognizable ways. As virtually all reliable sources refer to this incident as either a "synagogue shooting" or a "synagogue attack", why would we remove the term "synagogue" from the title? Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I will present my policy based argument in the RM and you can argue with that instead of with me.Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The problem with including synagogue (but not any of the other attack locations) in the title is that it gives the misleading impression that the synagogue was the only or main attack site & where the killings & injuries occurred. Where it's the sole/main attack site, I agree with including synagogue in the title. I moved the title of a vehicle-ramming attack in Lyon to include synagogue. Likewise with other types of religious buildings; I created Burkina Faso mosque shooting & Haska Meyna mosque bombing Jim Michael (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Selfstudier—you write "All sources deal with all aspects of the attack in their article bodies." Of course all sources "deal with all aspects of the attack in their article bodies." They would hardly be reliable sources if they did not "deal with all aspects of the attack in their article bodies." The question is—what are they focussed on? What demands the bulk of their attention? You are calling our attention to this reliable source which you describe as "a detailed article examining the attack". And I agree—it is a detailed article examining the attack. What you seem to be overlooking is that most of the material in your source is focussed on the synagogue attack. And this is true of virtually every source. Our title should reflect the actual focus of sources. When you choose a title like "Halle and Landsberg attacks" you disregard WP:TITLE's concern with "recognizable" titles. The much more common name is "Halle synagogue attack". Most of the material in our article focusses on the synagogue attack for the unsurprising reason that our article reflects sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Jim Michael—Wikipedia recognizes no distinctions between Jews and non-Jews. Yet you are writing "Those subsequent targets weren't Jewish". Who cares if they were Jewish or not? Why would it matter? Do you find at WP:TITLE any guidance on whether a title should imply that Jews or non-Jews were "targets" in incidents that we write about? The current title (2019 Halle synagogue shooting) is entirely appropriate because most of the text in our article addresses the Halle synagogue shooting. A much smaller amount of the material in our article addresses the "subsequent targets". That is for the unsurprising reason that we reflect reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The reason I pointed out that none of the targets after the synagogue attack were Jewish was to counter the perception that the motive for all the attacks was antisemitism.
I agree that the media have disproportionately focused on the initial attack. That's because it helps them gain a larger audience. They know that society values synagogues far more than kebab shops. We don't need to have such biases because we aim for neutrality, facts & due weight - rather than increasing our appeal to gain more readers to maximise revenue from advertising. Jim Michael (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Jim Michael—you apparently do not understand that Wikipedia is not a creative writing project. It doesn't matter if you think "the media have disproportionately focused on the initial attack". We adhere to sources. You say "I agree that the media have disproportionately focused on the initial attack." Who are you agreeing with? You are not agreeing with me. I do not think "the media have disproportionately focused on the initial attack".

"Balliet had apparently scoped out the synagogue complex in advance, because in his manifesto, which he apparently posted online before the shooting began, he described his target in detail. He explained where surveillance cameras were installed, the number of doors and the security precautions in place. "If I won't get lucky and they have a door standing open, I need to force my way in or lure the rats out," he wrote. He also said he chose that particular synagogue because it was the nearest place where so many Jews could be found -- and he appeared to be aware of the fact that the police don't guard the building around the clock, but only patrol it from time to time."

From this we see that the synagogue was the gunman's primary objective that day, his primary destination that day, and it was his first stop. The media are focussing on the synagogue attack because the synagogue attack was the gunman's primary objective. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You've falsely accused me of creative writing several times. Being selective in which info we take from RS & presenting them proportionately is good writing, not creative. This is an encyclopedia; we don't merely repeat what the media say.
Several people on this TP have stated that the media's focus has been on the first, casualty-free attack. I'm agreeing with them that the media has indeed disproportionately focused on that & said that their reason for doing so was to gain more readers.
Yes, he targeted that synagogue probably because it was the nearest place to him in which a large number of Jews congregate. I disagree that he knew a lot about the synagogue or Halle in general, because of the fact that he didn't know about the new stronger doors on the building & the disorganised manner of his entire attack spree. His haphazard, unfocused attacks & lack of success, proper knowledge & planning mean that he's hated even by neo-Nazis, including himself. Jim Michael (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Jim Michael—you have a propensity for overriding reliable sources. You write "This article is about all the day's linked attacks.". How would you or any other Wikipedia editor know what "This article is about"? We only know what this article is about by reviewing good quality sources. Reliable sources show us what this article is about. If reliable sources show us that this article is primarily about an assault on a synagogue, then this article is primarily about an assault on a synagogue. You are saying "That's because it helps them gain a larger audience." You are not at liberty to override the findings of reliable sources on the grounds that in your opinion they are trying to "gain a larger audience." Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
No, I use them in an appropriate way to factually describe what happened in a neutral way with the correct focus & due weight. That's different from the media, who represent things in such ways to maximise their audience & increase their revenue & profits. Also, many media outlets have a political bias which they're promoting, whereas we don't.
The article is clearly about all the linked attacks of that day, which we cover in our article. We don't only describe the synagogue attack; if we did, it'd be an incomplete article. Jim Michael (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Jim Michael—just out of curiosity—do you have reason to think the media overwhelmingly focus on the synagogue attack to "maximise their audience & increase their revenue & profits" or is this just a theory you happen to have? Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The media have, on many occasions, shown their biases & focus on certain events & aspects of them for to gain more readers & revenue. Most media orgs are businesses rather than public services, which means that making more money is their primary goal. An example I previously mentioned is the Kansas City, Kansas bar shooting. Four people were killed by 2 gunmen, but it received only a tiny amount of the media coverage that the Halle-Landsberg attacks did. It was quickly redirected as insufficiently notable. The media, WP readers/editors & the general public don't care nearly as much about attacks on bars & the people in them than they do about attacks against religious targets. Jim Michael (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC or RMEdit

@Jim Michael and Selfstudier: I'm posting this down here since the above discussion is too confusing to try and thread it inline. I'm not sure that there being different titles is a good reason for this to be a RfC instead of an RM. It's quite common that there are proposals for different titles in RM. Any closing admin should be able to deal with this. Also there having been several historic titles and moves doesn't seem a good reason not to use an RM. Again, it's hardly uncommon that this happens, especially with hot button late breaking articles and these can be dealt with in an RM. Making it an RfC rather than an RM was IMO a mistake since it means those most familiar with our article titling guidelines are far more likely to miss it. I'm also not sure that a 30 day discussion is ideal. Plus then we have to go through another RfC or RM after the 30 days since the discussion seems to have ended up solely focused on excluding or including the word rather than what the actual title should be and by that stage I expect there will be significantly less interest. But it's too late now we have to live with what we have. Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

if you want an RM , go ahead and set one up? I am not trying to prevent anyone from doing anything they want to do.Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if you read what I wrote up top, I said an RFC might be messy and take a while but in the end based on the discussion that was going on, I thought it might be as well to have an orderly discussion before deciding what to do. I haven't decided myself, what if anything I want to do about the situation, although it seems people have dug their foxholes and aren't willing to budge so...Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind if it's an RfC, an RM, or both. However, I don't know how we'd start an RM with several options - none of which we're anywhere near having a consensus for. Jim Michael (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Well the proposer needs to consult the guidelines in respect of events (when, where, what, essentially) and the policy on articles titles (short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles in conjunction with verifiability, No OR, and NPOV).It seems pretty clear to me that the existing title fails on these criteria but it is not entirely clear what a new title should look like. Since the third "yes" voter seems to have been reported for antisemitism based on comments made here and there seems little interest elsewhere, it looks like it's down to you and I to come up with a proposal if we take the RM route. Only thing I can think of off the top of my head which I am not enamored with because of its length is "2019 Halle Landsberg shooting and antisemitic attack"? Would you have something better?Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Correction, ANI decided it wasn't actionable so @Jzsj:, your thoughts on a better title? Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Your suggested title is too long. Also, most of the spree wasn't antisemitic. I prefer Halle and Landsberg attacks or Saxony-Anhalt attack spree, because they both concisely cover the whole spree. Jim Michael (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you on the length, not sure about attack versus shooting? "Halle shooting" gets 130K hits in my browser whereas Halle attack(s) is under 100 (Of course, Halle and Landsberg (either) also doesn't score very high but that's only to be expected)Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Fwiw, the best hits I can get for something including synagogue is "Germany synagogue shooting" which gets 56K (drops to just 74 if you put Halle instead of Germany) but is even worse than the title we have now.Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
We usually use attack in the title when multiple methods were used.
Landsberg is much smaller than Halle, which is why far fewer articles include it in their title. Halle isn't well-known outside Germany, which is why many articles use Germany in their titles of articles about it. Jim Michael (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, last thing is should it be attack or attacks, I think attacks is probably implicit in the fact that we have two locations (Pincrete seems to think it's ungrammatical, idk if that's so but if attack is OK with you, I'll go ahead and put up the RM?Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be attacks or attack spree. After the initial attacks in Halle, he drove to Landsberg & carried out more attacks there. It could be argued that the Halle incidents were one attack (like the Port Arthur massacre or Columbine High School massacre), but the time & distance between Halle & Landsberg means it wasn't one attack. Changing from singular to plural only made the grammar etc. wrong because the article's wording had not been altered accordingly. Jim Michael (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No sources that I have seen refer to an 'attack spree', nor to plural 'attacks'. AFAIK, they all treat the event as singular with phases. Jim Michael is correct though that the only reason that 'attacks' was ungrammatical was that the whole article text treated the event in the singular and substantial changes would have been needed to fix that.Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── How about the following as "reason"?

Existing title identifies when, only one of the two locations and only very partially what happened (anyone reading the title would assume that Jews in a synagogue had been killed when what actually happened was that 2 non-Jews were killed elsewhere). Although the specifics of what happened make it difficult to fully describe the events in a short and natural manner, other such articles on WP that mention a building refer to the place where shootings/killings occurred or else do not mention a building at all. There is a lot of discussion on the talk page about the suitability of the title which has been subject of repeated attempts to change it before being administratively reverted to its title at creation pending consensus.

Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

(moved material to threaded discussion)

We're discussing the wording for the rm in this section, maybe you mean't to put this in the threaded discussion of the RFC? Want me to move it for you?Selfstudier (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There, done.Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)~

@Jim Michael: So do you want to go ahead with rm?Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but we've not yet decided which of the titles we've used should be given as options. Jim Michael (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jim Michael:I didn't see a way to include options so they would have to go in as a first comment or something. You have to pick one to get it going. Apart from Halle and Landsbergh attack(s) twice its also been Halle attack twice (personally I could also live with Halle synagogue attack and shootings). I don't mind if you put it up, just do it when you're ready to go and ping me or something so I know. (I put a draft "reason" up above but I am not married to it, change it to whatever you think is best.)Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I prefer something like Saxony-Anhalt attack spree or Halle and Landsberg attacks - in order to cover all the perpetrators attacks on the day. You may want to include something like Halle attacks or Halle attack spree. This spree appears to be the only notable attacks in Halle - other than in the World Wars - so I'm not sure that 2019 is needed in the title.
My attempts to start an RM before have failed due to it being malformed, so I can't start it. Jim Michael (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jim Michael:Try this code ( at the bottom of the page and don't sign it) and do a preview, it seems to work when I do it.
{{subst:requested move|2109 Halle and Landsberg attack|reason= xxxxx }}
.
I think we have to put a date because the policy for a title describing an "event" says you need to include "when" although personally I prefer the date at the end in brackets so like Halle and Landsberg attack (2019).Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── User:Selfstudier, User:Jim Michael, recent convention for such incidents has been to put year - event eg: 2017 Westminster attack, 2016 Munich shooting, 2014 Dijon attack, 2014 Tours police station stabbing - this convention was the result of quite a lot of discussion. Where an incident is deemed SO notable that the year is not considered necessary or helpful (a fairly subjective matter), none is included eg Murder of Lee Rigby.Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC) ..... ps .... We cannot have BOTH an RfC and a move discussion running concurrently ... one or the other MUST be closed. Pincrete (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

well, they are running concurrently and it is not as if we didn't flag up our intention to do this, you might have said something before. Where is the policy that says you cannot have an RFC and a RM at the same time?Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The year (& in some cases the month, or even the day as well - eg 7 August 2019 Kabul bombing) - is needed to disambiguate. There have been several notable attacks in Westminster. There was another notable mass shooting in Munich in 1972. It's not compulsory to unnecessarily add the date, but if most contributors here was to add the year to the proposed title, I have no problem with that. Obviously, the day & month should not be in the title.
I wasn't aware of a rule against a concurrent RfC & RM. In that case, an uninvolved editor should close the RfC. Jim Michael (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, fine with me, I don't mind whether there is a date or there isn't, whatever the policy is (seems to be some doubt). My objection is to the misleading title as it stands now (due to the word synagogue having been unnecessarily included in the title).Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2019Edit

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

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 13:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


2019 Halle synagogue shootingHalle and Landsberg attacks – the synagogue wasn't the only attack site. Jim Michael (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support any policy compliant title such as "Halle attack" or "Halle shooting" with/without date. Similar WP articles mention school, mosque, synagogue when fatalities occurred there. There were no fatalities in the synagogue. Two people were shot and killed on the street and in a kebabshop and two more shot and wounded elsewhere. The existing title gives undue prominence to a single aspect of the attack which is why the repeated attempts to amend it (not by myself) prior to administrative reversion and this RM. All sources deal with all aspects of the attack in their article bodies. As for their titles, google searching allintitle (means titles containing all the words):Halle shooting (5600), :Halle attack (2700), :Halle synagogue (3010) (the latter is as well higher than it might be because the current WP title exists and possibly its "news headline" value). There is no good reason to depart from usual WP policy in this case, a simple when (2019), where (Halle/Landsberg) and what (attack/shooting) is sufficient and customary.Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
German Wikipedia title is "Anschlag in Halle (Saale) 2019" which translates as "Attack in Halle (Saale) 2019". The talk page discussed alternative titles. Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
German Wikipedia is free to make its own choices ... for example, for what I imagine are local reasons, they mention the river (Saale), which we do not since Eng readers are much less likely to know Halle at all, or to know that the town name is ambiguous in German. I note they don't mention 'Landsberg' and don't use plural 'attacks'. Pincrete (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Simple Wikipedia is also sensible, entitled "Halle and Landsberg attack" changed from "2019 Halle attack".Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Other wikis are just that - other wikis. They can set their own rules and make their own decisions, but those have absolutely no weight as far as English Wikipedia is concerned. And BTW, it's obvious that not even you believe in the validity of the 'other wikis' argument, or else you would have been convinced that you are wrong as you were cherry picking Simple Wikipedia and German Wikipedia, while ignoring Spanish Wikipedia [14] - "Tiroteo en la sinagoga de Halle" ("Shooting in the Halle synagogue"), Finnish Wikipedia [15] (The Halle Synagogue"), Czech wikipedia [16] ("Attack on the Halle Synagogue") and Hebrew Wikiepdia [17] ("Shooting attack on the Halle Synagogue") Here come the Suns (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep, but at Halle synagogue shooting, without the completely unnecessary "2019", because such is the most common name in sources, and captures the initial goal and main focus of the attack. Debresser (talk)
Oppose. The synagogue was the target of the assailant, and the other people shot were random victims, after the shooter was frustrated in his intent. Sources commonly refer to this as an attack on a synagogue - see for example [18], [19]. Here come the Suns (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose except changing 'shooting' to 'attack', since other weapons were involved other than guns, inc. home-made explosives. The first killing DID take place at the synagogue - or at least in the street immediately adjacent (it is irrelevant that the victim was not inside, not a congregant, nor even Jewish). The synagogue was both the initial and the intended main target and the most reported element. Subsequent events (inc. second kiling at the kebab-shop a few streets away), are reported as being an expression of the perps frustration at being unable to shoot/blast his way into the synagogue as he had intended. Sources barely mention 'Landsberg' and it is even unclear what exactly took place there - though two people were injured from gunshot wounds. Inclusion of 'synagogue' into '2019 Halle attack' is not essential, but it is the simplest and most memorable identifier, especially as the city is not well-known to Eng. speakers. An accepable, though less memorable alternative would be '2019 Halle far-right attack' - ie identifying motive rather than initial attack target. Of course the title is an incomplete account of what happened in Halle that day, most COMMONNAME's and WP article titles are. Pincrete (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The first killing did take place near the synagogue, but the victim had no connection to it - she merely happened to be in the vicinity, so that killing wasn't part of the attack on the synagogue or the people who used it.
There's no indication that he targeted the kebab shop simply due to not being able to get into the synagogue. He probably chose it spontaneously due to it likely being run by people of Middle-Eastern origin, a demographic whom he likely has a grudge against.
We don't usually include the motive in the title of articles about attacks. We don't have article titles such as Basque separatist Hipercor bombing, Kurdish nationalist March 2016 Ankara bombing or Islamist Kabul ambulance bombing.
There aren't any other notable attacks in Halle or Landsberg, so I don't think we need a disambiguator/identifier. Jim Michael (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
"He probably chose it (the kebab-shop) spontaneously due to it ... being run by people of Middle-Eastern origin" I agree wholeheartedly, but nothing in the title suggests the synagogue was the only incident, merely the initial and main target. The first woman was killed while challenging the perp about making so much noise outside a synagogue on what she knew to be a holy day. Sure she wasn't a congregant nor even Jewish, but her death was a direct result of a (somewhat naive), challenge by her to the person attacking the synagogue. How is that "no connection to it"? That is like arguing that the German painter killed at the kebab-shop had no connection to that second location, since he was only a customer and neither Turkish nor Muslim. Both dead were 'collateral damage' of a failed attack, initially on the synagogue - and when that failed - at the kebab-shop. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The woman who was shot in the street near the synagogue merely happened to be passing it. It's unlikely that she knew he was armed, let alone his intentions. She merely admonished him for making noise where she happened to be walking past. She likely didn't know it was Yom Kippur (most gentiles don't know when it is), didn't try to stop an attack, wasn't defending the synagogue & had no connection to it. If I were to walk along the street, and as I pass by a shop whom I have no connection to, I see a stranger pushing a firework or dog turd through the letterbox & tell him to stop, that wouldn't create a connection between the shop & myself. The man who was shot in the kebab shop chose to be in there, so he had at least a slight connection to it, even if it were only as an occasional customer. Jim Michael (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't accept your version of events, but let's leave matters for others to decide. Pincrete (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editingEdit

Diff Synthesized edit inserted into something already referenced producing an edit with material not in the superimposed source (synth).

After being reverted, same editor improperly removes sourced material in order to force his edit in by a different method. diff.

This is tendentious and disruptive editing, kindly desist.Selfstudier (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any synth if the problem is in placement of sources that change it accordingly don't remove sourced information --Shrike (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"Entitled to protection"Edit

Currently, the article contains "All Jewish facilities in Germany are entitled to state security precautions." That sound to me like there is some special law regarding Jewish facilities in Germany, or as if there is a special degree of protection to that Jews are entitled and other groups are not. This is, to my knowledge, not the case, and the cited reference doesn't say it is. Jewish facilities are protected because they are potential targets of attacks. Because of the history of Germany, police may be more sensitive when assigning protection to Jewish facilites compared to other facilities, but there is no special law or anything regarding Jewish facilities. After the attacks, there ar discussions about how the security of potential targets for right-wing terrorists can be increased. The focus is, for obvious reasons, on Jewish institutions, but as an immediate consequence of the attacks there is now 24-hour police protection for 2 bigger mosques in Magdeburg and Halle and police are talking with smaller mosques to increase protection ([1])

Frog~dewiki (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Well spotted, I think you are right. The reactions of authorities to the security question appear to vary from state to state (and from country to country in the EU) and then there are various statements made on an adhoc basis by ministers. I don't know how much of that discussion should be in this article specifically, perhaps it is a subject that needs its own article. But yes, the article as it is now creates the wrong impression, here are a couple more sources, why don't you edit the article?:
https://www.jta.org/2019/10/18/global/how-germany-is-rethinking-security-for-its-jewish-community-following-the-yom-kippur-synagogue-attack
https://www.dw.com/en/how-can-germany-better-protect-its-synagogues/a-50788246
Post left by Selfstudier
I think the sentence is clear and correct. When I read that "all Jewish facilities in Germany are entitled to state security precautions" I understood from this sentence that there probably exists some police directive regulating protective measures for all kinds of sensitive objects, including synagogues etc. Debresser (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
But it makes it sound like Jewish orgs are entitled to more protection that other orgs & that it's paid for by the state. Unless that's the case, the sentence shouldn't be there in its current wording. Jim Michael (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree that sentence is misleading at present by implying a specific 'synagogue' law, rather than the same degree of protection as anyone/anything else which might be vulnerable to attack. Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to "2019 Halle synagogue shooting" page.