While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nobody died except a guy shot by police as he was fleeing. The small casualty count makes this a routine attack, and the lack of media sympathy makes it a routine police shooting. If the only thing holding this up is its proximity to the Nice attack, and routine Islamophobia, it should probably be deleted and just mentioned at Würzburg. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
This attack has no article. This attack has no article. This attack does have an article, but at least has 36 sources about a few aspects. This one has twelve repeating the same story. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
This attack has no article, despite eleven attackers and fifteen deaths. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The Paris police station shooting does have an article here. News events that are worthy of Wikipedia articles are usually the ones that top most international media regardless of the number of fatalities and this one definitely did get more coverage than the Hornsby shooting for example. The attack in Würzburg maybe would had gotten less coverage if Nice hadn't occurred but it is still the most notable terror attack in Germany since the Frankfurt shooting in 2011. If it were a routine attack like you said, the international media wouldn't have bothered covering just like the media got fed up covering every single terror attack in Iraq, Syria or Yemen. As for the China attack, Xinjiang is dealing with an insurgency and creating an article for every single incident there would be the same as creating an article for every bombing in Iraq which is redundant and pointless. 66.130.42.23 08:02, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
"The small casualty count makes this a routine attack,..." Um, excuse me? I find this statement quite offensive. There is nothing "routine" about a family being attacked by a hatchet wielding refugee on a train in Bavaria. Your somewhat tasteless phrasing aside, we are not here to simply parrot news articles, but I believe the widespread reporting of this event does mean it is notable. We will see if high quality sources continue to build upon this event or not, and then decide accordingly. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Well sourced (see WP:RS) and notable facts include the fact this event involves at least three of the world's more populous countries. TVC 15 ( talk) 11:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
"Transcripts of chats obtained by German authorities indicate that the two men involved in attacks in the German cities of Ansbach and Würzburg had repeated contact with suspected members of Islamic State via telephone numbers registered in Saudi Arabia, among other places, SPIEGEL has learned. Würzburg perpetrator Riaz Khan Ahmadzai, who is believed to have originated from Afghanistan and seriously injured several people on a regional train with an axe and knife on July 18, also left a goodbye message before engaging in the attack. "We'll see each other in paradise," he wrote."
spiegel.de/international/germany/attackers-in-germany-had-contact-with-suspected-is-members-a-1106271.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.137 ( talk) 18:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
There are two versions of the first sentence of the article:
In my opinion, the second version is better because we know who the perpetrator is. The first version suggests that the perpetrator is unknown, so it is misleading. If we had many perpetrators, then naming them all in the first sentence would be awkward, but we have only one perpetrator, and we know his name.
Vikom
talk 01:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nobody died except a guy shot by police as he was fleeing. The small casualty count makes this a routine attack, and the lack of media sympathy makes it a routine police shooting. If the only thing holding this up is its proximity to the Nice attack, and routine Islamophobia, it should probably be deleted and just mentioned at Würzburg. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
This attack has no article. This attack has no article. This attack does have an article, but at least has 36 sources about a few aspects. This one has twelve repeating the same story. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
This attack has no article, despite eleven attackers and fifteen deaths. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The Paris police station shooting does have an article here. News events that are worthy of Wikipedia articles are usually the ones that top most international media regardless of the number of fatalities and this one definitely did get more coverage than the Hornsby shooting for example. The attack in Würzburg maybe would had gotten less coverage if Nice hadn't occurred but it is still the most notable terror attack in Germany since the Frankfurt shooting in 2011. If it were a routine attack like you said, the international media wouldn't have bothered covering just like the media got fed up covering every single terror attack in Iraq, Syria or Yemen. As for the China attack, Xinjiang is dealing with an insurgency and creating an article for every single incident there would be the same as creating an article for every bombing in Iraq which is redundant and pointless. 66.130.42.23 08:02, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
"The small casualty count makes this a routine attack,..." Um, excuse me? I find this statement quite offensive. There is nothing "routine" about a family being attacked by a hatchet wielding refugee on a train in Bavaria. Your somewhat tasteless phrasing aside, we are not here to simply parrot news articles, but I believe the widespread reporting of this event does mean it is notable. We will see if high quality sources continue to build upon this event or not, and then decide accordingly. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Well sourced (see WP:RS) and notable facts include the fact this event involves at least three of the world's more populous countries. TVC 15 ( talk) 11:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
"Transcripts of chats obtained by German authorities indicate that the two men involved in attacks in the German cities of Ansbach and Würzburg had repeated contact with suspected members of Islamic State via telephone numbers registered in Saudi Arabia, among other places, SPIEGEL has learned. Würzburg perpetrator Riaz Khan Ahmadzai, who is believed to have originated from Afghanistan and seriously injured several people on a regional train with an axe and knife on July 18, also left a goodbye message before engaging in the attack. "We'll see each other in paradise," he wrote."
spiegel.de/international/germany/attackers-in-germany-had-contact-with-suspected-is-members-a-1106271.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.137 ( talk) 18:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
There are two versions of the first sentence of the article:
In my opinion, the second version is better because we know who the perpetrator is. The first version suggests that the perpetrator is unknown, so it is misleading. If we had many perpetrators, then naming them all in the first sentence would be awkward, but we have only one perpetrator, and we know his name.
Vikom
talk 01:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)