Talk:2016 Berlin truck attack/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Photo of suspect

Is there any compelling reason why we shouldn't include a photo of the suspect? After all, we've already included his name, background, physical description, etc., and every international (and many major national and local) media outlets is showing his ID photos, which are not protected by copyright. Bricology (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

We have his "WANTED" sheet or poster. XavierItzm (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

See the Commons for photos. Greenshed (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The route of the truck in the infobox

@Ralf Roletschek:The route of the truck in the infobox is too long. Based on this photograph, The truck pushed down the fourth tree and stopped in front of the second street light (from the intersection). The length of the route will be a half of the current route. See also this image.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Initial reports and maps showed that the truck may have entered the market from Kantstraße. As a resident of Berlin, I found this odd and went to check out the scene personally as it is on my way to work. There definitely was no damage to anything on the Kantstraße side. The rest of the corner was screened off, but you could tell by what damage you could see and the gap in the market entrance at the corner, that the only approach for the truck was from coming down Hardenbergstraße and barely squeezing through between a lamp post with street sign and a pedestrian light. A good view of this is the aforementioned aerial view from the Tagesspiegel-online site where even the tread markings have been marked by the police. Here you can also see the street sign at the bottom right that Kantstraße is off to the right, away from where the truck entered the market. Additionally, there is no way the semi-trailer could have made it around that sharp 90° turn if it were coming from Kantstraße. To gather enough speed, the truck must have come down Hardenbergstraße. So, please do not revert to or refer to any old faulty maps that show a Kantstraße approach. The map made by Phoenix7777 is perfect. ―― Alandeus (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"I looked at the sidewalk" is not a reliable source when there are newspaper accounts and maps that have different info. -- Veggies (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at the sidewalk of various other photos. The evidence is clear. Older, faulty maps were simply made before someone had “looked at the sidewalk” and all the other evidence. Alandeus (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Alandeus: Once again, "look at the sidewalk" is not a reliable source. Find a published account of the truck coming down that street and I'll gladly change the map. I based the map based on published newspaper accounts. -- Veggies (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The same discussion is underway at German article's talk page. The Kantstraße theory is largely rejected although some media reported so. I made three version of the route map: Hardenbergstraße version, Kantstraße version and Neutral version (neither Hardenbergstraße nor Kantstraße. The neutral version is the current map. If a consensus is reached, an appropriate version should be used. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That Spiegel-Online page still has that erroneous map video at the top - I've written them about it. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/anschlag-in-berlin-was-am-19-dezember-geschah-a-1126773.html However, further down the page at "Kurz nach 20 Uhr:" they write that truck left Budapester Straße, which begins right at that corner as the extension of Hardenbergstr. The only to get in there is by coming down Hardenbergstr. Here is a picture of that corner this morning with everything open again: https://scontent.ftxl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15622504_1376638635699889_1069368587480575029_n.jpg?oh=26d8a1a7a3b97dad0b50ea9f743b005a&oe=58F5563A

Here for contrast is a picture from Tuesday looking from Kantstr that shows that nothing drove through from there. https://scontent.ftxl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15622079_1374058182624601_865325900478551847_n.jpg?oh=5aa6b44a3f1f671364a5bda7dafe7d65&oe=58F39073 No need to stick to old, possibly fraudulent media reports when common sense and numerous photos (not just mine) make clear what happened. Alandeus (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This video was taken from a car on Kantstraße. The truck was running from Hardenbergstraße through the intersection and enter into the Breitscheidplatz.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Reactions on Merkel

current text: National and international right-wing politicians laid blame for the attack on Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel and her refugee policies and "open door to migrants".[72][73][74][75][76][77] By contrast, several other national and international political commentators praised what they described as the cool-headed reaction of the Merkel administration, and condemned the right-wing reaction as dangerous

So 6 negative references get half the text of one positive reference on Merkel? Nergaal (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

As long as it's WP:RS, I think only one should be required for each, as long as the material in quotes is covered. This is not really contentious material. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

If you hover over the [76], you'll see there are actually 8 references condensed into one. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do we need so many, for both claims? If we do, maybe the others should all be combined also? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoever did it probably didn't know about bundling cite bundling (most editors don't). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

So, bundle on... at your leisure? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you meant WP:CITEBUNDLE. Samsara 00:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Argh ... thanks, fixed. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, wasn't that brilliant! Someone's gone and unbundled all the bundled cites. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought we were getting to the heart of the matter. But now I'm lost Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Anis Amri

Anis Amri is a public figure and there is a bounty on his head. I suggest that we mention him in the article.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

He does not appear to be a public figure in the Wikipedia sense, and far from being convicted, does not appear to have even been charged with a WP:BLPCRIME. TimothyJosephWood 17:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Serious question: Do we cover the FBI's most wanted? Have they been charged? Samsara 00:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, (no one can ever accuse me of being an ideologue) but apparently we do. I would only say that this is, on the face of it, likely in conflict with WP:BLPCRIME, which for our purposes, is a policy, and requires a policy level consensus to override. I would only suggest that this contradiction may need to be addressed in an appropriate venue like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), because even a strong local consensus here can't override a policy. TimothyJosephWood 00:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." That is the definition of a public figure in Wikipedia sense. And as far as I know, a "multitude of reliable published sources" mentioning him.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

In this case, the individual's name is only known in his (comparatively weak at this point) connection to the incident, and inclusion of his name in this context directly implies that he is likely to have committed a serious crime. He is not a public figure in the sense that the allegations would be notable even if they were untrue, compared to, for example, if Angela Merkel were accused of a crime, a person for whom there is not merely multiple sources, in the sense of more than one, but a multitude of sources, in the sense of a profuse number of diverse things. This latter is the sense of the word as linked to by WP:WELLKNOWN, meaning a public figure to an extent that it would provide legal protection in the case of a libel suit. TimothyJosephWood 18:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Every major news organ is covering this guy. He's a public figure in every sense of the word, including Wiki, and should be mentioned, but not condemned of the crime.50.111.2.50 (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news site. --John (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The point under consideration here is not that we should create an article on Amri but that he gets mentioned in this article as per many reliable sources. Although Wikipedia is not a news site, its core policy explicitly acknowledges that mainstream newspapers are acceptable sources (see WP:SOURCE - "Other reliable sources include: ... Mainstream newspapers"). Mentioning Amri is not per se a contravention of WP:WELLKNOWN because he is now well known. Greenshed (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Having given this some thought, my feeling is that "public figure" is an odd and possibly inappropriate choice of words. Amri meets the GNG, but is furthermore subject to WP:BLP1E. He is correctly listed as a suspect in the article, but does not currently merit an article of his own. I find Timothyjosephwood suggestion inclusion of his name in this context directly implies that he is likely to have committed a serious crime to rise to an unsuitable level of extrapolation and censorship. His argument would amount to an inability for Wikipedia to discuss suspects. However, naming suspects is a normal part of criminal investigations, which trivially, as an encyclopedia, we must be able to cover. Furthermore, I find Élisée P. Bruneau to be quoting an applicable passage of WP:BLP, namely If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Thus, being named as a suspect goes "in", but always with a clear choice of words - "suspect", "allegedly", etc., as appropriate. Samsara 01:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Samsara, I can see the obvious contradiction in practices. But I would point out that if we are going to give background, height and weight, and literally armed and dangerous, then we are still treading on thin BLP grounds, and are acting more like news than an encyclopedia. If the names are readded with this type of language, I will likely remove it and defer to a public forum for decision. I think the best option is to probably propose neutral-as-possible wording here before including it in the article. TimothyJosephWood 01:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry all, but I have removed the name again. Having a section entitled Hunt for BLP-NAME is entirely beyond reasonable toleration and anything resembling an encyclopedia. I'm happy to go to WP:BLPN or another noticeboard over that, but that's a bit over the top. That is entirely not-encyclopedic. I will revert that tabloid presentation. If the community decides that's not exempt from 3RR then I will agree, but until this I absolutely will invoke BLP as an exemption. TimothyJosephWood 02:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I support this. As an encyclopedia, our need to maintain accuracy and to be ethical outweighs the need to be up-to-date. Removals under BLP are exempt from 3RR. --John (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@John: Both sides have cited BLP to support their view. Samsara 07:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

We should be careful to avoid confusion with the Tunisian footballer. See https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anis_Amri Greenshed (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted. That's probably the strongest argument for mentioning the suspect's age, as the football player is almost 15 years older (but some of the other details are close enough - notably weight and height). Not sure how else to handle it as we don't disambiguate from page titles that have no similarity. The argument could probably made that mentioning the footballer could be as bad as not mentioning him. Samsara 04:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

We have a wanted poster that names him, but text that doesn't. That seems silly. Drop the wanted poster, or add his name to the text. Bondegezou (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this is a good time to remind ourselves that there is no deadline, and all BLPs are eventually not. TimothyJosephWood 13:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Berlin market attack

I propose to move the article to "Berlin market attack" or "2016 Berlin market attack", because that seems to be the common name. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please reference the previous discussions. The argument for the current title is very well laid out and rehashing it here is pointless. The current title fits the WP guidlines WP:TITLE, is not longer than it needs to be and is consistent with things like 2016 Nice attack, 2014 Nantes attack (also at a Christmas market) 2016 Munich shooting, 2016 Brussels bombing etc. Pschemp (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Background Section

Section reads like it has been written by some propaganda department. Hard to tell whether ISIS ("our greatest successes") or their professed enemies ("the Evil that is Islam"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.241.17.31 (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Didn't understand what you meant? Can you elaborate? 117.199.84.230 (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The section reads like a bunch of original research. Did these events inspire the attack, or were they part of the same ISIS campaign against Christmas markets? ^Falling_Gravity 17:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

distribution of victims

The table at 2016_Berlin_attack#Victims does not correspond with the current state of knowledge. According to German newspaper report of today, all victims have been identified. 8 are from Germany, 1 each from Poland (the driver), Israel, Italy and Czech Republic.[1],[2] . --Túrelio (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the source for the American death refers to an American's "partner", so the dead person referred to apparently had German citizenship and may not have had US citizenship. The source for the Ukrainian death refers to "the daughter of our countryman", which again points to the explanation that the victim did not hold Ukranian citizenship, only her father. So it all makes sense, some people just did not read the sources very carefully. Samsara 20:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Anis Anri

Re: belonged to a Salafist network, the so-called "Die Wahre Religion" (True Religion group), which had grown around the recently-arrested Abu Walaa, a known ISIL recruiter in Germany. None of this is in the source, and even on Walsa's article they speak of 'suspected' recruiter. Pincrete (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The source only says he was in contact with the network of Abu Walaa and once lived with Boban S., a contact of Abu Walaa arrested alongside him. He isn't described as a member of the group in the source. Also on the sidenote, I recommend this NYT article as it offers further insight http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/world/europe/berlin-christmas-market-attack.amp.html 45.122.144.117 (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Fingerprints

It is my understanding that fingerprints for Amri were available prior to 23 Dec, and matched those on the steering wheel (also prior to 23 Dec). After the shooting on 23 Dec, it was confirmed that they also matched the prints of the person shot in Italy, therefore confirming his identity as Amri. The article does not clearly describe it this way, and I think we should strive for clarity on this point, using appropriate sources. Samsara 23:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Believed and expected

At the moment the lead paragraph ends with this sentence: "The perpetrator is believed to be at large and expected to be armed." I can't see why it needs both verbs, or why the current version is better English than a simplified one such as "The perpetrator is believed to be at large and armed." To me the "expected" is just padding, adding no meaning, just repetition. I changed it but got reverted, so I am not up for an edit war over it; I would, though, like to know what other editors think, and if you can explain to me why you think the longer version reads better. (This is ignoring for now the question of how good the whole sentence actually is!) Thanks and best wishes 82.34.71.202 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it reads better with those two separate verb phrases. I'd actually prefer a second passive "is" before "expected". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a matter of taste, of course, the grammar is correct. But to my mind, this is terrible journalistic style of the lowest register. The use of the passive voice is already bad, the needless piling up of verbs just to express a simple point just establishes that you are doing it on purpose. Avoid the passive voice whenever possible, and don't use synonyms or near-synonyms without excellent reason. --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Now seems to have been somewhat overtaken by events. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Rendered somewhat moot, though I cannot remember offhand whether I mean in the BrE or AmE sense. But yes, the offending (or not) sentence just isn't much of a thing any more. 82.34.71.202 (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The lead still has him passively being shot by police, of course, in a "terrible journalistic style of the lowest register"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Very true Martin. Please do not ask me to explain why the now-gorn sentence caused me such pain when the lead fails to offend in the same way. Ermmm ... I dunno. And the "lowest register" wasn't me. I usually make rude comparisons with Year 9 essays ... Best wishes 82.34.71.202 (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

We should always aim high, of course. I would have thanked you if you were a real editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

:) 82.34.71.202 (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Initial suspect

The initial suspect from Pakistan has come forward and told his story, only have a German source right now: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/anschlag-in-berlin-irrtuemlich-festgenommener-pakistaner-meldet-sich-zu-wort-a-1127429.html

He claims he wasn't running because he thought he was a suspect, in fact he never mentioned this at all and I never heard of that in German media, but he was on his way to catch his subway to get home after spending time at a park, the Tiergarten. Cars approached as he was crossing a street, so he ran. That's when police saw him and stopped him, asking him why he was running and if he was the one who "commited the attack with the truck". He replied that he did not but was held in custody until the next day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:7D:CF65:A0B1:4DC3:1BF0:1F77:2442 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no place here for any accusations about anything being "a pretty outrageous lie". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, I redacted the line, very poor phrasing. Everything else remains valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:7D:CF65:A07E:8DE0:98CD:926F:1613 (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Dual citizenship?

The table of victims once again does not agree with the sources. The Spiegel source cites 8, not 7, German casualties. The most likely explanation is dual citizenship, but it's unclear how to show this in the table - or who indeed is the dual citizen. Thoughts/sources? Samsara 12:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Once we know who the dual citizens are, we could add notes to the table (see 2016 Nice attack#Victims). Littlecarmen (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Anis Amri not ISIL perpetator

ISIL is shown as the perpetator but Amri only pledged allegiance to it. This incident seems to be in line with other lone-wolf attacks where individuals are inspired by and pledged allegiance to ISIL or other groups but act on their own, the group claims its soldiers did so anyway. There seems to be no evidence that Amri was directly ordered by ISIL or the group facialitated it. The only sourced used for ISIL as perpetator here is the one where Amri pledges allegiance to it. Nothing else. 45.122.144.117 (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Amri is still a suspect, he was never confirmed. 45.122.144.117 (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but his fingerprints were in the truck - so - everyone knows he's guilty.50.111.2.50 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a specific, concrete and helpful suggestion for an edit? Pschemp (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Made a few edits to reflect this. Kranix (talk | contribs) 17:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Manhunt

Manhunt should be included in the article and infobox as other articles have it. See the Boston marathon bombing article. Beejsterb (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

ISIS/ISIL claiming responsibility. Looking for sources.

I was looking for references of the claim that ISIS/ISIL reclaimed responsibility of the attack (which are currently very few in the main article). I found the following references, and I divided them in two groups:

First group: sources claiming responsibility

Middle East Media Research Institute (memri.org), a US-based organization with headquartes in Washington DC.

Site Intel Group. This site is not accessible to public but is referenced by other journals.

Newsmax.com and Business Insider UK. These news are based on the comments of Rita Katz who is co-founder of Search for International Terrorist Entities Intelligence Group, a private intelligence firm based in Washington DC (USA).

Die Zeit. This page does not cite any primary sources.

Second group: sources with different views

Der Spiegel. This article is very careful in suggesting links with IS. This page does not cite any primary sources.

A blog on Der Spiegel. This blog claims that (see post of 20:22) the attack was "likely not coordinated from the IS leaders in Iraq or Syria". This page does not cite any primary sources.

A partial translation of the video that Anis Amri recoderd on his own can be found in a tweet of Jenan Moussa who is working for foreignpolicy.com, an American journal based in Washington DC, and in heavy.com, a website in New York. However, these two translations are dissimilar.

As a consequence, it seems to me that the matter is not well established. As 45.122.144.117 pointed out above, one can at most argue that he was inspired by IS. Also, many sources derive from the American intelligence or American entities which are possibly not the most neutral. I wonder therefore:

1. Can anybody (preferably a Tunisian native speaker) transcript the text of the video discussed above of Anis Amri and translate it in English? It seems very important to check the source directly before making claims in the wikipedia article. I do not consider this original research as it is just a matter of citing one's own words.

2. Can also anybody point at the "text message" of ISIS published by Amak/Amaq which is discussed for example here? It is nor in the wikipedia article, nor I could find it on my own.

Finally, I think that the text should be balanced further until this is clears up. Anwarkk (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Truck had circled Breitscheidplatz once

I’m removing the “Before entering the Christmas market, the truck had circled Breitscheidplatz once. ref name="spiegel1" ” statement for several reasons: First of all, this SPIEGEL ONLINE source doesn’t provide information where this claim comes from. The printed version of DER SPIEGEL from the weekend omits this entirely even though many other details are included. The timeline provided there and in other sources (i.e. leaving the parking place at 19:45 and crashing into the site at 20:02) are about the time a truck needs to travel that distance: No time for the truck to also circle Breitscheidplatz in that time. Circling the Breitscheidplatz would be a great detour for a truck that size and take lot of time. Finally, it can be assumed that the attacker knew pretty well what he was up to and didn’t need to circle. If a “circling” truck was seen, it must have been a different one. Unless other, more substantiated references or proof can be provided, this passage can remain deleted. Alandeus (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Workaround

Although still being treated as a suspected attack, I think in the lead we should add a note that police haven't confirmed whether it was an attack and are still investigating with Anis Amri, who was later shot dead, being treated as the suspected perpetrator who crashed the truck into the shoppers. Major media outlets however called it an "attack". And then add sources. 117.207.145.10 (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hamburg minister

Why do we need to have the bit about the Hamburg justice minister wanting to suppress the photo? I don't really see the relevance and it doesn't seem to have had much traction in mainstream sources. Is it essential in this article? It's been inserted and removed twice now ... DBaK (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hamburger relevance is in youtube itm1BAAgQHI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

clear pix

\/ Can you replace this pix? the one used in File:16-12-22-Bund..

is diffused perhaps badly photoshoped. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Similar vehicle attack in Rittenhouse Square Philadelphia park in United States

This apparent vehicle attack is very similar and appeared in both local and US national media but has received much less attention because there is no apparent link to a terrorist motive, but could have been just as deadlyBachcell (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

at Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia On February 6, 2017 a man stole a cab, stripped naked and careened through the park, frightening pedestrians who feared for their lives. They pulled him out after he crashed the car and was arrested. Unlike deadly vehicle attacks in Nice and Berlin, no pedestrians were harmed

References

Anis Amri got instructions from ISIS

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/anschlag-in-berlin-amri-erhielt-einsatzbefehl-von-is-fuehrung-a-1143472.html

--Rævhuld (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

ISIS forced Amri

Members of IS have forced Anis Amri to become a terrorist, new investigation shows.--Rævhuld (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Requested move 28 June 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to 2016 Berlin truck attack, per the discussion below. As an aside, when a reference is made to WP:COMMONNAME, it is helpful to present evidence; this also appears to have been a descriptive title. Dekimasuよ! 04:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

---

2016 Berlin attack → ? – Better clarification; current title can mean anything including non-terror-related offences that happened in Berlin. 2016 Berlin truck attack would be a lot better. The clarification also puts it into consistency to article names like 1986 West Berlin discotheque bombing. Gateshead001 (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 17:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I choose to oppose because WP:COMMONNAME. MayMay7 (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any removal of year but yes 2016 Berlin truck attack would be better. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment the 2016 Nice truck attack page recently also got its present name with the addition of 'truck'. It's good for this Berlin article to also follow this trend. --Gateshead001 (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2018 (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.