Talk:Hanau shootings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Time of incidents

This is currently given as '10 o'clock'. Is that CET? This needs clarifying, with a conversion to UTC in brackets. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

An interesting observation on my part

WP:NOTAFORUM TompaDompa (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

From what I have observed online, both from the Joker movie release and this case, Nazis always try to exaggerate the subject's "mental illness" (to discredit his actions), whereas mainstream media try to underline his Nazi ideology. I want to commend Wikipedia for siding with mainstream media - calling him a schizophrenic first and foremost would be a mistake.--Adûnâi (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You're going to say that people who argue the mental illness point are Nazis, and you associate Joker with Nazis? While simultaneously advocating against gay marriage on your userpage? My Trollometer is going nuts. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The TP's are not for a general discussion of your various head-voices. WP:OR, WP:FORUM, etc. 50.111.9.62 (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I was just about to say the same thing except that "head-voices" part, that was rude..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Manifesto

Does anyone have a link to the manifesto? If it even exists... The 2019 Christchurch shooter's manifesto was everwhere online. I can't seem find this one anywhere which makes me somewhat suspicious. 191.114.115.110 (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so apparently it does exist. Here the original German text on pastebin.com and here an English translation, which, although machine-translated, I can confirm to be accurate (compared to the pastebin document) since I speak German. I hope I may be forgiven for having to link to the Daily Stormer but hey, for all their numerous and grave faults, props to them for at least having the document accessible.
Keep in mind that thanks to the media (self-)censorship it is unfortunately not possible to confirm this document as having been authored by the shooter, but the info in it does fit exactly to officially published details on the perpetrator (And even the Daily Stormer thinks it's legit). Cheers! 191.114.115.110 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Edit: The German text from the pastebin document corresponds to the one to be found on the archived version of the shooters website.
May knowledge and wisdom help deradicalize us all... Peace and Love! 191.114.115.110 (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked already

@Drmies:. Why have you blocked access to this article for IP users? One such user was adding material that you didn't like and you and others reverted. This was not really vandalism; it was more a content dispute. Regardless, you could have blocked this user. On top of that there was just one other user, who engaged in a single act of "vandalism" and has, anyway, now been blocked. This is hardly "persistent" vandalism. I didn't see a request at WP:RFPP for your action. Block the vandals, not the article. Please unprotect. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  • No, I didn't revert stuff "I didn't like". If something is not vandalism then I obviously can't just block the user. Why don't you go through the history and tag all the unverified, unhelpful edits by IP editors, and stop wasting my time. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Whatever. Based on what's happened here I'd certainly find more unhelpful edits from anonymous users than I'd find from IP users. Already two of the anons have been article-blocked. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Whatever indeed. You seem to know plenty. Log in to your account so I can put a name to the number. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
      • IP, if any IP wants to make a help edit he/she can make an edit request. I agree with Drmies, the history of the article is full of unhelpful edits from IPs and some of them are probably sockpuppets of blocked editors.SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
        • (ec)I'm working away on a shared computer, and was caught out once before when I forgot to log out; never again. Yes, been an editor since 2004, but don't worry, the next time I log in I won't be editing this, or any other article I've edited while logged out. You should try editing logged out for a while. The discrimination against IPs is breathtaking. [1]. Anyway, rant over. Could I ask you again (more politely :) ) to consider whether there really is a need to have this article SP'd. I think on balance it could be unprotected to see how it goes, but I'll go with whatever you decide and won't complain again. Thanks. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
        • @SharabSalam: Edit requesting is a poor process. These types of article don't generally attract sockpuppets, but they do attract new users, who may become excellent editors. For that reason, articles such as this - fast moving, and documenting current events - should only be SP'd as a very last resort. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
          • If you've been here since 2004 you know that this particular history is troublesome enough--perhaps not in relation to the total number of edits, but that total number is incredibly high of course. Let the next admin decide whether to unprotect or not. As for whether this is the target of LTAs, there's a bunch of right-wing LTAs who might well be interested in this. So I disagree with you on a lot of things: these are precisely the kinds of articles that need semi-protection, to counter the insertion of fake news and as-yet unestablished factual claims as well as to combat vandalism. I don't see many new editors coming from such articles--they come, more frequently, from their hobby horses.

            Oh, I've made thousands of edits from IPs (and mine never overlap either), and if you've been here since 2004 you will know that I have advocated for many an IP editor, and how often I have yelled at Recent changes patrollers who just hit "rollback" whenever they like. (If you're interested in that edit you thought "I didn't like"--it's unverified gun fetishism: look at the editor's other stuff.)

            Hey JzG, I see you're on call: do you mind checking if this article can do without semi-protection? The IP protests and thinks we should try and see how it goes without protection--that's a fair question. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

            • Your edit - Agreed. I might have reverted it myself. Regards 31.52.163.160 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
            • Drmies, PC maybe? I can see the problem, but I also see the IP's point. Guy (help!) 17:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
              • JzG, if you think that's a good solution, go for it: I won't touch that PC button with a stick, haha. Thanks for taking the time. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                Drmies, Done. Should be IP-editable now with PC on. Guy (help!) 18:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Community reaction - Would anybody want to describe this in The Signpost?

I know that it can be hard to write a Wikipedia article like this one. If there are people who are close to the scene or in the middle of a community response, The Signpost might be an outlet for you to express your feelings through writing a newspaper story for other Wikipedians to better know what's happening. No, we're not going to twist anybody's arm, but if you have a story you want to tell and it might help you better cope seeing what others in the German Wikipedia community or the Hanau community are doing, then please do let The Signpost know at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions or Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions.

Publishing requirements are straightforward. The story needs to be submitted by Friday, February 28. 500-1,500 words in English. Wikipedia policies on WP:NPA and similar apply. WP:OR and WP:NPOV do not apply.

Peace.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

target being kurdish immigrants

Is there a source for that, or does it happen to be the situation where he targeted a middle eastern establishment that happened to have Kurdish people attending? Until source is provided to confirm, conjecture should be removed from infobox. Quenreerer (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, the police claims that the motive most likely is xenophobic in nature. And as far as I see it, we know, that the bars were frequently visited mostly by Kurds. If he did it on purpose to target Kurds OR he targeted locations with people from the Middle East that just happened to be Kurds - I don't know. But good point.--Life of Colors (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Did you read the sources? None of the sources confirm that Kurds were the most frequent visitors of the bars. This content was totally made-up. It is funny because no one bothered to check the sources untill today. These fake news were read by 50K people. 46.221.164.231 (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
user:Drmies please control these edits. 46.221.164.231 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Incel

As usual with these kinds of attacks, it has been revealed that the perpetrator was an incel. Also, as usual, the media has chosen to focus on his alleged political motives rather than his incel status, which has been the primary motivator in almost all of these types of attacks, including the ones committed by leftists and apolitical shooters. Are there really no sources focusing on this as the main motivation? AppliedCharisma (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

AppliedCharisma, If no sources say it, why would you assume it? Guy (help!) 18:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Sources have mentioned it in past shootings, but then usually chose to focus on alleged political motives. In fact, I can't think of a single mass shooting in the past 10 years that wasn't perpetrated by an incel. Once the mainstream media tires of politicizing this shooting and trying to use it to disparage President Trump, perhaps we'll have some serious, objective journalists who will report on the real motivation behind all these shootings, and it isn't politics, it's incel rage, which affects all incels equally, whatever their politics. AppliedCharisma (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Where's the evidence that TR was an incel, that most mass shootings are committed by incels, or that all incels are very angry? Jim Michael (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Not just mass shootings. The Akihabara spree stabber was also an incel. It doesn't say that he was an incel in the Wikipedia entry, but it notes that he said that one of his primary motivations was because he couldn't get a girlfriend. I was going to suggest that we create a category of all mass murders motivated by male sexual frustration (aka "incel"), but then I realized it would just be an almost identical repeat of the category of mass murders. AppliedCharisma (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The majority of people who commit mass shootings/stabbings (or other types of attacks) aren't incels. Being unable to get a gf doesn't prove that he was an incel. Also, most incels aren't part of the incel subculture.
Most sexually frustrated/dissatisfied people aren't incels - a high proportion are in LTRs. Jim Michael (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

AppliedCharisma, I can't help but wonder what you are doing here, or what this comment is supposed to make us do. No incel-status has in fact been "revealed" (whatever that means here), and plenty of right-wing extremism and racism evidence has been publicized. You're saying it's the other way, but it is not. And Trump has nothing to do with this article--so far. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Attack type

This currently has multiple listings in the InfoBox. Surely, 'mass shooting' is sufficient here? Some of the others are just duplicates of that, and to include suicide in the list is not in any way appropriate. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

They're not duplicates - many attacks are of more than one type. Jim Michael (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
'Mass shooting' and 'spree shooting' are basically the same, and 'murder' covers both of them. 'Suicide' is not an attack type. Could we rationalise the list? 31.52.163.160 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Not all mass shootings are spree; not all spree shootings are mass. Most murders aren't either & some shootings which are mass &/or spree aren't fatal. That's why we have articles for each & why they're not duplicates. Murder-suicide is an attack type - he fatally attacked several people, then himself. Jim Michael (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
As WP:CRITERIA demanded, Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. I checked sources. I think "2020 Hanau shootings" is the best one, but if users suggest other names (based on RSes), Opening the RFC would be helpful.Saff V. (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Coltfan removing right-wing extremism from the lead

The police claims it was a far right attack with xenophobic background. Coltfan removes those evidence from the lead. Furthermore, he continously tries to get the name of the suspect published here, so it is against name policy (as multiple users already have stated). In Germany, his name is NOT PUBLISHED; neither by the police (officials!) nor by German newspaper because a) he is a suspect and not convicted and b) there is no point in making him famous. This discussion is the same as on every other terrorist attack page - and the names were always added later on, when the officials did say, that the culprit was the culprit. It is too early to put his name in the article, especially because it has no value whatsoever (unless, of course, you try to make him famous). Oh, and one thing more: normally we try to clean the lead from references. The lead is a summary over the article. And he is undoing that as well.--Life of Colors (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

First, what Germany do or do not do, it's not our concern. Second, we're not here to make nobody famous, true, but we're here to inform. Like another editor said before, he is dead. You can't press chargers or trial a dead person. The only word we can take is that the police informed us his name and the motives. That's no speculation. Third, if you want to engage in EW and not in the discussion, fine. Tell me in advance. You will be blocked from editing and the discussion will continue without you. You are the one disrespecting the rules (one of the most basic ones of discussing things first) Coltsfan (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Of course it is our concern what OFFICIALS do. If OFFICIALS don't publish the name, you have NO OFFICIAL SOURCE and thus, no reliable evidence. Which was what you claimed all the time.--Life of Colors (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
You are edit warring all the time. You are the only one here, who wants to make him famous: just read the discussion page. You are totally alone. Just respect Wikipedia Policy, please, and respect that the rest of us don't want to publish his name before he is OFICCIALY THE CULPRIT. As you already agreed: you have no official evidence on his name!--Life of Colors (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
There is no political motive in this case. The suspect was literally crazy in the psycho-pathological sense. Adding a political motive to it, is intellectually dishonest. 105.12.5.95 (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
When there's a source that the suspect was mentally ill, the information is likely to be added quickly to the article. One can tell that the guy had a serious mental problem from his writings (let alone his actions), but we need a source, which I'm sure will be forthcoming very soon. It's up to the community to decide whether sources broadly give more weight to political beliefs or mental illness. RandomGnome (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Commenters here might be interested in the zeal with which A11w1ss3nd is inserting "paranoia" as a motive based on an interview with a psychiatrist who was not the perpetrator's doctor--her evidence came from the video and other stuff the dude left. The source is hidden in an edit summary. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Drmies, first of all, I didn't delete right-wing extremism from anywhere and have no intentions to do so. So it is confusing you are mentioning me here. The psychiatrist has the same facts like the others who call him (only) xenophobic (he is of course xenophobic, too). But in his manifesto he says that his major reason is to fight the mind control intelligence agency and that he wants the mankind to be able to travel back in time to destroy the earth in order to save all from the mind control. Because he only sees the white race to be able to achieve this, the world would habe to get rid of the others. --A11w1ss3nd (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't do original research here. We need a source that explicitly says that he had paranoia. I saw his website and there were some links to some videos about stuff that you said but that doesn't prove anything here. Also, I can't verify that his website and wasn't created later. Back to my point, we don't do original research. Provide a source that says he had paranoia, and in this case it should be a high quality source from an expert in psychology not just a random person said bluh bluh.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you read Drmies text? I linked an article of a forensic psychiatrist in a big german newspaper. She said this in miltiple ones. --A11w1ss3nd (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Citizenships and ethnicities of the victims

Please read / translate the section of the German version of this article. There has been updated information given by the police. Current version is not correct or imprecise. —A11w1ss3nd (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Name of the suspect

Should we mention the name of the suspect? I am sure that we shouldn't, the suspect name has no encyclopedic value in this article. Not everything that is reported by the media should be included. An editor is reverting me and not allowing me to remove the name. I have said that it should be removed per WP:SUSPECT and WP:BLPNAME which applies to those who recently died as well.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple articles about shootings and terrorists attacks on Wikipedia, and the name of the perpetrator is always shown (as long as it has reliable sources to back it up, per WP:V). The name of the perpetrator, in this case, has been confirmed by multiple sources, including local authorities. Per guidelines, articles have to be as informative as possible and the name of the perpetrator is a key piece in the story, particularly now that his name has been confirmed and the subject of who he is or why he did it is now settled. Don't know why this article should be any different from all the others that fall in the same category. Plus, WP:SUSPECT and WP:BLPNAME apply primarily to biographical articles. This article is about an incident, an event, and the perpetrator of said event is a key factor in the story and an important part of what happened (again, as long as it has irrefutable reliable sources, which this article has). Coltsfan (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Coltsfan, "the name of the perpetrator is a key piece in the story"
How is the name of the "perpetrator"/suspect a key piece in the story. WP:BLPNAME is clear about this When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. You need to provide "scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts" that mention his name. Also, BLPNAME and WP:SUSPECT also apply to non-biographical articles. All BLP policies apply to non-biographical articles. a biography can be in any type of article.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, "You need to provide "scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts" that mention his name", how about the police of the city of Hanau? The police has provided a full profile on the guy. It's speculation, it's not secondary source. The local police authority has gave in the information. Should we say that the attack was done by "somebody" or "a dude"? We have the name, the police already profiled the guy. It's solid information backed by reputieded sources. It stays in the article. Coltsfan (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a link right off the bat, but I'm sure we have to have a discussion about it on a case by case basis. I remember doing so for the El Paso shooting article .David O. Johnson (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
No: we do have the policy on Wikipedia that the name of a suspect is never mentioned unless it has been through court.--Life of Colors (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
No - no such policy - also, the shooter is DEAD, and a trial of a dead person is unlikely. He left a note and a video, according to the news, about his guilt.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
There is no such policy. All that is required is that the information is backed by reliable/repudiated source. The person doesn't have to be "trialed" or "sent to court". The only criteria is that it has sources and the source must be reliable. Coltsfan (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Of course there is such a policy. Read under every terrorist attack article so far. The discussion page has the exact same question as here and the answer is always the same: as long as the suspect hasn't been convicted, we don't mention the name. He wasn't convicted yet, so therefore no mentioning of his name here.--Life of Colors (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
That [non-existing] policy of yours is not followed by any other articles of this type. Not the one about Christchurch, El Paso, 2017 Manchester... None of that happend. The only thing that the rules says is that a reliable and reputieded source must be provided (and it has). Coltsfan (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, that is because they have been CONVICTED. CONVICTION and SUSPICION are not the same. And if you read the talk page, there was the same debate. Go and read up on Wikipedia policies.--Life of Colors (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
"Well, that is because they have been CONVICTED." Dude, he literally cited sources where the perpetrators were named before conviction, including one who is DEAD. You can't try a dead man, maybe you should try some amateur legal research before throwing around terms like "conviction." You already caught an edit block, maybe you should consider that you're clearly wrong. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, in the discussions over there it was decided to include the names before any conviction. The man here is dead, he won't be send to court. The police already said that he was the one who did it, there is no point of discussion, it's not "up for debate". It would be a thing if the police said "we're still looking for the suspect" or "we cannot say for sure" "we believe to be this person", but no. The police has already said who did it. The motives might still be under investigation, but all reliable sources already say who did it, for sure. Coltsfan (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Everyone can re-read that what you say is not true. Btw: the German police and the German newspaper doesn't cover him with his name actually. First of all: they don't want to make him famous. Second of all: he is still a suspect. Until that changes, we shouldn't include his name. As we always do. And you are so far the only one here who wants his name in the article (see discussion page). The others here agree to the Wikipedia Policy.--Life of Colors (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, you are the only one removing the information from the article. Nobody is supporting you either, actually you have been reverted by someone other than me, so, according to the rules, you are in the wrong. Plus, the rules say you should discuss first, make changes later (per WP:STATUSQUO). And the name of the guy was given by the police. Unless you have a source that the media has come up with the name on it's own, the source for his name comes from the local authorities. Coltsfan (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Coltsfan, read what WP:BLPNAME says. Also, the police didnt mention his surname, per The Guardian The killer was named by police as 43-year-old Tobias R. His surname was not given, in line with German practice. Regardless, his name is of little importance, except making an alleged murderous famous.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
There is no "alleged". The police has confirmed its information, there is a video of the man talking about it and a political manifesto (all verified by the police). Unless you are telling me that the media is lying and pretending that the police said those things, if you do, please, show the sources. Coltsfan (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Coltsfan, alleged is part of my comment. I dont want to call someone murderous in the talk page. However, alleged or not is not my point here. I am saying that there is no informative value of his name. You need to provide scholarly sources mentioning his name to prove that it has value.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, that is ridiculous. Nobody has to provide "scholarly sources" to justify adding a perpetrator's name to an article about a shooting that *they* committed. Your whole "their name has no informative value" point is entirely subjective. Anybody who spends fifteen minutes looking up articles about mass shootings and terrorist attacks will find that your supposed "scholarly sources" argument isn't hardly grounded in reality. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
No, you do not. Like i said, there are plenty of other articles (like the ones about Christchurch, El Paso, 2017 Manchester) where the name of the perpetrator is there, in the lead of the article, and there is no "scholarly source", only what the media and the authorities say. And the attempts to remove their names(when pursued in the talk page) has failed. You are trying to impose a consensus that doesn't exist. Coltsfan (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
That's because in German speaking countries, names are considered private and naming the shooter could lead to blaming of his family. Most newspapers and the German speaking wikiedia do not mention his name (only by Tobias R.) Saemikneu (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we should. While there is academic material that (so far) confirms the theory that mentioning a mass shooter's name in the media heightens the chances for more mass shootings to occur, whether an encyclopedia should or shouldn't mention the shooter's name is a counterintuitive argument. As an online encyclopedia, Wikipedia's purpose is to compile information about notable subjects to be readily accessible to all. The shooter's name is, of course, information about a notable subject. Yes, I believe mass shooters' names shouldn't be spoken in the media, and I believe we shouldn't give mass shootings so much airtime, but that's my opinion. The moral implications don't matter. Wikipedia doesn't sensationalize anything or impart a subliminal bias. It's just... There for you to read. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Include the suspect's name, but not in the lead. Jim Michael (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
No. The name of the perpetrator adds nothing to the readers' understanding of the event. TompaDompa (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
That's a very narrow view of things and fundamentally incorrect. The name of the perpetrator definitely adds to the readers' understanding... It shows them who did it, which can lead to more understanding through things such as motive and other relevant information. Besides, our job is to present relevant information. The name of the perpetrator is relevant. Should we go around and remove the names of belligerents from war articles, too? MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but follow the German convention "First Name, Last Initial" until authorities release more information. Please compare this discussion to the most recent previous mass shooting article, where this question wasn't even brought up: Talk:Nakhon_Ratchasima_shooting#Perpetrator. The suspect in that case was also killed and will not be brought to trial, yet nobody there asked "should we refer to him?", just "how should we refer to him?" And the answer was "according to local custom", so I am advocating the same thing here. 67.8.203.16 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
We don't follow German law or practice. His name has been stated by reliable, mainstream media sources. The article would be incomplete without it.
The name of the perpetrator of the NR shootings was added to the article when stated. The question regarding his name was whether we should refer to Thais by their first name or last name. Jim Michael (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with "We don't follow German law or practice". We apply the name that most of English RSes use it.Saff V. (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The name has absolutely no informative value. It can be removed and yet the article would still make sense. Per WP:LPNAME, we should avoid using the name.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The identity of the perpetrator is a crucial part of what happened. There are no BLP concerns. We're naming the dead killer - not any victims, witnesses, family etc. His name has been published in many mainstream, reliable sources. Jim Michael (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrong location shown on ibox map

Both locations are in Hanau. See, for example, https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/00ED/production/_110973200_germany_hanau_shooting_mapv3_640-nc.png (in English) or https://media.news.de/resources/thumbs/8c/00/857098417_736x414/layjpg-1582194527.jpg (in German). --Thomas Dresler (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Why does the ibox's map show one bar to be in Mühlheim am Main when sources say that both are in Hanau? Jim Michael (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by ibox, Jim Michael, as the links provided by Thomas Dresler show correctly where Hanau is located in real life. The city of Mühlheim am Main, on the contrary is located south of the river Main only, no part of it is on the north side, as far as I know the region -- living nearby for almost three decades ;-) -- Thomas Dresler is completely right. 94.219.49.235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
This article's infobox, which at the time I wrote the comment included a map which incorrectly labelled one of the bars as being located in Mühlheim. I was agreeing with TD & pointing out that the ibox's map needed correcting. All shooting locations are in Hanau & are north of the Main. Jim Michael (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks for responding so quickly, and never mind me to dumb to realize ibox means infobox, sorry for my stupidity. However, you're right, all the shootings took place in Hanau, sorry I didn't realize there was a confusion between folks pointing to incorrect maps in the first place. 94.219.49.235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Someone who knows how to, please reinstate a corrected version of the map to the ibox. Jim Michael (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Mental illness

The guy was obviously mentally ill and felt persecuted. Schizophrenia probably played a bigger role into this than his racism. Just take a look at his manifesto in which he believes in Aliens and Satanic Worship by mind-controlling societies. We should move the focus out of right-wing terrorism because it only played a minor role in this particular case.

Above posted via ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.103.130.243

I agree that "right-wing terrorism" is a problematic characterization.

Rathjen's manifesto makes it clear that his worldview had certain overlaps with that of various far-right groups, but in other ways is unique. His reason for believing that a large part of the world's population should be eliminated was that he saw them as hindering technological progress. Technological progress was critical because it would allow humans to "resolve the enigma" (the origin of the universe, life, human beings, etc.); and because it would allow the development of time travel. Rathjen's stated that time travel technology should be used to go back "billions of years" to destroy the Earth before life could develop, and thereby prevent the untold suffering of human beings throughout history. He calls this "the one and only relevant mission." This worldview has clear racist elements, but is also shows a Buddhist influence in that it identifies suffering as the defining feature of human existence and non-existence as the ultimate goal. Characterizing Rathjen's motives as "far-right" seems odd when one would be hard pressed to find a single member of a far-right group who agrees with Rathjen's ultimate goal, traveling billions of years back in time to blow up Earth.

The manifesto allows an alternative reading of Rathjen's motives. It ends as follows: "When I was a few years old, I swore to myself: should I be right that I am being monitored, that means war. Due to the aforementioned reasons I had no other choice but to act as I did, to attract the necessary attention. This was should be understood as a double strike, against the secret organization and against the degeneration of our people." From other parts of the manifesto, it seems that the latter target refers to the influx of criminal North Africans and Turks into Germany.

I attempted to edit the article, citing https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/hanau-tobias-rathjen-wie-ein-bankkaufmann-zum-rechtsterroristen-wurde-a-7f673ad0-4437-42de-9c2b-af22288d7071 but had my changes reversed several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:C680:E780:E671:85FF:FE50:8494 (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020

Chnge reference 3, date: "a b Hume, Tim (29 February 2020). "'Not a Classical Neo-Nazi': …" to "a b Hume, Tim (20 February 2020). "'Not a Classical Neo-Nazi': …" Petermadler (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020

The article is linking the attacker to Donald Trump, and only to him. This is grossly misleading, as the attacker stated that the US in general was "following his (the attacker's) advice" since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. If one wants to mention that he thought that he was the mastermind behind the current US domestic as well as foreign policy, one should also mention that he thought he was responsible for the strategy of the German Football Association (Deutscher Fussball Bund / DFB) for winning the soccer world cup in 2014.

Also the article is linking the attacker to the "incel" movement. The attacker is stating that he chose to "take no women" because he "knew that he was under surveillance by the secret service". Incels by definition are involuntary. 31.22.41.124 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The article no longer uses the word incel. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that he self-identified as an incel, nor that he had ever been involved with the incel subculture.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hanau_shootings/Archive_1&oldid=990915225"