Talk:2016 Munich shooting

Whats up with shortening his name?
His name was "Ali David Sonboly". This is not questioned by anyone. Do not use the German Wikipedia as a source. The german wikipedia is not even close to be trustworthy. Especially not for this kind of topics. Here you find hundreds of sources with his full name in just regular newspapers and online media. --2003:76:4E39:E335:A1FB:F264:B63D:569E (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion above. Wie lautet der wirkliche Name des Amokläufers von München? (What is the real name of the gunman from Munich?): "In seinem Reisepass steht David S." (In his passport is David S.). The paper goes on to say for ethical reasons it won't give the full surname. This is presumably the same reason the police only call him David S. His previous/birth name, Ali Sonboly, is also listed in the article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh. According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung (and admittedly not very reliable source, as they had no qualms publishing the full names of Andreas Lubitz and Anders Behring Breivik), the terrorist changed his name away from Ali "right after he had come of age".  Well, this contradicts Wikipedia, which says that there are only four events in Germany under which one's name can be changed, none of which is the transition to adult age; however, nationalisation is given as an approved name change opportunity.  So, is the SZ a reliable source?.   XavierItzm (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ...Not sure what you're talking about here... Parsley Man (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Talking about the fact the 2016 Munich wikipedia article contradicts the Wikipedia article on German name changes. Probably because of the efforts to spin the shooting into politically correct territory.  XavierItzm (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with political correctness, we treat the legal or common name at the point the person becomes notable as their 'real name' and record any previous names and when/why they were known thus if this is public information, if it is RS that the perp only recently became 'David', that should be (and I believe is) recorded. W J Clinton was not born with that name, we record that but do not use his prev. name when referring to him. Why would we? Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Multiple media sources cite the perp's name as Ali. Out of the blue, only one source, the SZ, is used to cite the terrorist's name as David at the time of his death, to the exclusion of his birth name, Ali.  SZ, which does not provide a photo of the passport it says it saw, "says" the criminal changed his name upon reaching adulthood.  Only problem, the Wikipedia article on German name changes contradicts the possibility of any German persons changing names on reaching adulthood.  Either the Wikipedia article on German name changes or ZS is lying, as both can hardly be correct.  Hence, the question: why is one questionable article from SZ being used as a basis for calling Ali "David", to the exclusion of so many other WP:RS? XavierItzm (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Lying' is a very strong term for what may well be a minor, apparent, but not substantive contradiction. If the authorities say his name was David, thus it is, we don't ask them for a detailed explanation as to why or how or when he acquired that name, especially since they appear to be saying it was his legal name. If RS are also using Ali, we note that he is also so referred to thus. We would do this in any circumstance, even if one name was merely a 'nickname' if it was widely used by RS. I don't see what the big issue is with the name, and pursuing it smacks of WP:OR. Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article was incorrect and got corrected. You can change your name if it is very common, like Schmidt/Müller/Schulze and I guess "Ali" would also fit that bill of being to common. Jakob Schulze (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He was legally known as David when he committed the shooting - and referred to as such by police. What's the issue? Pincrete (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

attack type
may we please ad as attack type 'domestic terrorism' & 'hate crime', cuz he was targeting Turks? so it IS TECHNICALLY a hate crime. Monkeylady999 (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Monkeylady999 that isn't 'attack type' - which covers shooting/knifing/bombing etc. Whilst most of the victims were children of immigrants from muslim countries, (as was he of course) it has remained unclear precisely what his 'grudge' was. We have far-right extremism and xenophobia as his probable motives. We would only call it a 'hate crime' if the sources did, and they don't on the whole. Pincrete (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * k, i understand it now. Monkeylady999 (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Naming and identifying ethnicity of victim
Quite a bit of info is available about the victims and their 'backgrounds' including their ethnicities and/or that of their families. Sometimes the backgrounds are quite complex (eg one victim is the German-born son of a Muslim Greek father, from a Greek minority often referred to as 'Turkish' or 'Gk-Turkish' ethnically within Greece/Turkey). The info is sourced, but because of the conventions of different countries, the info sometimes seems contradictory, depending on whether 'heritage' or nationality is invoked by the source.

I've modified the victim list to refer primarily to nationality, but record ethnicity when covered by the BBC source used. This seems like an instance when ethnicity is probably relevant (collectively, if not individually).

Q.1. Is there another approach?

Q.2. Why are we naming the victims at all? (the dreaded victim list RfC question). There doesn't seem any harm in doing so, nor much reason to do so either. Pincrete (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)