Talk:Düsseldorf axe attack

Current consensus
1. The unrelated March 10 attack should not be mentioned.

2. Per WP:BLPCRIME, the suspect's name should not be mentioned.

Machete attack - related?

 * Many news source mention both attacks together, and although they clearly say they aren't related, the fact that reliable sources seem to be speaking of both together (you can't find coverage of one without the other) does seem to suggest we should do so similarly. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

In a separate attack the following day, an 80-year-old man was attacked by an assailant wielding a machete in a car park on Kalkumer Schlossallee, located in the outskirts of Dusseldorf. The victim was hospitalized for his injuries. Schools in the area were put on lockdown while authorities hunt for the assailant.

So this section about a different attack has been included in the article, on the basis that they are supposedly similar. However, I don't believe it should be included, since it doesn't seem to be related, even if news media are covering them together (which is mostly out of convenience). I think linking the two in a single article would potentially fall afoul of various policies (WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH, for example). One option would be to rename the article and expand the lead scope to cover both attacks; but I'm also not convinced of the notability of the events, which seem already sadly routine. ansh 666 19:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not WP:SYNTH if reliable sources mention both of them in that context... I also fail to see how including it would break WP:NPOV or WP:NOR 69.165.196.103 (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, it would if we declared they were related, which is the implication from having them in the same article. I guess it's kind of okay if it's not explicitly said? I think the best option for now is expanding the lead to cover both and renaming the article to 2017 Düsseldorf attacks, though I still have concerns about the article's long-term viability. ansh 666 19:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * After trying to fit it in, it just doesn't seem to work well. Kind of like "oh, and also...". There's too little information on the second incident to even write anything meaningful about it. I wouldn't even call it an "attack", since there's no known motive or anything. ansh 666 19:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe just keeping the sentence as is and copying it in the lead would be a good solution. As for the notability "issue", it's clearly mentioned by many major reliable news organisations. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * When a dude walks up to an 80-year-old man in a car park and attacks him with a machete, it's an attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we can frame the machete attack to make clear that it appears to be related only temporally and geographically.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] Agree Yes, certainly, if it can be done. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This should be removed. If an article is made for that attack, it can be a "See also" but this is unrelated and should not be in this article.  { MordeKyle }  &#9762; 19:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The burst of coverage following such an incident doesn't guarantee notability, per WP:NEVENT, as it has to be sustained and lasting. It's too early to tell whether this will be true, which is why I didn't send it to AfD immediately. I'm not sure about "attack" still; if it was something like a botched robbery, would it still be called that? Again, too early to make such determinations. And besides, much worse happens daily in my neck of the woods, but it rarely ever gets coverage. This is only getting so much airtime because it happened the day after a legitimate attack; it's not really getting covered alone, especially in major news media, another mark off for notability. ansh 666 20:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I never said that section should be made into another article - I just said that, since many media cover both together, maybe wikipedia should also do it that way (which is the essence of WP:SYNTH - you can't cover something in some way unless reliable sources do so, which in this situation is the case). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure, but Wikipedia is also WP:NOTNEWS. This machete incident lacks notability, and even says in this article that there is no relation to this incident. This is just another case of media reporting things before they know anything about them. This needs to be removed.  { MordeKyle }  &#9762; 20:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * For your future knowledge - you can't ping an IP. Then maybe a single sentence in the lead like "The following day, an unrelated attack involving ..." could do the trick? It would match inclusion policy (if it's reported by RS, it should theoretically be included) while not going into too much detail about an unrelated, possibly not within the scope of the article (non-notable), event - interested readers could follow the links to news articles given as references for the matter. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I know you can't ping an IP, but you know who I am talking to, and "ping" is a habit, whereas "replyto" is not. You still know I'm talking to you and not someone else. On topic, there is no relation to these events, so there is no reason at all to have this in the article. Just because something is reported by an RS, does not mean we should include it. There are actually a lot of reasons not to include things that are reported by RS's, but this one is just simply down it not being relevant to this discussion. I guarantee a bus was rear ended in the United States the day of the 2016 Chattanooga school bus crash, and it was more than likely covered in local news, but we don't include it in that article, just an example. It's not relevant.  { MordeKyle }  &#9762; 21:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You're confusing potentially non-notable with "trivial". There's also plenty of precedent for (by themselves) non-notable topics being covered (to a certain, potentially minimal extant) on pages of more notable subjects. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * But this is trivial. The only reason it's getting coverage is its proximity to another event. ansh 666 21:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────    In that case, then yes remove it. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet another conversation on WP:BLPCRIME
Suspect's name should not be reported here per WP:BLPCRIME. The suspect was not notable before the attack, and therefor his name should remain private, since he was a private person before the attack, and will remain a private person after the attack if not convicted of this crime. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Wait for conviction.  { MordeKyle }  &#9762;</b> 21:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be as clear as I can with this... My emphasis. I think it is quite clear that we should edit on the side of caution and not include the name. The rest of the information being in the article appears to be fine, and the suspects name really adds no encyclopedic value to the article. At some point, this article may become confusing without addition of the suspect's name, which is unlikely as there is only one suspect, but until that time, or the time a conviction is secured, I think WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPCRIME to be pretty clear on this. We are also WP:NOTNEWS and there is WP:NORUSH to include this information. <b style="border:2px solid; color: #17B6F9; background: #305577"> { MordeKyle } </b> <b style="border:2px solid; color: #B8A553; background: #727579">&#9762;</b> 21:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It is significantly overstating the case to state that suspect's name should not be reported here. WP:BLPCRIME states that editors should "seriously consider (my italics) not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured."  Note that the requirement is to seriously consider not including the name but nothing more than that.  If we get to the point where multiple reliable sources are reporting the suspects name then it can (and I would argue should) be included.  It is clearly a relevant piece of information to the incident and to include it here is not "titillating".  Unless the suspect is convicted we must avoid stating that the individual is guilty - that would be for a court to decide.  Also, we should be conservative about this and wait until there is a clear consensus in reliable sources. However to suppress information which was widely reported in reliable sources would convey no meaningful advantage on the suspect and leaves WP open to a charge of censorship or perhaps bias.  Greenshed (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLPCRIME - "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." Responding to your questions, in this case, the name of the suspect is not particularly relevant - for example, whether he's called "John Doe" or "William Doe" doesn't change much to the writing of the article - it's only one short part of a sentence. Thus, since adding the name won't help make the article better, we should err on the side of caution and not include it. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your side here, as I have argued the same thing many times in the past. There are some real issues with this policy, but the point of the policy is quite apparent when reading WP:BLP in it's totality, rather than just reading WP:BLPCRIME, specifically the part that states, "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." My emphasis. Withholding the name does not degrade the encyclopedic value of this article at all. 69.165.196.103 is right, and we should err on the side of non-inclusion because WP:BLP's intentions are rather clear that we do so. Thank you for your input Greenshed. <b style="border:2px solid; color: #17B6F9; background: #305577"> { MordeKyle } </b> <b style="border:2px solid; color: #B8A553; background: #727579">&#9762;</b> 20:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The information should be on the page, as has been done in other similar recent widely publicized attacks, such at the 2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That article is a rather poor example of representing WP:BLP policies, as it not only includes the suspects name against WP:BLPCRIME, but also includes the names of the victims as well. <b style="border:2px solid; color: #17B6F9; background: #305577"> { MordeKyle } </b> <b style="border:2px solid; color: #B8A553; background: #727579">&#9762;</b> 23:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing (at least my) attention to that - corrected! 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Especially given how egregious it was (it actually told in the lead "the named perpetrator has ..." - not in those words but...). 23:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)