This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance). Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Explosives Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should the title of this article, 2009 Halle synagogue shooting, be changed?

Enter Yes or No with one-sentence explanations in the Survey. Additional and back-and-forth discussion may be in Threaded Discussion.

Responders may wish to refer to the discussion section "Could page title be more accurate?" above. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. The current title unnecessarily includes the word "synagogue" where no-one was shot, the (non-Jewish) victims were shot elsewhere.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Except perhaps to change 'shooting' to 'attack', since improvised explosives were involved as well as guns. Possibly amend to 'terrorist attack' if suspect is charged with terrorist offences. The synagogue was the initial target and the first victim was shot dead immediately outside the synagogue, and, regardless of what/who was the primary target - the synagogue is referred to frequently in sources and helps 'pin' the event in a way that subsequent/other locations involved do not.Pincrete (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeating the RFC instructions, "Enter Yes or No with one-sentence explanations in the Survey."Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, because this spree included attacks elsewhere in Halle, as well as outside Halle. Jim Michael (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Most sources are primarily concerned with the central importance of the synagogue to the incident. Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No Synagogue was primary target and most of the sources refer it as attack on the synagogue [1],[2],[3],[4] so per WP:COMMONAME there is no need to change --Shrike (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No.The phrase "Halle Synagogue" should remain per WP:CommonName. Furthermore, per sources cited above, it seems clear the synagogue was the primary target. No opinion on whether "shooting" or "attack" is better. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Right-wing extremists caused this, but most of the media is more sympathetic to the Zionists than to the Palestinians, so I'd favor a more neutral title here. Jzsj (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Sources use synagouge attack: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-synagogue-attack-who-were-the-victims-in-halle/a-50875421 DW from 18th.
• No It is accurate as is HAL333 20:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A better title might be "2019 Halle and Landsberg shooting" or, to emphasize antisemitic and far right extremist aspects at the cost of length, "2019 Halle and Landsberg antisemitic and far right attack" or similar.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier—do you have sources for any of your claims pertaining to who is Jewish and who is not Jewish? I haven't seen that sources have reported anything about that. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.jewishpress.com/news/global/europe/germany/report-neither-of-halle-synagogue-shooters-victims-were-jewish/2019/10/11/ "Report: Neither of Halle Synagogue Shooter’s Victims Were Jewish"Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

AFAIK, Landsberg is where the perp. 'ran to' having killed two people in Halle. Landsberg is barely mentioned in either the article or in sources. If the synagogue is deemed to be neither v important in the narrative, nor helpful in 'locating the subject', Landsberg seems even less so on both counts. Pincrete (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The synagogue is mentioned, as well as it being Yom Kippur, only to emphasize the antisemitic aspects of this incident, which are anyway included in the article body. I also gave an alternative possible title that recognizes that. Where the victims are is more important than a building, imho; if it had been a cafe, say, would you then have called the article 2019 Halle cafe shooting? I don't think so.Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Where the victims are is more important than a building, imho; if it had been a cafe, say, would you then have called the article 2019 Halle cafe shooting? I don't think so." A cafe is a different sort of entity from a house of worship. Again, we follow sources. We don't make up our own criteria—not for the content of articles and not for article titles. Sources repeatedly talk primarily about the assault on the synagogue, and it was the gunman's first assault, logically representing a priority, and a high concentration of people—about 50—awaited the gunman's firepower within the synagogue. It is likely that if the gunman had breached the door, the unfolding of this event would have been similar to the Christchurch mosque shootings, and this is not merely my opinion, but the opinion expressed by many reliable sources, actually too numerous to mention. But here are a few:

"Of those, the March 2019 Christchurch massacre in New Zealand — which left 51 worshippers dead in two mosques — has proven to be most influential."

"The methodology of the assailant bore a striking resemblance to the rampage by a far-right extremist against two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, more than six months ago, in which he broadcast his killings live on social media."

"In a chilling echo of the Christchurch mosque shooting, the gunman recorded the attacks on a head-mounted camera and uploaded it online with an antisemitic and rightwing extremist rant."

"The filming of Wednesday’s attack echoed another horrific shooting halfway around the world when a far-right white supremacist in March killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand and livestreamed much of the attack on Facebook."

"The two attacks are very similar, suggesting that the Halle shooter took inspiration from Christchurch."

"The video, which was filmed from the shooter's perspective, bears striking resemblance to the video filmed by the suspect in the March attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand."

"“He armed himself with many weapons, some possibly self-made, and had a large quantity of explosives,” Frank said, adding Balliet said he was inspired by the attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, which killed 51."

"By livestreaming the attack, the shooter was apparently trying to mimic the actions of the shooter who also livestreamed his attacks on a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand last spring."

"The filming of Wednesday's attack echoed another horrific shooting halfway around the world when a far-right white supremacist in March killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand and livestreamed much of the attack on Facebook."

This article is primarily an article about a synagogue attack, according to reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be about 2 dead people and 2 injured people, victims of a right wing extremist, not a synagogue. I can produce just as many sources without synagogue (I already produced 3 yesterday with no effort whatsoever). Just look at the lead, there are 7 references in it, only one says synagogue in the title.Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title needs to cover all the events in this attack spree, not merely the first (failed) one. Jim Michael (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Selfstudier: Why is this an RfC? Please see WP:RFCNOT, last bullet. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an RfC because we have several editors who favour several, considerably different titles for this article. It's not a simple case of whether or not to move it from x to y. The RfC will bring more editors here & help to decide the title. Jim Michael (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64:There have been quite a few moves as below, as can be seen there is variation in the attempted titles, the inclusion of "synagogue" having been preferred by the page creator and by editor Bus stop (with and without) and alternatives by 3 other editors (4 if I had had time to include myself) so it is not simply a page move at this point, thus interim RFC:

9 October as 2019 Halle synagogue shooting

9 October Wakari07 moved page to 2019 Halle attack

9 October Bus stop moved page to 2019 Halle antisemitic attack

10 October Jim Michael moved page to 2019 Halle attack

10 October Bus stop moved page to 2019 Halle synagogue attack

10 October Jim Michael moved page to Halle and Landsberg attacks

11 October Pincrete moved page to Halle and Landsberg attack

11 October Bus stop moved page to 2019 Halle synagogue attack and subsequent shootings

11 October Jim Michael moved page to Saxony-Anhalt attack spree

12 October Steven Crossin moved page to Halle and Landsberg attack

12 October Anthony Appleyard moved page to 2019 Halle synagogue shooting: (Requested by Shrike at WP:RM/TR)

Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nb The above list omits me (Pincrete) moving Jim Michael's 10 October move from "Halle and Landsberg attacks" (plural) to "Halle and Landsberg attack" (singular). Done not because I endorsed the name, but because the name 'messed up' all the text which had been written as singular 'attack'.Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed that one, I included it now (and fixed the date on another), hopefully its OK now.Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier—you say "Just look at the lead, there are 7 references in it, only one says synagogue in the title." Where do you find a requirement that a source should contain a term in its heading? I had not noticed that at WP:TITLE. There are plenty of sources with "synagogue" in their headings. But you seem to be correct that only one out of seven of the references presently in the lede of our article contains the word "synagogue". Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of those sources found in our lede, does not contain "synagogue" in its headline but its first paragraph reads "A heavily armed culprit has tried to cause a bloodbath among dozens of believers in a synagogue in Halle / Saale. The Jewish community narrowly escaped disaster on its highest holiday, Yom Kippur." That article also tells us that "He is said to have said that his goal was to enter the synagogue." That article also writes "The alleged right-wing extremist Stephan B. from Saxony-Anhalt wanted to storm the synagogue by gun violence on Wednesday afternoon, according to security sources, but failed. The 27-year-old German shot dead two people in front of the synagogue and then in a nearby Döner snack and injured at least two others. He fled the scene and was arrested in the afternoon" and that "The act caused horror worldwide. The Central Council of Jews spoke of a "deep shock" for all Jews in Germany." That is according to Google Translate. Are you trying to tell me reliable sources are not supporting this as primarily about an assault on a synagogue?

You say "I can produce just as many sources without synagogue (I already produced 3 yesterday with no effort whatsoever)." Sorry to contradict you but you did not in this edit of yesterday produce 3 sources that did not contain the term "synagogue". You might have produced one source yesterday that did not contain the term "synagogue". I don't know because the source is behind a paywall. But the other two sources you produced contain extensive references to the synagogue event

I find it incomprehensible that you are arguing to remove "synagogue" from the title. I think it likely that had the gunman entered the synagogue there would have been mayhem on the order of the Christchurch mosque shootings. This is an article primarily about a gunman's attempt to enter a synagogue and cause bodily harm to the many people therein. Bus stop (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I merely responded to your cherry-picked list of sources (which I presume you chose intending to demonstrate common name). As for what MIGHT have happened, one can equally write MIGHT NOT with no difference in meaning, best to stick with what actually happened rather than speculate.Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Jzsj—is that actually a reason to remove "synagogue" from the title? You wrote "Yes. Right-wing extremists caused this, but most of the media is more sympathetic to the Zionists than to the Palestinians, so I'd favor a more neutral title here." So, we are supposed to counterbalance an alleged biased media? I thought we were supposed to reflect sources. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this incident does not have anything to do with Zionists and Palestinians afaik, clearly we want the article to reflect sources, I don't think anyone has disputed that as such, we are just talking about the article title here (I note that one stage you also favored a title that did not include the word synagogue so perhaps you are not entirely sure about it yourself?)Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Our dependence on Western sources warrants wisdom in the utilization of these sources. Jzsj (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If one imagined a person who knew English but knew nothing about this attack seeing this title, they would not unreasonably assume that either a synagogue (the building) was shot or (as is common in other similar WP articles) that a shooting took place in the synagogue. The thing is just completely misleading.Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Jzsj (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj, I puzzled by your response in RFC what the attack has to do with Zionism and Palestinians? Shrike (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jzsj: What the heck does "most of the media is more sympathetic to the Zionists than to the Palestinians" have to do with anything relating to this article or its title? Neither Palestinians nor Zionists seem to have been either targets or primary victims of the attack, nor was the perpetrator either. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Guys, this is an RFC about the article title, if you want to berate someone about their understanding of the situation, do it in a separate talk section, please.Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Jzsj's saying/implying that many media sources prominently mention the synagogue due to what he sees as a pro-Israeli/Zionist/Jewish bias, & that we should be neutral in regard to the national/political/religious aspects of this & not follow the media. Jim Michael (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what he means, fair enough, I'd leave the Palestinians out of it though. The manifesto included "Burning down a mosque would be like a "crusty kebab," [5] but no-one mentions it, so he might have a point at that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michael, What does Jewish bias means? Shrike (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in favour of Jewish people & organisations. Many people claim that much of the European & North American media have such a bias. I'm not claiming that. Attacks on places of worship (of any religion) typically receive more media coverage than similar attacks on other types of target. Jim Michael (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish and Zionist are separate things. If Jzsj doesn't understand that, I'm not sure they should be commenting in this discussion, or any discussion where Jewish people come up. It's clear from the manifesto, video and synagogue that Jewish people were a key target of the attacker, but I haven't see any evidence Zionists were. It's not like the attacker said "I want to kill Jews because many of them are Zionists" or some disgusting crap like that. If Jzsj wanted to say "Jewish" the should have said so and they can still clarify their comment. Although this still doesn't explain how Palestinian came in to it. As I understand it, kebab shops in Germany tend to be associated with either the Turkish or Muslim population and not the Palestinian one. Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the above comment could in part be interpreted as berating "someone about their understanding of the situation" but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest someone who conflates Jewish with Zionist may not sufficiently understand the issues surrounding either Jewish people or Zionism such that their feedback is not likely useful in a discussion. And frankly I think others will be a lot less polite than me. Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Selfstudier: It's entirely reasonable to ask someone for an explanation for their stated reason for supporting or opposing the change. This is not berating "someone about their understanding of the situation". It's trying to advance the discussion of the proposal to change the article title. If there's something we're missing that Jzsj is aware of that justifies the change in the article title, then it will be good if we know but Jzsj needs to explain further since clearly many of us do not understand. If on the other hand, their stated reason actually provides no justification for what they're proposing, then they will likely want to reconsider or reword the !vote as it's likely to be ignored by any closing admin if there is no coherent rationale. If this was a normal RM, I would have replied directly to Jzsj which is what I did at first before I noticed it was not an RM. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A failed attempt to carry out a mass shooting at Halle's synagogue was abandoned within minutes. It was followed by an attack spree both in Halle and outside it. Although the initial plan was probably limited to the synagogue & its worshippers, most of the spree was unrelated to it. We have articles which include the name or type of building in the title, but in those are cases in which that was the sole attack site and/or where most/all casualties occurred. Jim Michael (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michael—may we please follow the sources?

"Local media reported that Balliet is from the Saxony-Anhalt region of Germany, and a document posted online said he had driven 45 minutes to the synagogue from his home ... He repeatedly called himself a 'loser' in the footage for failing to break into the synagogue or kill more people, after his homemade gun repeatedly jammed."

Reliable sources are telling us he drove 45 minutes to the synagogue from his home. They aren't saying he drove 45 minutes to the Turkish kebab shop. And the woman that was fatally shot outside the synagogue was chastising him for making too much noise. And he calls himself a "loser" for failing to break into the synagogue or kill more people. Most of this suggests that the synagogue was his primary target. He drove 45 minutes to arrive at a synagogue where he failed to gain entrance, and then targeted others.

"The Twitch video, reviewed by the Guardian, suggests that the attacker was on the street outside the synagogue for more than five minutes, during which time he shot and killed a passerby, without being approached by law enforcement."

Not only was the synagogue his first stop after driving 45 minutes, but the attacker was on the street outside the synagogue for more than five minutes. This is showing us the centrality of the synagogue to this incident.

"Frustrated by his failure, the man went on a rampage in the surrounding streets, while about 70 people inside hid behind chairs and tables."

This is once again showing us that the primary target was the synagogue. According to that source it is frustration with failure to enter the synagogue that leads to a "rampage in the surrounding streets". Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repetition no-one is disputing that the shooter set out with the intent of killing Jews.(ie the antisemitic motive). That's all laid out in the article. We are talking about the article title which is totally misleading and leads one to think that Jews were killed when none were and in effect elides the fact that 2 non-Jews were killed or even that there was an attack anywhere except at a synagogue.Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier—sources are generally not "misleading". Perhaps some exceptions exist. But the burden is on you to to substantiate that sources are "misleading" in relation to the subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned the sources, I said the article title is misleading, not the sources.Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"2019 Halle synagogue shooting" gets 7 hits in my browser, all from WP, this article.Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say "I never mentioned the sources, i said the article title is misleading, not the sources." We derive titles from sources. Any discussion of titles involves sources. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly one takes into account what the sources say in coming up with a title but the sources say a lot of things, not just synagogue shooting.If some number of Jews were killed in a synagogue I wouldn't even be discussing this.Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need a title which covers all the events of this spree. The current title makes it misleadingly seem like the attempt to break into the synagogue was the only event, or the only one that this article covers. Jim Michael (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier—you don't even know if all the people in the synagogue were Jews. Couldn't there have been non-Jewish guests? "In light of the previous shootings at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and an attack on a synagogue in Poway, California, the attack on Halle marks the third attack on a synagogue this year." It is a "synagogue attack", according to reliable sources. There is no reason to broaden the title to include anything of secondary importance to the "synagogue attack". All sources position the "synagogue attack" as being of primary importance to this particular incident. Wikipedia doesn't function on who is Jewish and who is not Jewish. WP:TITLE does not make decisions based on whether someone is Jewish or not.

A source tells us "Frustrated by his failure, the man went on a rampage in the surrounding streets, while about 70 people inside hid behind chairs and tables." A source tells us "Local media reported that Balliet is from the Saxony-Anhalt region of Germany, and a document posted online said he had driven 45 minutes to the synagogue from his home." Sources say the gunman spent 7 minutes at the synagogue. Sources tell us he shot a woman because she "reprimanded Balliet for making so much noise near the Jewish house of worship, where Yom Kippur prayers were taking place". WP:TITLE says "Article titles should be recognizable". Sources invariably discuss the "synagogue" first and foremost in any addressing of this incident. Discussion of the "synagogue" makes up the bulk of every source that I've seen on this subject. Speaking of sources, you and Jim Michael haven't presented any sources. Why is that? Aren't there any sources that downplay the centrality of the "synagogue attack" to this incident? I have omitted citations from this post because they are elsewhere on this page. But please don't hesitate to ask me if you would like to see any citations for any of my assertions. It is inexplicable that your argument is to remove "synagogue" from the title of an article primarily about a synagogue attack. Your arguments are just based on your own reasoning with no reference to any sources whatsoever.

This source. It says: "Were it not for a dark wooden door, the authorities say, Stephan Balliet may have succeeded in carrying out a massacre of Jews he had planned to broadcast live around the world. He chose Yom Kippur, knowing the synagogue in Halle, Germany, would be full." Why would we omit the term "synagogue" from the title? This source is not an exception. Every source (that I've seen) on this incident positions the attack on the "synagogue" as being of central importance. There were 2 other deaths and 2 other injuries. They are of peripheral importance—according to reliable sources. It doesn't matter who is Jewish and who is not Jewish. Selfstudier is making up their own criteria when they argue "anyone reading the title would assume that Jews in a synagogue had been killed when what actually happened was that 2 non-Jews were killed elsewhere". Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the above material here, I think that must be where you meant to put it. You can repeat it all when the RM is up if you want to, we haven't decided on the wording yet.Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your claim that all the casualties are of peripheral importance. Jim Michael (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I've clarified: "They are of peripheral importance—according to reliable sources." Please see above, and I hope you don't mind my altering my post after it had been responded to. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, consensus is about policy and it's clear that we have differing interpretations of policy in this case so while it would have been good to have been able to agree on something, it seems we needs must defer to the RM process and bring in more voices to the conversation.Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of time & distance that the journey to the synagogue took is of little relevance, because the journey there wasn't part of the attack spree. After a few minutes of trying to force his way into the synagogue, he abandoned that & decided instead to target people who showed no indication of being connected to the Jewish community. Most of the spree wasn't antisemitic; the only part of it that was had no casualties & was a completely failed attempt. Jim Michael (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A recurring difficulty here is the confusing of article title and article content; no-one is or has disputed that the initial motive was antisemitic and that the initial object of the attack was the synagogue (nor did the would-be shooter go to the synagogue because he expected that there would be non-Jews in the congregation, the contrary) and the article (content) covers that in detail as would any source. But just because sources cover it does not produce a requirement that the source title (or our title) mention the word synagogue (or a kebab shop) and a simple google check confirms this ("Halle shooter", 103K hits and "Germany synagogue shooter", 63K). The reason is simple, the initial attack was frustrated, the attacker switched horses and shot and killed two people (not just shot up a door) as well as injuring and threatening others in different locations away from the synagogue. In the outcome, the shooter was driven not only by an antisemitic but a far right extremist one, which facts are also covered in all sources and should not just be ignored or treated as "secondary". In many respects, they are primary, not secondary.Selfstudier (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course any 3-word search will always produce a smaller number of 'hits' than a 2-word search - in fact I'm surprised how little the 'hit count' is reduced in this instance. I for one would never argue that the inclusion of 'synagogue' is essential, but I would argue that 'synagogue' is a memorable and helpful, one word addition in the way that 'kebab shop', 'somewhere else in Landsbach' etc are not. Another possibility is the addition of motive to the title (far-right?), though that isn't normal. The objections don't seem to hold up in my opinion 'synagogue attack' does not necessarily mean 'in the synagogue', it can equally mean 'at the synagogue '(in both senses ie targeting the synagogue and present at/outside the synagogue). Nor is an attack any less of an attack because it does not penetrate defences - or fails in its aims, which here appear to be to kill Jews (it appears to be sheer incompetence that those killed were neither Jewish, nor foreigners, nor in any other way 'apt' targets to a right-winger). There is not much WP:OR required to conclude that the later events - including the second killing and injuries - only occurred as a result of, (in his terms), the dismal failure of the initisl attack on the intended target - the synagogue. Pincrete (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How was shooting a man in a kebab shop the result of failing to get into the synagogue? It was what the attacker chose to do, having abandoned his initial plan to target Jews. Jim Michael (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He "abandoned his initial plan to target Jews", because he couldn't get into the synagogue! He looked for another target because he couldn't kill the Jews he originally intended to kill. There is no suggestion anywhere that the shop was part of any plan. Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those subsequent targets weren't Jewish. Only the first few failed minutes of the attack spree were antisemitic. Jim Michael (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I suggest anybody was Jewish (except the original targets inside the synagogue)? I don't believe I have used the term anti-semetic anywhere in this discussion - though sources use the term of both the original assault and the rants and manifesto (and conversely, unless the perp was a very angry vegetarian, the kebab shop was probably chosen because of its connection to foreigners/middle easterners/Muslims - so his antipathies are not confined to Jews). Pincrete (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had to do 3 words to get a respectable number of hits for anything including synagogue, try it yourself.Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michael—Wikipedia doesn't care who is Jewish or not. You are writing "Those subsequent targets weren't Jewish. Only the first few failed minutes of the attack spree were antisemitic." Let me address this to Selfstudier too, who says "anyone reading the title would assume that Jews in a synagogue had been killed when what actually happened was that 2 non-Jews were killed elsewhere". According to reliable sources the primary topic being addressed here is an attack on a synagogue. Neither of you are bringing sources. I brought many sources demonstrating the centrality of the attack on the synagogue to the topic being addressed in our article. Every reliable source that I have seen devotes the bulk of coverage to the attack on the synagogue. The Nation is a typical source. Its headline reads "The Halle Synagogue Attack Is an Ominous Sign of the German Far Right’s Growing Prominence". And the bulk of that article addresses the attack on the synagogue. It mentions the other casualties of course but coverage of those shootings is found only in a few sentences. This issue is receiving coverage because of the audacity of an attack on a synagogue in Germany. No one has forgotten that Kristallnacht also occurred in Germany. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that the attacks in which people were killed & injured are so peripheral to the day's events that they shouldn't be represented in this article's title?! Jim Michael (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A limited amount of material can fit within a title. Our title should conform to material as it is represented in sources and the rest of our article should conform to material as it is represented in sources. Bus stop (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All this is just repetition. So I will as well repeat that my interpretation of policy differs from yours and that you yourself at one stage did not think that it was necessary to have the thoroughly misleading word synagogue in the title.Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should conform to the concerns found in reliable sources as concerns its title and as concerns its content. Sources are showing us what is more important and what is less important. We can have sympathy for the loss of life and for the injuries. But a preoccupation with those casualties should not guide us to wrongly state in the title the subject of the article. This article is primarily about the Halle synagogue shooting. Sources focus on the Halle synagogue shooting. For instance: "Around noon on Wednesday, a 27-year-old German man drove to a synagogue in the city of Halle in eastern Germany with the aim of killing as many Jews as possible." Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article body does conform with RS, we are discussing the title. Our article is a source just like a third party RS; ALL sources dealing with attacks cover all aspects of them, including the planned attack on the synagogue AND the shootings/attempted shootings AS WELL AS other aspects such as antisemitism/far right extremism/streaming/manifestos and so on.Example BUT a check of RS titles shows that the word "synagogue" is not present in the majority of titles ("Halle shooting(s)" is the most common element in titles) and viewed objectively, there is no reason why it should be although I can well understand why some RS editors might choose to do so. I would have no objection to its inclusion if other aspects were also included but we are, as you have pointed out, limited as to length, unlike third party RS.Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our other articles which have synagogue/church/mosque in the title are about attacks which occurred only/primarily there. We have articles about multiple-location attacks, including: Zama and Shibuya shootings, 2014 Montgomery County shootings, 2016 Maryland shooting spree & 2017 Schofield/Rothschild spree shooting - they aren't named after one attack location only. The media love to overemphasise attacks involving religious buildings, but we don't need to follow them in valuing some types of buildings above human lives. Jim Michael (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coming at it from the other direction, the nearest equivalent to our case might be 2015 Copenhagen shootings which had 2 deaths (3 including the shooter) one of whom was Jewish and shot outside a synagogue. This on the face of it would seem to be be more deserving of the word "synagogue" and yet it is not there.Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a reminder, it perhaps is worth reiterating that there is no consensus for the current title, the current title only exists because it was administratively reverted to that not because it had consensus. It was given two other names (neither of which included the word synagogue) on the same day that the article was created.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Copenhagen shootings is not even remotely comparable. The initial and 'key' event in Copenhagen occurred at a cultural centre event where a controversial cartoonist was speaking - the synagogue shooting in Copenhagen (which occupies all of 4 lines in that article) occurred hours later and appears to be more akin to the kebab shop shooting here (ie a subsequent event treated as periphereal by sources). Since no one in this discussion has suggested, or implied IMO, that the synagogue should be named just because it was a synagogue, or just because Jewish people were the initial target - I find dredging up fatuous comparisons, borderline tasteless. If the building attacked initially were an army base, and sources focused on this extensively - I would favour including this initial/main target in the title - not engage in extended discussion about whether enough/any soldiers were killed to justify inclusion of 'army base' in the title. If a mosque or church were the planned target, I would support inclusion regardless of how few/many Muslims or Christians were killed. Being the initial primary target IMO is clearly a very significant, if not the only, defining feature of an 'attack'.Pincrete (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not "remotely comparable" why is it in List of synagogue shootings?Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was a shooting at outside a synagogue I imagine! I have already said how the two incidents differ IMO. Pincrete (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This attack is outside a synagogue and it is in the list as well. According to you, I should take the Copenhagen one out of the list.Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I say the total opposite! That "synagogue shooting" can mean shooting 'at' 'in' 'on' 'near' or 'outside' a synagogue/whatever, so long as RS actually use the term. Even truer for 'attack'. But I think by now it is obvious we aren't going to agree, so perhaps we should both wait for the RfC to run its course. Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're just making it up as you go along now, in one breath you say it is not "remotely comparable" and now you are at the other extreme arguing that it is comparable. I gave up on the rfc a while tbh, I would as soon as go straight to rm and argue the policy, just waiting on Jim to decide if he wants to do it or not.Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every article in the initial 30 I looked at in my search engine (I don't use Google), had synagogue in the title or in the first para. All gave greater prominence to synagogue than to kebab-shop. None mentioned the later shooting in Landsbach until well into the article, if at all. None used the term 'spree' (though some referrred to 'rampage' for the Kebab shop phase). The only one to refer to an (implied) plural 'attacks', was from the very earliest coverage when it was still not clear whether Halle and Landsbach had the same perps or were even connected. The sources were a cross section, inclusing a few Jewish/Israeli sources - who might have been slightly more inclined to give prominence to the synagogue part of the narrative, but mainly UK/US mainstream media. Pincrete (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which search engine and what was your search term?Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DuckDuckGo - "Halle attack" Obviously you have to ignore a small number of WP and Ebay results (How Ebay gets onto "Halle attack" is beyond me!) My settings are UK results.Pincrete (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, first result is Halle and Landsberg attacks - Wikipedia....~That'll do me.Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it gives me 10 at a time for halle attack (without quotes) so stripping this article out (which it refers to as Halle and Landsbergh attacks) the other 9 in Firefox (ads are stripped so no ebays and things):

/halle attack germany right /halle synagogue fortified... /german jews plead for state security after halle attack /the halle attack was a watershed moment for german jews /German Jews: gunman kills two after attacking synagogue /halle attack /shooting near synagogue in germany... /germany shooting synagogue attack /germany synagogue attack halle grenade...

which is 5 synagogue and 4 not.

If I put halle attack in quotes only 1 title contains synagogue. If I put halle shooting in quotes I get 0 titles containing synagogue which is about the kind of results I would expect although none of this very scientific.

The fact is there many more articles about the attacks that do not contain the word synagogue; possibly the BBC title is the best but it misses out on the far right aspect. ..../German Jews: gunman kills two after attacking synagogue Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier—even if a term does not appear in the headline of a reliable source, the content of the reliable source can suggest to us that the term belongs in the title of our article. You provide a source called Spiegel Online. The word "synagogue" does not appear in its headline. But most of the article is about the attack on the synagogue. Yes, the two deaths are mentioned too, but only in a few sentences. Here is a quote from that source: "Balliet had apparently scoped out the synagogue complex in advance, because in his manifesto, which he apparently posted online before the shooting began, he described his target in detail. He explained where surveillance cameras were installed, the number of doors and the security precautions in place. 'If I won't get lucky and they have a door standing open, I need to force my way in or lure the rats out,' he wrote. He also said he chose that particular synagogue because it was the nearest place where so many Jews could be found -- and he appeared to be aware of the fact that the police don't guard the building around the clock, but only patrol it from time to time." The source has a primary concern. I am not saying the two deaths are not tragic. I definitely think they are tragic. They are two innocent people. They do not deserve to die by being shot to death for no reason. But the primary concern of Spiegel Online's article is the attack on the synagogue. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are just back to the policy issue again. You want to look at the content of sources in order to argue that the title should contain the word synagogue which is a non-argument because all sources contain the attack on the synagogue. The problem is you just want to ignore everything else the articles say because it doesn't suit your POV. There is a lot of material in the example I gave you and most of it has nothing to with the synagogue which is why the title is:

Far-Right Terrorism Deadly Attack Exposes Lapses in German Security Apparatus The 27-year-old German man who went on a shooting spree during the Yom Kippur holiday was out to kill Jews. He apparently self-radicalized in the darkest corners of the internet, beyond the reach of police or intelligence officials, who are woefully unprepared for this new breed of terrorism.

I only provided Spiegel as an "example" I was not intending anything other than a demonstration of a detailed article examining the attack that does not have the word synagogue in the title.Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier—as I said in my previous post "even if a term does not appear in the headline of a reliable source, the content of the reliable source can suggest to us that the term belongs in the title of our article." Yet you are now writing "I only provided Spiegel as an 'example' I was not intending anything other than a demonstration of a detailed article examining the attack that does not have the word synagogue in the title." The reliable source that you provided, Spiegel Online, devotes much more of its text to the synagogue attack than it does to the two deaths and two injuries in this incident. The WP:COMMONNAME for this article would be the 2019 Halle synagogue attack. That is because reliable sources focus primarily on the synagogue attack. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Write as many walls of text as you like, it will not alter the fact that I do not agree with your interpretation of policy, that's why, since we have achieved no consensus on the RFC (nor are we likely to), we now move to rm in order to argue the policy and perhaps get some additional voices since we seem only to have a 2 versus 2 at the moment (although policy is not just about numbers, it would help imo to have more POVs).Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting, Selfstudier, that the term "Landsberg" does not even occur in the entirety of the above Spiegel Online article[6], which you refer to as a "detailed article examining the attack", yet your argument is to remove the term "synagogue" from the title of our article and to insert the term "Landsberg" in the title of our article. Bus stop (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, I have no problem not including Landsbergh, I won't make any fuss about that at all. if you recall, way back at the start I said that I was quite happy with the simple Halle attack which is in line with other wp articles.Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier—I think we follow reliable sources. The article is primarily about a "synagogue attack" or a "synagogue shooting".

• BBC "German Halle gunman admits far-right synagogue attack"
• Deutsche Welle "Germany synagogue attack: Who were the victims in Halle?"
• Independent News & Media "Germany synagogue shooting: Gunman kills multiple people in Halle attack"
• The Guardian "The suspected gunman in the Yom Kippur synagogue attack in Halle, Germany."
• USA Today "German police call deadly synagogue attack 'anti-Semitic' after 2 killed in shootings"
• The Nation "The Halle Synagogue Attack Is an Ominous Sign of the German Far Right’s Growing Prominence"
• Deutsche Welle GmbH "What we know so far about the Halle synagogue shooting'"
• The Local "UPDATE: What we know about the synagogue shooting in Halle"
• The Times of Israel "Social media networks withhold livestream data of Halle synagogue attack"
• MIT Technology Review "Germany’s synagogue shooting was live-streamed on Twitch—but almost no one saw it"
• Time (magazine) "2 Dead Following German Synagogue Attack' on Yom Kippur"
• Haaretz "Analysis Germany Synagogue Attack: Liberal Values Make Jews Everywhere Prime Target for White Supremacists "
• Jewish Telegraphic Agency "How Germany is rethinking security for its Jewish community following the Yom Kippur synagogue attack
• ABC News "German synagogue shooting on Yom Kippur was far-right terrorism, authorities say"

There are many more reliable sources that refer to this incident as either a "synagogue attack" or a "synagogue shooting". The WP:COMMONNAME would be either "synagogue attack" or "synagogue shooting". Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and present that as your policy argument in the RM.Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier—you have argued that "anyone reading the title would assume that Jews in a synagogue had been killed when what actually happened was that 2 non-Jews were killed elsewhere". Is that why you want to remove the word "synagogue" from the title—because a reader might think Jews were killed rather than non-Jews??? I think Jim Michael is expressing a similar sentiment when they say "Those subsequent targets weren't Jewish. Only the first few failed minutes of the attack spree were antisemitic." I think this represents very misguided reasoning. We don't determine article titles based on whether Jews or Gentiles were killed. The only reason for the term "synagogue" in the title is because that is by far the most frequently encountered term in reliable sources, often in combination with "attack" or "shooting". WP:COMMONNAME calls for titling articles in the most recognizable ways. As virtually all reliable sources refer to this incident as either a "synagogue shooting" or a "synagogue attack", why would we remove the term "synagogue" from the title? Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will present my policy based argument in the RM and you can argue with that instead of with me.Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with including synagogue (but not any of the other attack locations) in the title is that it gives the misleading impression that the synagogue was the only or main attack site & where the killings & injuries occurred. Where it's the sole/main attack site, I agree with including synagogue in the title. I moved the title of a vehicle-ramming attack in Lyon to include synagogue. Likewise with other types of religious buildings; I created Burkina Faso mosque shooting & Haska Meyna mosque bombing Jim Michael (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier—you write "All sources deal with all aspects of the attack in their article bodies." Of course all sources "deal with all aspects of the attack in their article bodies." They would hardly be reliable sources if they did not "deal with all aspects of the attack in their article bodies." The question is—what are they focussed on? What demands the bulk of their attention? You are calling our attention to this reliable source which you describe as "a detailed article examining the attack". And I agree—it is a detailed article examining the attack. What you seem to be overlooking is that most of the material in your source is focussed on the synagogue attack. And this is true of virtually every source. Our title should reflect the actual focus of sources. When you choose a title like "Halle and Landsberg attacks" you disregard WP:TITLE's concern with "recognizable" titles. The much more common name is "Halle synagogue attack". Most of the material in our article focusses on the synagogue attack for the unsurprising reason that our article reflects sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michael—Wikipedia recognizes no distinctions between Jews and non-Jews. Yet you are writing "Those subsequent targets weren't Jewish". Who cares if they were Jewish or not? Why would it matter? Do you find at WP:TITLE any guidance on whether a title should imply that Jews or non-Jews were "targets" in incidents that we write about? The current title (2019 Halle synagogue shooting) is entirely appropriate because most of the text in our article addresses the Halle synagogue shooting. A much smaller amount of the material in our article addresses the "subsequent targets". That is for the unsurprising reason that we reflect reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I pointed out that none of the targets after the synagogue attack were Jewish was to counter the perception that the motive for all the attacks was antisemitism.

I agree that the media have disproportionately focused on the initial attack. That's because it helps them gain a larger audience. They know that society values synagogues far more than kebab shops. We don't need to have such biases because we aim for neutrality, facts & due weight - rather than increasing our appeal to gain more readers to maximise revenue from advertising. Jim Michael (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michael—you apparently do not understand that Wikipedia is not a creative writing project. It doesn't matter if you think "the media have disproportionately focused on the initial attack". We adhere to sources. You say "I agree that the media have disproportionately focused on the initial attack." Who are you agreeing with? You are not agreeing with me. I do not think "the media have disproportionately focused on the initial attack".

"Balliet had apparently scoped out the synagogue complex in advance, because in his manifesto, which he apparently posted online before the shooting began, he described his target in detail. He explained where surveillance cameras were installed, the number of doors and the security precautions in place. "If I won't get lucky and they have a door standing open, I need to force my way in or lure the rats out," he wrote. He also said he chose that particular synagogue because it was the nearest place where so many Jews could be found -- and he appeared to be aware of the fact that the police don't guard the building around the clock, but only patrol it from time to time."

From this we see that the synagogue was the gunman's primary objective that day, his primary destination that day, and it was his first stop. The media are focussing on the synagogue attack because the synagogue attack was the gunman's primary objective. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've falsely accused me of creative writing several times. Being selective in which info we take from RS & presenting them proportionately is good writing, not creative. This is an encyclopedia; we don't merely repeat what the media say.

Several people on this TP have stated that the media's focus has been on the first, casualty-free attack. I'm agreeing with them that the media has indeed disproportionately focused on that & said that their reason for doing so was to gain more readers.

Yes, he targeted that synagogue probably because it was the nearest place to him in which a large number of Jews congregate. I disagree that he knew a lot about the synagogue or Halle in general, because of the fact that he didn't know about the new stronger doors on the building & the disorganised manner of his entire attack spree. His haphazard, unfocused attacks & lack of success, proper knowledge & planning mean that he's hated even by neo-Nazis, including himself. Jim Michael (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michael—you have a propensity for overriding reliable sources. You write "This article is about all the day's linked attacks.". How would you or any other Wikipedia editor know what "This article is about"? We only know what this article is about by reviewing good quality sources. Reliable sources show us what this article is about. If reliable sources show us that this article is primarily about an assault on a synagogue, then this article is primarily about an assault on a synagogue. You are saying "That's because it helps them gain a larger audience." You are not at liberty to override the findings of reliable sources on the grounds that in your opinion they are trying to "gain a larger audience." Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I use them in an appropriate way to factually describe what happened in a neutral way with the correct focus & due weight. That's different from the media, who represent things in such ways to maximise their audience & increase their revenue & profits. Also, many media outlets have a political bias which they're promoting, whereas we don't.

The article is clearly about all the linked attacks of that day, which we cover in our article. We don't only describe the synagogue attack; if we did, it'd be an incomplete article. Jim Michael (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michael—just out of curiosity—do you have reason to think the media overwhelmingly focus on the synagogue attack to "maximise their audience & increase their revenue & profits" or is this just a theory you happen to have? Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The media have, on many occasions, shown their biases & focus on certain events & aspects of them for to gain more readers & revenue. Most media orgs are businesses rather than public services, which means that making more money is their primary goal. An example I previously mentioned is the Kansas City, Kansas bar shooting. Four people were killed by 2 gunmen, but it received only a tiny amount of the media coverage that the Halle-Landsberg attacks did. It was quickly redirected as insufficiently notable. The media, WP readers/editors & the general public don't care nearly as much about attacks on bars & the people in them than they do about attacks against religious targets. Jim Michael (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article contains "All Jewish facilities in Germany are entitled to state security precautions." That sound to me like there is some special law regarding Jewish facilities in Germany, or as if there is a special degree of protection to that Jews are entitled and other groups are not. This is, to my knowledge, not the case, and the cited reference doesn't say it is. Jewish facilities are protected because they are potential targets of attacks. Because of the history of Germany, police may be more sensitive when assigning protection to Jewish facilites compared to other facilities, but there is no special law or anything regarding Jewish facilities. After the attacks, there ar discussions about how the security of potential targets for right-wing terrorists can be increased. The focus is, for obvious reasons, on Jewish institutions, but as an immediate consequence of the attacks there is now 24-hour police protection for 2 bigger mosques in Magdeburg and Halle and police are talking with smaller mosques to increase protection (^[1])

Frog~dewiki (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, I think you are right. The reactions of authorities to the security question appear to vary from state to state (and from country to country in the EU) and then there are various statements made on an adhoc basis by ministers. I don't know how much of that discussion should be in this article specifically, perhaps it is a subject that needs its own article. But yes, the article as it is now creates the wrong impression, here are a couple more sources, why don't you edit the article?:

https://www.jta.org/2019/10/18/global/how-germany-is-rethinking-security-for-its-jewish-community-following-the-yom-kippur-synagogue-attack

https://www.dw.com/en/how-can-germany-better-protect-its-synagogues/a-50788246

Post left by Selfstudier

I think the sentence is clear and correct. When I read that "all Jewish facilities in Germany are entitled to state security precautions" I understood from this sentence that there probably exists some police directive regulating protective measures for all kinds of sensitive objects, including synagogues etc. Debresser (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it makes it sound like Jewish orgs are entitled to more protection that other orgs & that it's paid for by the state. Unless that's the case, the sentence shouldn't be there in its current wording. Jim Michael (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that sentence is misleading at present by implying a specific 'synagogue' law, rather than the same degree of protection as anyone/anything else which might be vulnerable to attack. Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a substantial and peer-reviewed text that focused on 4chan and /pol/'s involvement as a reference that was immediately removed based on the assumption of COI and/or self promotion. I am one of the authors, but I am also no longer a professional academic with no motive except a desire to apply my knowledge and experience on this topic. The work was also done for a not-for-profit organisation that specialises in online hate. The text has more than enough merit to justify inclusion. I personally do not stand to gain anything of significance, and the work names multiple authors, none of whom are being 'promoted' (certainly not intentionally at least). It is counterintuitive to exclude relevant and high quality work from this article because it was suggested by one of the authors. The reference is as follows:

ref>Andre Oboler ; Patrick Scolyer-Gray (author) ; William Allington (author) (2019). Hate and Violent Extremism from an Online Sub-Culture : the yom kippur terrorist attack in halle, germany. Caulfield South, VIC. ISBN 978-0-6487426-0-9. OCLC 1128178838. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref> NecessityBreeds (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the sharty didn't exist at the time 2A00:20:D302:CE62:8B1C:78C8:FB3A:11D3 (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was vandalism. I missed it because it was vandalized by an IP right after and someone reverted that. Thank you for catching that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]