Talk:2016 Munich shooting

Thomas Salbey

His name must be included, because he became a kind of a national hero in Germany. When the insults took place, the killer had already killed the nine victims. The spokesman of the Münich Prosecutor's Office, Thomas Steinkraus-Koch confirmed that in a letter to the Hungarian investigator journal mandiner.hu: http://mandiner.hu/cikk/20160806_feljelentettek_a_muncheni_lovoldozot_megzavaro_hos_szomszedot

Az való igaz, hogy egy nő feljelentést tett becsületsértés és gondatlan emberölés miatt. Utóbbit arra alapozta, hogy szerinte az erkélyről kiabáló férfi még jobban felbosszantotta és gyilkosságra provokálta a lövöldözőt. Az ügyészség azonban hozzátette: a feljelentő nyilvánvalóan tévesen abból indult ki, hogy a szóváltás után a lövöldöző még valakiket megölt, valójában azonban addigra már mind a kilenc áldozatát lelőtte. Vagyis Thomas Salbey az erkélyről kiabálva nem valósított meg büntetendő cselekményt, nem provokálta további gyilkosságokra az elkövetőt

Translation: It is true indeed, that a woman denounced him (Thomas S.) for libelling and for extra-intentional homicide. This latter is based on the presumption, that the yelling man could have made David S. more angry and thus contributed to more manslaughter. However, the Prosecutors Office added, that the basis of this is a mistaken perception of the events: the perpetrator had already shot the nine victims when the shouting took place.

This is confirmed by this

--Ltbuni (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I read the same story already in German, rather better written than the Express! Normal WP practice says that we don't name people who are largely 'incidental', and have not invited coverage, particularly when their actions are sub judice. If he does indeed become the centre of a significant controversy and receives more extensive coverage, that might change. Pincrete (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The Prosecutor's Office refused to raise charges against him. --Ltbuni (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That isn't what it says in the sources, but if true, there's even less of a story and even less of a reason to name him. Pincrete (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"A Mandiner megkérdezte a müncheni ügyészséget: kiderült, hogy a sajtóban megjelentekkel ellentétben eszükben sincs vádat emelni." "The mandiner.hu sent an email and asked the Prosecutor's: it is soon revealed, that contrarily to those things appeared in the news, the Prosecutor's Office has absolutely no intention to raise charges against Thomas." "Az ügyészség azt is hozzátette, hogy Salbey sértegetései minden bizonnyal arra irányultak, hogy megzavarják az elkövetőt és kibillentsék az elszántságából. Ez tulajdonképpen sikerült is, mert a merénylő utóbb nem használta fel a több száz töltényt, amit a hátizsákjában magánál tartott – írták." "The Prosecutor's Office added that, the insults of Mr. Salbey were aimed at confusing/disturbing the perpetrator and at undermining its determination to carrying on the shooting. Anyway, he did succeed, because the killer did not use up all of the few hundred bullets he was carrying in his backback - wrote the Prosecutor's O." That's why I don't agree with You, Thomas should be in the article.--Ltbuni (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Unnamed person makes unclear complaint against man, (which is not widely repoerted, and not in article), prosecuter decides there is no substance to the complaint and therefore no case, which is even less widely reported. So why is his name and his 'defence' in the article? It's a non-story. Pincrete (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it a non-story, that T.S. prevented Ali from more mass-murdering?--Ltbuni (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No it's not a non-story, it's pure invention. Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. Your guess is as good as mine. Pincrete (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

So, the opinion of the Proscutor of Münich is a pure invention?--Ltbuni (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No, there is a difference between, 'aimed at disturbing the perpetrator' and 'prevented Ali from more mass-murdering', one is what the prosecutor said, the other is pure invention. Regardless, the whole complaint story has been ignored by most RS. Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The letter of the Prosecutors' spokesman would convince You which states both of these? However, most of the RS focused only on the charges against Thomas, but ignored to ask the authorities. By the way, most of the RS stil calls him Ali David Sonboly, and the SZ was the ONLY RS, which made the effort to investigate - and we accepted its result.--Ltbuni (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Naming someone and sharing his story just because "he became a kind of a national hero in Germany" is not a good enough reason to do so. Parsley Man (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

1. You deleted a footnoted fact: Ali learned how to shoot in Iran - You did not give explanation to this.

2. The article itself contains a reference to him ("an onlooker"), plus the other wikiusers also found it relevant to insert his name in the text.--Ltbuni (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The main (UK) sources for any importance to Salbey are poor (Sun, Mail, Express) and most of them seemed only interested in reporting that he might be prosecuted. IMO this is a trivial non-story. Equally, how many sources report 'taught to shoot by father'? Pincrete (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The footnoted fact part was an accident; I was trying to delete edits on the entire onlooker account all at once and didn't see that it came with the footnated fact. But I agree with Pincrete, all of this is extremely trivial and supported mostly by poor and unreliable sources. Parsley Man (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

"The main (UK) sources for any importance to Salbey are poor (Sun, Express etc.)" "But I agree with Pincrete, all of this is extremely trivial and supported mostly by poor and unreliable sources."

Thomas Salbey in the international media:

Telegraph

That man was identified last night as Thomas Salbey, 57, who was sitting on the balcony of his tower block flat. He said: “I was drinking a beer after work when I heard the shots, first at McDonald’s. Bam bam bam – that’s how it sounded. Then I looked down from the balcony and saw him running along. As he reloaded his gun I got my beer bottle and threw it at him.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/23/munich-shooting-german-iranian-gunman-targeted-children-outside/

The Guardian

Sonboly as he paced a carpark roof near the site of the massacre. Thomas Salbey told Bild that he was having a beer when he heard shots https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/23/munich-shooting-loner-facebook-ali-sonboly-bullied-killer

BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36876673

Die Welt Half of the article deals with him http://www.welt.de/politik/article157245606/Zeuge-wollte-Amoklaeufer-mit-Bierflasche-stoppen.html

Corriere della serra: http://www.corriere.it/cronache/16_luglio_23/thomas-l-uomo-che-ha-parlato-cecchino-tetto-gli-avrei-sparato-626d6c5e-5118-11e6-9d8c-bf519d935d5b.shtml

The Washington Times

At another point, he yells, “I’m German!” to which the man on the balcony, identified by the Bild newspaper as Thomas Salbey, a 57-year-old construction worker, responds, “You are a jerk!” and demands to know what he is up to, saying “you should be in psychiatric care.” The gunman orders the filming to stop, and shortly after that starts shooting, causing the neighbor filming to duck. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/23/police-say-munich-suspect-was-obsessed-mass-shooti/

CNN As Munich shooter, Ali Sonboly, was gunning down people on his rampage, killing nine and wounding many more, just a few hundred yards away, Thomas Salbey was on his balcony for an afternoon beer. "I heard gunshots on the park deck. Then I looked down and I saw that idiot standing there with a gun in his hand," he tells me. "So I finish my beer and threw the bottle at him." Instead of hiding inside his apartment, Thomas Salbey yelled at the attacker, leading to an insult-laden exchange caught on camera by another tenant of the house. (SHOUTING) "I told him you idiot, are you stupid or something? He said, I'm a German-Iranian or something like that. I said you are a total idiot." But soon the situation escalated far beyond verbal abuse. "He aimed the gun over here," Thomas Salbey says. "I think he was trying to shoot the guy filming from this building. I heard bam, bam, bam. So I took cover. I could see the impacts of the bullets on the house." Thomas Salbey says he was angry, feeling powerless, unarmed, trying to confront the gunman. "If I would have had a gun, I would have tried to take him out," he says. "Maybe I wouldn't have killed him, but at least I would have tried to hold him up." But what he did manage to do was buy time. (on camera): The shooter was moving around right here on this park deck. And Thomas Salbey, standing there on his balcony, says the exchange with him lasted for about 20 minutes. He was trying to stall the gunman, to give authorities a chance to catch up with him. But he says, at some point, the shooter stopped communicating and ran off.

It gives me the impression, that he is notable enough...and deserves his name mentioned --Ltbuni (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

None of these sources refers to either the possible 'prosecution', nor to his supposed 'hero' status, which were the original subjects of this thread and which we were referring to as 'poorly sourced'. 'Notability', has nothing to do with it, we ordinarily don't name people unless necessary or unless they are public officials. If 100 papers mention his name, that does not mean we would normally do so if his role is peripheral. We aren't a newspaper, which will almost always name someone if possible. Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

"nor to his supposed 'hero' status" - expect my Hungarian newspaper I added two days ago, and the CNN...--Ltbuni (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't care about the prosecution issue - all I wanted is just adding his name in the article. Throwing bottles at a shooter, postpone him for 20 minutes, for which he was shot at surely qualifies him as a "hero". Would You dare to do the same?--Ltbuni (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The video/conversation is less than two minutes. When Merkel gives him a medal, we'll get beyond whether I or you or WP think he was a hero. Pincrete (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, because it is edited.... Would You or would You not?--Ltbuni (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I shall repeat myself here: Naming someone and sharing his story just because "he became a kind of a national hero in Germany" is not a good enough reason to do so. Parsley Man (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Given the importance what international media, AND other wikiusers attribute to him, I don't agree with You. We need a dispute settlement here.--Ltbuni (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence of international media doing anything other than making a passing mention of his name, neither do they refer to any '20 minute interchange'. Their coverage adds a little detail, (he argued with AND threw a beer bottle at Sonboly). Nor that other editors think his name important (the brief shouting match is important). However it is up to you if you want to go for an RfC. Pincrete (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The only user attributing importance to the guy is YOU. All because he is a "hero". Bias, much? Parsley Man (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

He was shot at, Ali tried to kill him as well. It is an attempted manslaughter. He could have been the 10th victim. His name must be in the article. I doubt that I am the only one, who find it importan - just check the edit history of the article itself, and see the "what is it?" title 1 line below.--Ltbuni (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That is completely ridiculous; since when was the guy shot at? Do you have a source for that? Parsley Man (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I have already given examples. Just to repeat myself: "The man then fired at Salbey, whose balcony is flecked by bullet holes." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/23/munich-shooting-loner-facebook-ali-sonboly-bullied-killer

And as far as I can remember in the focus.de interview (1.37) he tells the same, etc..... It is hopeless....--Ltbuni (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow, the article used to mention the interaction with the brave onlooker who is the only survivor victim to actually have confronted the attacker by throwing a weapon at him, and in the rush to censor out his name (cited by golden WP:RS such as Die Welt and the Corriere de la Sera) people deleted the whole thing wholesale! Nice job, editors, throwing the baby with the bathwater. As to whether Salbey's name should be mentioned, well, there seem to be plenty of reputable sources naming him. XavierItzm (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember reading about 'a weapon', would that be a beer bottle thrown from two storeys up? The issue is not whether we can name Salbey, it is why would we? It is not customary with people who are peripheral, private citizens. Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of which were extremely unreliable. Parsley Man (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

"Peripheral" - Possible victims are NOT peripheral in an attempeted murder. Men, who delay the action of a mass murderer are NOT peripheral. Witnesses are not peripheral in a crime. BBC, CNN, etc plus his own VIDEO footage are RELIABLE SOURCES. Anyway, following Your logic, why on Earth the name of the CNN reporter is mentioned in the article? What has he got to do with the whole manslaughter? Weapon: A weapon, arm, or armament is ANY device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.--Ltbuni (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The author is in there because it's part of the citation parameter and it would be in good nature to show who wrote the sources that were used. It's optional, but I prefer to do that. Mentioning a guy's name in the main article, on the other hand, doesn't sound very due to me, and it's not the same thing as mentioning an author in a citation. Parsley Man (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I asked Dispute resolution--Ltbuni (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

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. [1]--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 lying 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)