Talk:2016 Berlin truck attack

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 16:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

2016 Berlin truck attack → Berlin truck attack – Adding truck to the title means that the year is no longer needed for disambiguation. I wasn't aware of the move discussion in June & July 2018 until months after it concluded. Jim Michael (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. WP:NCEVENTS gives examples of events that had no other event in the same place, but still use the year with the reason being that the year is a useful identifier. I completely agree. A reader seeing the title will have a much better understanding what article they are going to read by having the year part of it then without it. That was also the arguments made in the last RM and this is also WP:CONSISTENT with 2016 Nice truck attack. --Gonnym (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

This was such a major attack - the worst in Berlin since WW2 ended - that it fits the exception stated on that page: ...so immediately identifiable that the date is not needed in the article title. Jim Michael (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose Overly vague and a solution in search of a problem._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

What's vague about it? How does including the year make it less vague, when no other notable truck attacks have occurred in Berlin? Jim Michael (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. The current title is perfectly good and unambiguous. Probably not the only "truck attack" (which could either mean an attack by a truck or a truck being attacked) in Berlin history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

There is an image of the "Goldener Riss" memorial, but no exclanation in the article text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just added info about "Goldener Riss" under the image. It shows how far the truck advanced. Alandeus (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I went through the article and read all of it and went through the references or sources of information.

In my opinion, it would be better not to use sources such as BBC,CNN,Fox, etc... since those channels have been known for right-wing bias and BBC in particular have been accused several times of racism in their tone. However, they get away with it despite the fact that the UK law clearly forbids hatred speech and considers it a criminal offense.

Adding to the above, connecting 2 people who may not be correlated "Imam" in jail and the attacker seems to be a bit weak since there was no evidence found that this "Imam" instructed the criminal Anis to conduct the attack. What I mean is that, having a phone number of a suspect may not necessarily mean that they're correlated even though by common sense it seems as if it does.

Furthermore, the fact that many of those articles begin talking about "Other" terrorists caught or arrested psychologically gives me the impression that the authors are trying to say that all Arabs are terrorists. This does not only increase the already existing problem in Europe with Muslims and/or Arabs but also increases the likely hood of attacks against the non-violent immigrants quoting the below recent attack that took place in Canada which seems clearly motivated by this attack: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/thousands-march-support-muslim-family-killed-truck-attack-canada-2021-06-12/

I would suggest that we begin filtering any unnecessary "Extra" info that are not relevant to the actual terror attack or event in order to prevent making the situation worse than what it already is.

We don't want people to have hatred or even think about it because clearly not all Tunisians are terrorists and not all Muslims are terrorists.

Conclusion, I suggest editing the entire article to remove unnecessary spices that are not directly related to the incident or to not put any contents that would increase hatred against the peaceful Arabs/Muslims.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.156.204 (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Anyone who doubts the credibility of the BBC and CNN has instantly killed their argument, although this is the first time I've seen those two accused of far-right bias; it's usually the Trump fans who are alleging that those two sites are "far-left". The preceding events are useful to illustrate the state of panic that Europe was in at the time. Equally, the article on the Islamophobic 2017 Finsbury Park attack illustrates the air of Islamophobia in the air at the time. If anyone is radicalised by reading about related terror attacks, that's their fault, nowhere on this page says that all Muslims are terrorists, as that's a ridiculous conclusion to arrive at. Pleading to emotion by saying that reading this will cause people to car-ram innocent families is as silly as someone saying that reading this articleorthis one will do the same. Off topic, but you also have absolutely no evidence to say that the act in Toronto was motivated by revenge for this specific attack. In short, swing and a miss. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply