Talk:Halle synagogue shooting

Requested move 19 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 13:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

---

2019 Halle synagogue shooting → Halle and Landsberg attacksHalle and Landsberg attacks – the synagogue wasn't the only attack site. Jim Michael (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• No. Sources use synagouge attack: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-synagogue-attack-who-were-the-victims-in-halle/a-50875421 DW from 18th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.52.79.24 (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support any policy compliant title such as "Halle attack" or "Halle shooting" with/without date. Similar WP articles mention school, mosque, synagogue when fatalities occurred there. There were no fatalities in the synagogue. Two people were shot and killed on the street and in a kebabshop and two more shot and wounded elsewhere. The existing title gives undue prominence to a single aspect of the attack which is why the repeated attempts to amend it (not by myself) prior to administrative reversion and this RM. All sources deal with all aspects of the attack in their article bodies. As for their titles, google searching allintitle (means titles containing all the words):Halle shooting (5600), :Halle attack (2700), :Halle synagogue (3010) (the latter is as well higher than it might be because the current WP title exists and possibly its "news headline" value). There is no good reason to depart from usual WP policy in this case, a simple when (2019), where (Halle/Landsberg) and what (attack/shooting) is sufficient and customary.Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

German Wikipedia title is "Anschlag in Halle (Saale) 2019" which translates as "Attack in Halle (Saale) 2019". The talk page discussed alternative titles. Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

German Wikipedia is free to make its own choices ... for example, for what I imagine are local reasons, they mention the river (Saale), which we do not since Eng readers are much less likely to know Halle at all, or to know that the town name is ambiguous in German. I note they don't mention 'Landsberg' and don't use plural 'attacks'. Pincrete (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia is also sensible, entitled "Halle and Landsberg attack" changed from "2019 Halle attack".Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Other wikis are just that - other wikis. They can set their own rules and make their own decisions, but those have absolutely no weight as far as English Wikipedia is concerned. And BTW, it's obvious that not even you believe in the validity of the 'other wikis' argument, or else you would have been convinced that you are wrong as you were cherry picking Simple Wikipedia and German Wikipedia, while ignoring Spanish Wikipedia - "Tiroteo en la sinagoga de Halle" ("Shooting in the Halle synagogue"), Finnish Wikipedia (The Halle Synagogue"), Czech wikipedia ("Attack on the Halle Synagogue") and Hebrew Wikiepdia ("Shooting attack on the Halle Synagogue") Here come the Suns (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep, but at Halle synagogue shooting, without the completely unnecessary "2019", because such is the most common name in sources, and captures the initial goal and main focus of the attack. Debresser (talk)

Oppose. The synagogue was the target of the assailant, and the other people shot were random victims, after the shooter was frustrated in his intent. Sources commonly refer to this as an attack on a synagogue - see for example , . Here come the Suns (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose except changing 'shooting' to 'attack', since other weapons were involved other than guns, inc. home-made explosives. The first killing DID take place at the synagogue - or at least in the street immediately adjacent (it is irrelevant that the victim was not inside, not a congregant, nor even Jewish). The synagogue was both the initial and the intended main target and the most reported element. Subsequent events (inc. second kiling at the kebab-shop a few streets away), are reported as being an expression of the perps frustration at being unable to shoot/blast his way into the synagogue as he had intended. Sources barely mention 'Landsberg' and it is even unclear what exactly took place there - though two people were injured from gunshot wounds. Inclusion of 'synagogue' into '2019 Halle attack' is not essential, but it is the simplest and most memorable identifier, especially as the city is not well-known to Eng. speakers. An accepable, though less memorable alternative would be '2019 Halle far-right attack' - ie identifying motive rather than initial attack target. Of course the title is an incomplete account of what happened in Halle that day, most COMMONNAME's and WP article titles are. Pincrete (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The first killing did take place near the synagogue, but the victim had no connection to it - she merely happened to be in the vicinity, so that killing wasn't part of the attack on the synagogue or the people who used it.

There's no indication that he targeted the kebab shop simply due to not being able to get into the synagogue. He probably chose it spontaneously due to it likely being run by people of Middle-Eastern origin, a demographic whom he likely has a grudge against.

We don't usually include the motive in the title of articles about attacks. We don't have article titles such as Basque separatist Hipercor bombing, Kurdish nationalist March 2016 Ankara bombing or Islamist Kabul ambulance bombing.

There aren't any other notable attacks in Halle or Landsberg, so I don't think we need a disambiguator/identifier. Jim Michael (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"He probably chose it (the kebab-shop) spontaneously due to it ... being run by people of Middle-Eastern origin" I agree wholeheartedly, but nothing in the title suggests the synagogue was the only incident, merely the initial and main target. The first woman was killed while challenging the perp about making so much noise outside a synagogue on what she knew to be a holy day. Sure she wasn't a congregant nor even Jewish, but her death was a direct result of a (somewhat naive), challenge by her to the person attacking the synagogue. How is that "no connection to it"? That is like arguing that the German painter killed at the kebab-shop had no connection to that second location, since he was only a customer and neither Turkish nor Muslim. Both dead were 'collateral damage' of a failed attack, initially on the synagogue - and when that failed - at the kebab-shop. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The woman who was shot in the street near the synagogue merely happened to be passing it. It's unlikely that she knew he was armed, let alone his intentions. She merely admonished him for making noise where she happened to be walking past. She likely didn't know it was Yom Kippur (most gentiles don't know when it is), didn't try to stop an attack, wasn't defending the synagogue & had no connection to it. If I were to walk along the street, and as I pass by a shop whom I have no connection to, I see a stranger pushing a firework or dog turd through the letterbox & tell him to stop, that wouldn't create a connection between the shop & myself. The man who was shot in the kebab shop chose to be in there, so he had at least a slight connection to it, even if it were only as an occasional customer. Jim Michael (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't accept your version of events, but let's leave matters for others to decide. Pincrete (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is little reason to obscure the primary topic of the article. Our article devotes most of its text to the synagogue attack. This is a consequence of reliable sources overwhelmingly focussing on the synagogue attack. We title our articles to be "recognizable". The suggested title change would make the article less recognizable, by which I mean that the proposed title would bear a more tenuous relationship to the actual content of this article than its present title. This question has nothing to do with sympathy for people who lost their lives. I have sympathy for those who lost their lives and those who were injured. But the primary topic of this article is a synagogue attack. We reflect reliable sources. Reliable sources devote most of their attention to a synagogue attack. I am unconvinced by arguments that the media are only focussing on the synagogue attack to maximize their news organizations' profits. A man scoped out a synagogue and reported about it online before the attack. And he explicitly said he intended to kill Jews at a synagogue. With guns and explosives in his car he drove 45 minutes to the specific destination of the synagogue in Halle. Indications are he set out that morning with the deliberate intent of attacking a synagogue. He tried with guns and explosives to enter the synagogue. Just as he cold-bloodedly shot a woman in the back who reprimanded him for making noise, and just as he indiscriminately shot dead a construction worker who happened to be in a Turkish kebab shop, so too he would have shot Jews in a synagogue. There were 50 of them. This occurred on Yom Kippur. We reflect reliable sources. There is no shortage of reliable sources using the term "synagogue attack". DW News writes "Germany synagogue attack: Who were the victims in Halle?" Even though the "DW News" source addresses the identities of the two non-Jewish deaths in this incident, they still refer to the incident as a "synagogue attack". BBC News writes "German Halle gunman admits far-right synagogue attack". The Times of Israel writes "Social media networks withhold livestream data of Halle synagogue attack". The Nation writes "The Halle Synagogue Attack Is an Ominous Sign of the German Far Right’s Growing Prominence". The Wall Street Journal writes "German Man Arrested After Failed Attack on Synagogue". USA Today writes "German police call deadly synagogue attack 'anti-Semitic' after 2 killed in shootings". The Atlantic writes "A Synagogue Attack on the Holiest Day of the Year". Haaretz writes "Germany Synagogue Attack: Liberal Values Make Jews Everywhere Prime Target for White Supremacists". Time (magazine) writes "2 Dead Following German Synagogue Attack on Yom Kippur". The Local writes "Two dead in German synagogue attack on Yom Kippur". Jewish Telegraphic Agency writes "How Germany is rethinking security for its Jewish community following the Yom Kippur synagogue attack". The Union for Reform Judaism writes their "URJ Statement Regarding Synagogue Attack in Halle, Germany". Reuters writes "Synagogue attack sparks fear among Jews in Germany". HuffPost writes "German Protests Against Anti-Semitism After Synagogue Attack Draw Thousands". Ideally the article should be titled "2019 Halle synagogue attack". But it is fine the way it is at "2019 Halle synagogue shooting". My main opposition is to the obscuring of the primary topic of the article—not according to me—but according to reliable sources. Trade-offs are involved in choosing article titles. The argument is made that the title should more evenhandedly refer to all of the facets of this incident. While this sounds virtuous it does not represent the actual practice of the reliable sources that we use to support this article. In this decision I am opting for a clear representation of the terminology used by reliable sources in reference to the topic of this article. Bus stop (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Reconsider inclusion of citation

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)

soyjak.party in 2019?

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

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)

Inclusion of the fact the attack ended up being a generally an anti islam attack?

Since the attack is already widely known as the synagogue shooting I'm not trying to dispute that however there should be a mention in the title or towards the top of the page that it was mainly an islamophobic and I believe misogynistic (not sure if he was a misogynist I read it somewhere if he wasn't ignore that part) and it also probably shouldn't be classified as an anti-Semitic attack, honestly maybe the part about the synagogue and kebab shop should even be their own separate articles since they're kinda different. Also "Stephan Balliet fatally shot two people nearby and later injured two others. Federal investigators called the attack far-right and antisemitic terrorism." here is the main part where I think it should be specified it was an attack on a woman and muslim (or a person working at a kebab shop I'm actually unsure of his religion, if he wasn't muslim it's still islamophobic since it was a kebab shop) as for the title it should be something like Halle synagogue shooting and kebab shop shooting (or the specific name of the kebab shop if it has one.) also here "Target Jewish worshippers, others" should specifically mention what the others were Idkwhattoputhere18172 (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Idkwhattoputhere18172, this was discussed some years ago, shortly after the event itself (see the renaming discussion further up the page). The initial and planned attack was on the synagogue and was carried out for antisemitic and far-right motives. When that didn't 'pan out' as planned, the shooter expressed his rage in various other ways. If I remember correctly, the person shot dead in the kebab shop was a German customer, who I believe was neither Muslim nor an immigrant, but although the victims were German and/or women, there is no reason to think that such were his targets or that anti-German or mysogynistic feelings motivated him.

We title articles according to their WP:COMMONNAME, that is the name most likely to be searched for by and familiar to the reader, rather than by what we think they should be called. This event is most often referred to by the initial, rather than later targets - the Halle synagogue. Pincrete (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Copycat of Christchurch attack?

PlainWikiUser1, hi, I'm just posting to clarify a few things, including my own actions. Firstly, although I am neutral about including the 'Christchurch copycat' category (ie I don't oppose inclusion), I reverted you in a sense on principle. WP:BRD mandates that if an edit is challenged (as your addition has been), we don't edit war until one or other party 'gives in', but rather we come to this talk page and discuss and allow other editors to comment.

A word about content and categories. Any significant content (including a category), has not only to be verifiable, it must be actually verified. In the case of a category, the reason for inclusion must be clear within the text, it isn't good enough that it is possible to verify the inclusion. For this reason I added text to the body which records why this attack could be included in the 'copycat' category. There is no point in our claiming that Halle was a copycat if the article itself doesn't detail why we make that claim and verify it.

Regarding the facts themselves, it's clear that the perpetrator in Halle gave contradictory statements when interrogated by German police and at his trial. Unless there is objective evidence, such as journal or internet search history showing some obsession with the Christchurch attack, or detailing his own plans, it's fairly plain that the only account of the Halle attacker's motives, is his own words and the discrepancy between his two accounts is not resolvable. We can only guess at his motives for saying the two different things. Within the warped logic of a multiple murderer, mostly of bystanders, there is no accounting for why he might have chosen to claim 'all my own idea' or 'I'm allied with Christchurch' at different times. We have no way of resolving this seeming-contradiction and can only ensure both statements are accurately recorded.

I'm alerting PARAKANYAA to this discussion. Pincrete (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pincrete He started planning before Christchurch even happened, so no, he is not a copycat. He said he was "inspired" by it (not the same thing), then he said he wasn't, which means we have no confirmation either way when it comes to what he said; as in the article we have his denial over being a copycat, so we can't put the category if that's all the confirmation there is. @PlainWikiUser1 You need to discuss this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Where is the source that said he started planning the attack before Christchurch happened? And if you’re going by the logic that being inspired doesn’t mean being a copycat, then half of the attacks currently listed in the “Christchurch mosque shootings copycat crimes” category should be removed like the El Paso and San Diego shootings PlainWikiUser1 (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Iirc a lengthier explanation is in the external link in this article , but see in this news article that he had started building his illegal firearms for the attack before Christchurch happened . El Paso and San Diego directly happened because of Christchurch, the perpetrators and sources say as much. What happened in Halle is he was already planning an attack for some time and then after Christchurch happened he seemed to adopt some of his tactics. Not the same and not a copycat attack. I don't mind it being on that article where it can be qualified, but it shouldn't be in the category. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Show some English sources, I don’t know German. Stephan Balliet explicitly tried to imitate aspects of Brenton Tarrant’s attack, such as wearing body armour, livestreaming the attack, and targeting a religious site. Doesn’t that seem like a copycat crime? And even if Stephan Balliet started preparing the attack before Christchurch, Brenton’s attack still caused him to do the attack, and during his trial, Balliet even said he was inspired by Brenton Tarrant PlainWikiUser1 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You're arguing about a German case, so the sources are going to be in German, the media didn't report on it as in depth in English. If he was planning to commit the shooting before Tarrant did that shooting then no Tarrant did not cause him to do the attack. Tarrant was not the first white supremacist to attack a religious site and he was not the first person to kill someone on video (is Tarrant an ISIS copycat, by this logic?) it's plausible he adopted some of his tactics but that does not make him a copycat. Balliet also denied being a copycat of Christchurch . PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

If he started planning before Christchurch, we should at least add that fact to the various/self-contradicting claims he made about the relationship between the events. I remain relatively neutral about including the category, so long as the main article is clear as to its own inclusion criteria and clearly we should map out accurately any claims Balliet made/investigators made about the relationship between the events. [

Within the warped world of people who kill total strangers in order to gain some kudos among fellow extreme far-righters, we can only guess as to which of Balliet's claims was more true, which was simply more self-admiring! Pincrete (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)