Talk:2024 Mannheim stabbing

aftermath : recount of the event by the iraki guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bj2NkRLzwc basically he says he had the killer under control, but "someone intervened and got stabbed". The cop, or the bald guy ? Does someone with german understanding can translate ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.3.33.148 (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

detailed analysis of the video by Active Self Protection channel

full length HD video + commentaries, very interesting. Could be added in Notes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDQksNG_cAg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.3.33.148 (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Not just a stabbing

but an assassination attempt aimed at Michael Stürzenberger, twice. Please move article accordingly. There is no unspecific "1963 Dallas shooting" either. 2003:C6:373C:F1B5:E102:60A5:9D81:1533 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle anyone? Move to Assault on Michael Stürzenberger or similar needed. The attack was aimed at him, not once but twice. 2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if it was aimed at him, in general it would usually be described as a stabbing. - AutisticAndrew (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

So you make two statements: 1) it was not aimed at MS, 2) the victims of aimed assaults are not mentioned in general or in Wikipedia articles, as in 1963 Dallas shooting ? 2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, now I get what AutisticAndrew wants to say: knives have no sights to aim at targets, unlike guns. So stabbings are never ever aimed at somebody, just happen to happen in years and cities. Nothing to see here, move on. 2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, JFK is not a good example, but maybe Salman Rushdie who lost an eye in the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie, which, according to almost all active here should be called "2022 Chautauqua stabbing", right? 2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS reliable source for assassination attempt?

Is there any reliable source describing this as an assassination attempt? I can't seem to find any.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

If sources don't call a spade a spade, are they "reliable"? Why just "Mannheim"? 2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on what is stated in reliable sources such as anything in green on this list, not opinions or original research by editors. Since it appears that all you have is the latter, you are engaging in false equivalency regarding John F. Kennedy and Salman Rushdie.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, good point. Well, we have the police reports, they are public, why should anyone need a "reliable source" to interpret and print them? Also, none of the "reliable sources" have covered the event with a live stream, but someone did. Is that video a reliable source or not? No "reliable source" reporter was present, how can they be reliable if they cover the story despite the lack of being a source? Anything from Germany on that colorful list at all? Ah, there it says "There is consensus that Der Spiegel is generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are fabrications, and are thus unreliable." Sorry, the whole magazine is unreliable, proven by Relotius. He just wrote what they asked for, made-up feel good stuff about the good guys, made-up feel bad stuff about the bad guys. Liberty Valance all the way. 2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"[W]hy should anyone need a 'reliable source' to interpret and print them?"
This is why: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so no 1+1=3. You did not answer the question "Is that video a reliable source or not?", referring to the 27 minute long live recording until police ordered it to stop. Was on YT for days until it got axed. Which "reliable sources" do host the video, or parts? Have you seen it? Would you like to? It even caused 1+1=1 floating around, as there were two bald sturdy white men in blue jackets, white pants, grey shoes. The first is a BPE member with slogan "Aufklären statt Verschleiern" (since 2016 "Clarify instead of conceal/cover/wearing-a-veil, double meaning probably intended) printed on the back, he got injured early, the other is the bystander who wound up under the police officer. Many believe(d) this being the same person, acting quickly. There is second, short video from a different angle, showing both guys at once, the first seemingly injured, the other fighting. No 1+1=2 "Synth" allowed based upon that? 2003:C6:373C:F1EF:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Essentially, your point seems to be that if you can see for yourself what happened, you don't need a published source to say so. One of reasons why Wikipedia policy doesn't accept that reasoning is that unfortunately what one person thinks is obvious often doesn't seem obvious to another person. However, whether you personally think the policy is right or wrong, it is Wikipedia policy. Of course you are perfectly welcome to criticise that policy, and to try to get it changed, but as long as it is policy your editing of the article needs to comply with it. Also, I see that you have repeatedly had your edits reverted by other editors. Wikipedia works by collaboration, not by each editor persisting with what they personally believe is right even when they find that there's a consensus among other editors against what they are doing. Anyone who edits Wikipedia is likely sometimes to find that they have to accept something which they think is wrong, because other editors don't. (That has happened to me many times.) That is how Wikipedia works, and if you aren't willing to work in that way then editing Wikipedia isn't for you. If you continue to edit in ways which are contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines after being informed of those policies and guidelines there's a likelihood that you will be blocked from editing by an administrator. I advise you to avoid that. JBW (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

European and local elections coming up on June 9

General information for those outside of the European Union: 2024 European Parliament election on June 9, 2024 European Parliament election in Germany, in connection with some regional/local elections in Germany. This attack comes at "the wrong time", to say the least. For some others, at the "right" time. Media coverage, or lack thereof, has to be judged accordingly. 2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"yapping" in "Yapanese"?

What about these revisions [1] [2] by the same user? Is this kind of language acceptable? 2003:C6:373C:F1EF:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Kundgebung von Pax Europa in Dresden 2024-05-04

Category:Kundgebung von Pax Europa in Dresden 2024-05-04 C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Placement of information concerning past Stürzenberger controversies

Going to keep it brief here, as I have other stuff to do soon and I'll be AFK for a while...

I think this IP user made a good point for why information regarding Michael Stürzenberger's past controversies does not belong in the first paragraph of the Stabbing section. I've started this new section because I want to see if all y'all agree, and if y'all do, where should it be placed instead.

Personally, I think that section would fit best in a newly added Background section, but with an article this controversial, I didn't want to make any sudden huge changes. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@ZionniThePeruser There is no need to that 176.7.160.13 (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)