Jump to content

Talk:2016 Berlin truck attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.111.2.50 (talk) at 21:05, 21 December 2016 (→Premature to call it "attack"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Premature to call it "attack"

The police have not confirmed it as an attack. Though they do say it is likely. The only definite information available about the incident's nature was that a truck plowed into people. Was it delibeate? Maybe. But it is not confirmed by the police. Therefore it is premature to term it as an attack. 59.89.40.151 (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German law enforcement is investigating it as an attack. In the unlikely event that it turns out to be an accident, the article can easily be changed.- MrX 20:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is unwise to claim something unless it has actually been confirmed. I know it is being investigated as an attack, but until full confirmation I think it is better to call it "Berlin truck ramming or maybe bang".59.89.40.151 (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that it's premature. Maybe 'suspected attack' for now? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As we now have confirmation Islamic State have taken responsibility for these events, can we rename page '2016 Berlin Terror Attacks' [1]. 2A02:C7F:BA2F:2000:15F3:CEE6:DB6F:70BC (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ISIL has usually taken credit for even lone-wolf attacks. They even claimed credit for Munich shooting, but the shooter had no links to ISIL. We don't go by what ISIL says, only what the police says. And unless they say anything, it is unwise to treat it as a fact even if there is a strong indication. We should make articles on hard facts here. 59.89.40.151 (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That I definitely agree with.- MrX 21:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both The Independent [2] and The Daily Telegraph [3] are now calling it an "attack". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Martinevans123, as in Nice, this was a delierate attack, hence this page title should contain that it was an attack. Incident sound like an euphemism for killing people with a lorry.--$oliton (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note the ISIS claim all traces back to a tweet claimed to have been read by NY Post! Gdn is still saying that it is unclear whether this is "terrorist related" and calls it a 'crash'. I think we should hold fire until authorities say something unequivocal, it won't be long. Pincrete (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do note that The Independent have highlighted "attack". Of course this is done when there isn't full confirmation. And The telegraph meanwhile states while states there is no official confirmation about the incident. I think it should be called as "crash" rather than an attack. I hope this is done quickly, because if this is an attack then I doubt it will be much time before it is confirmed as an attack. And the chance of correcting this mistake when something was described as such without confirmation will be lost. 125.62.119.190 (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was an attack. This doesn't need "confirmation" - whatever that means. When you murder someone, take over their truck, ram it into a crowd, jump out and shout Islamist nonsense, and run off - that's an attack, no ifs/ands/buts. What rubbish. 50.111.2.50 (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree with 50.111.2.50. isoham (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "jump out shout Islamist nonsense" is not necessarily any kind of attack. The rest certainly is. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SUSPECTED perpetrator

Its SUSPECTED!! perpetrator! They have taken responsibility! Its a reliable source. If you wish to remove it @OneRoundEgg please create a census here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.202.107.10 (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally reverted your edit instead of bender235's edit, as I said on your talk page, I fully support the addition of this information on islamic state/suspected perpetratorOneRoundEgg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot report as a fact what the Washington Times openly admits to be hearsay. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IS responsibility is not universally reported! Wait until it's confirmed. By now only tabloids report this. 80.132.79.252 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS has a habit of claiming responsibility for the weather. This claim traces back to a 'tweet' "The Twitter feed of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Force said that the Islamic State was claiming credit for the Berlin attack, based on jihadist accounts the IPMF tracks using encrypted technology" This is the source of the claim Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should call it 2016 Berlin Christmas Market Incident

We should call it an incident right now because it is too early to assume it to be an attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.186.108 (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. I've now moved it to that title for now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2016 Berlin Christmas Market Tragedy would be better suited for now in my opinion. Keeping in mind that atleast 9 people died and atleast 50 hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.161.20 (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both The Independent [4] and The Daily Telegraph [5] are now calling it an "attack". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent has 'attack' in quotes (as is BBC News). Telegraph doesn't, but that's the only one I've seen that doesn't caveat it. So probably still a bit premature to call it an attack. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But surely incident is a bit too soft?? In my brain incident is used ex. if 2 kids at an elementary school get mad at each other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.161.20 (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the term incident sound strange in this case, because as in Nice, this was a delierate attack, hence this page title should contain that it was an attack. Incident sound like an euphemism for killing people with a lorry.--$oliton (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also New York Post [6] and Twitter [7] call it an "attack". The local.de and a few others others call it a "suspected attack" [8]. I also think "incident" sounds like a euphemism. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. I know we don't follow other language wikis, but the de.wiki article uses "Terroranschlag" i.e. "terrorist attack."[reply]
dewp just moved to "Incident at the Christmas market at the Breitscheidplatz in Berlin". I'm heading offline now, so won't move the page again today, but if someone else wants to move it back if/when appropriate then I won't object. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they've moved to "Vorfall". Ironic that the discussion over there shows they were looking to match this article! It's not clear which is better, but to my mind "incident" is just too weak. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about "2016 Berlin Christmas Market truck crash", since that's what the event actually was? "Incident" seems too vague. CB19 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please move back to "attack". This is what the police and press are calling it. It makes us look ridiculous when we water down every attack like this. Fences&Windows 23:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way someone can delete the 2016 Berlin Christmas Market truck attack page so that this one can be moved there? The talk page has been moved already.CB19 (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Berlin attack - Restore the original title. I have no idea why it was moved (or why it was moved to such a pedantic, ungrammatical title. What exactly is a Berlin Christmas market truck and why was it attacked?) This is the convention that works best for terror attacks. The very similar Nice attack is found at 2016 Nice attack, not 2016 Bastille Day seaside truck attack. -- Veggies (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the hook should be shortened, but can't 2016 Berlin attack be confused with an earlier incident this year in that city? I think 2016 Berlin Christmas market attack is the best choice. Yoninah (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm forgetting, but what other 2016 Berlin attack is there?- MrX 01:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're yanking my chain right? Is there a Wikipedia article about a 2016 Berlin attack that readers may confuse with this one.- MrX 01:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not trying to bother you. Go ahead with your title discussions. Yoninah (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalize the M on Market and it will cohere with the capitalized word ahead of it: 2016 Christmas Market truck attack.Profhum (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"2016 Berlin attack" appears too vague; "2016 Berlin truck attack" would be more suitable. Vignyanatalk 13:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's too vague, then "Berlin truck attack" is fully nonsensical. If the original is not optimal for some reason anything "2016 Berlin Christmas market attack" is the second-best choice. -- Veggies (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "2016 Berlin Christmas market attack", sufficiently concise, clear and recognisable. "2016 Berlin truck attack" as acceptable second choice. I don't think 'Nice', need be a precedent, there were reasons for that choice and 'location' in this instance is clear and immediately recognisable.Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German police name it as an attack

[9]

Please move the page.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Attack"

The page should not have been moved until it was confirmed (not suspected) that it was an attack. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The news immediately described it as an attack or maybe ifiwe we wanted to be trulty PC we could rename it the "Berlin Hokidays Market Truck Accident"?! Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move

At this point all media outlets are referring to this as an attack. The German police have announced that it was deliberate ("Initially Germany officials hesitated to use the word “attack.” But early Tuesday police issued two tweets, one describing it as a suspected act of terror and the other declaring that “the truck was deliberately steered into the crowd” at the market" [10]). According to previous naming conventions, (2016 Nice attack, 2016 Munich shooting, 2016 Brussels bombing, etc.) 2016 Berlin attack, fits best. Many editors here have already explained why the alternative names are confusing or misleading. If we get another attack between now and the new year, it can be changed, but let's hope for the best. Pschemp (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the article name should be changed to "2016 Berlin Christmas truck attack"

any thoughts? It's obvious that the current name of article is not detailed or full or descriptive enough. Namarly (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine. There were no other notable attacks in Berlin in 2016 so such disambiguation is not needed. Also "Christmas truck attack" is ambiguous - does it refer to an attack using a "Christmas truck" whatever that is, or a truck attack which occurred at Christmas, which is also not the case. Valenciano (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should be the "2016 Berlin truck attack" IMO. It's fairly future-proof and descriptive. It is not clear that "Christmas" is a particularly notable aspect. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's interesting that you say that, Guccisamsclub, because originally I was gonna write just "2016 Berlin truck attack", just like what you're saying, but I saw that the "Christmas" week aspect had a lot to do with the timing and the opportunity of the attack, and would be somewhat significant. Either way, the current name of article is a bit lacking it seems. Namarly (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is going to be another attack on the city the current name is fine. Nergaal (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The current title is concise and meets the guidelines of WP:TITLE. 'Christmas' and 'market' are unnecessary and confusing. 'Truck', 'vehicle', or 'vehicular' might be OK, but please use a move request if proposing that the current title be changed.- MrX 18:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: 19 December is not Christmas and the people weren't run over by a "Christmas truck". -- Veggies (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Veggies, hello, frankly...you miss the point (and seeming to not understand or know what and where this was specifically). It was the CHRISTMAS MARKET in Berlin. (Click: here.) And tied in directly to Christmas shopping. We can't put all the words to specify that in the article name as then it would be too long. But you also got it wrong about "Christmas truck"...as it's NOT saying that the 'truck' would therefore be a Christmas truck, but that the truck that was used was used in the Christmas season, in (again) "Christmas MARKET" in Berlin. So maybe the article name should be "2016 Berlin Christmas Market truck attack". Namarly (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Namarly, you also seem to have missed the point. The title should always be succinct, clear, and accurate. The title proposed begs the questions; was this attack on Christmas? (nope), was this attack committed by truck? (yep) or committed by a truck (nope, obviously) and what is a Christmas truck? (nothing). The title can be read as; 2016 Berlin, Christmas, truck attack - or - 2016 Berlin, Christmas truck, attack - or - 2016, Berlin Christmas, truck attack. None of these statements is correct. The first because it didn't occur on Christmas - yes it happened at a Christmas market, but, still didn't happen on Christmas as the title implies. The second because there's no such thing as a Christmas truck and that is in English a valid interpretation of the title. The third because, what is a Berlin Christmas? Mr rnddude (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's also WP:BIAS to consider. A significant proportion of our readership will neither know (nor care) when Christmas season occurs, in the same way that much of our North American and European readership won't know (without looking it up) what the date of the Eid festivals next year is. So a title based on Christmas season (a festival hundreds of millions of Christians celebrate on 7 January anyway) is sub-optimal. Christmas market as a dab would be acceptable if we needed it, but we don't. Valenciano (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take out the "truck" (if 2016 Berlin attack is too vague) and I'll support '2016 Berlin Christmas market attack' or '2016 Christmas market attack'. That's my biggest peeve. -- Veggies (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have there been any other attacks in Berlin this year? If not the title should stay like it is currently: 2016 Berlin attack. That's specific enough. The point of Wikipedia is for people to read the articles – not just the title – and if they read the article they can find out the important details. --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because it was not a Christmas truck. -Mardus /talk 11:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ca. 20 injured, not 50

According to the fire brigade speaker 20 injured have been taken to hospitals; the other 30 or so were shaken by the traumatic experience, but not physically hurt; so "50+" is wrong; it should be "ca. 20"; see here. 23:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.162.34.42 (talk)

Bild is not very reliable; like The Sun and other tabloids, we should supplement or replace with better sources. Fences&Windows 23:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

I would like to strongly urge us not to add a lust of reactions for every trite comments of sympathy (with flags of course!) from everyone with a heartfelt thought. I'm sure there are some local government officials who's reactions are meaningful and worth mentioning, but otherwise I suggest leaving them out. - MrX 23:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that.Pincrete (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it important to note that the United States and Italy both came out condemning it as a terrorist attack hours before German officials did? Yoninah (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the US said it appeared to be a terrorist attack. I have no idea about Italy, but a source would help.- MrX 01:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not important in the least. What's important is what the Berlin police end up officially reporting. As it stands, the incident is still not officially an "attack", even. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Curly Turkey. Everyone, including the German minister of interior, calls it a likely attack. Even if it should turn out to have been an accident it would be notable for this. You are right, it's not confirmed and the IS bit is just rumor, but dial it back a notch, please. 80.132.79.252 (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some sources to back up that everyone calls it an attack?- MrX 02:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Come on" is not an argument. We wait for an official statement, period. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely need a reaction section. The American president with the gorgeous hair has used Twitter again. Claiming it was ISIS who did it.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Defs fo sure, anything The God Emperor tweets should be linked to immediately as a great source of knowledge and inspiration. All jokes aside, inevitably there will be a "reactions" section. Either we can draft a page for it to be spun off from the main article, or make a smaller section in this article. I know we all hate it, but, it is the inevitable. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to report garbage, only the relevant facts. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Defs fo sure, anything The God Emperor tweets should be linked to immediately as a great source of knowledge and inspiration."
Might as well, the media basically live-streams his twitter feed then sits around for an hour talking about their delicate feelings. Why do we need the middle-man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 09:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what's true is true. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Truck vs Lorry

Why do we call it "truck" in the article? Berlin is a European city - and not American. "Truck" is American English. "Lorry" is correct English. --Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check of Google hits for the incident suggests "truck" is much more widely used, even in British media. WWGB (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Europe ≠ England — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 09:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
English is not an official language of Germany, thus WP:TIES does not apply; WP:ENGVAR does, which states the article stays with whatever variety of English it started with unless a consensus is reached to change it. Right now, it's not clear if it's US English or Canadian (due to the use of "metre"), but that should be settled and a {{Use American English}} or {{Use Canadian English}} tag should be placed at the top of the source to avoid future conflict. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because North America rules the world and only their versions of English matter? WWGB (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this may also be a case for MOS:COMMONALITY as "truck" is still understandable to most British English speakers (though not preferred) while "lorry" is not understood at all by most American English speakers. Dragons flight (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WWGB: for the reasons already explicitly given. Don't be an ass. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glass houses, Curly. After your "attack" arguments, I'd be careful slinging that term around, if I were you. 50.111.2.50 (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have no truck with such arguments. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC) WWBG, I think he means "arse".[reply]

Map

What about integrating a map like in the Hebrew version?--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Truck Attack"

Really? Did Optimus al-Prime declare jihad? Class, did we learn nothing after Nice? Trucks do not drive off by themselves & attack people. Did we call 9/11 a "plane attack"? Was the sinking of the RMS Lusitania a "sub attack"? Let's be consistent here.

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, fair point. There might be more of a problem with reading it as "an attack on a truck". I suspect this will eventually move to something more like 2016 Nice attack. But we have Drone strikes in Pakistan etc.,without any problems? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. a signature, with a redlink Username, looks less like a vandal or a soapboxer, thanks.[reply]
Instead of moving the article another dozen times, how about waiting a day or two until all the facts are in? Perhaps the media will settle on a name for the incident by then anyways. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. I did say "eventually", but not sure I assumed any dozen. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, lovely—it's been moved again. How Many More Times? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attacker: refugee vs migrant

Although many sources call him a refugee, it's unclear yet, if the attacker had been granted refugee status or not. I believe, sources in Germany are perhaps far too generous towards the attacker. -Mardus /talk 10:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. I'm from Germany and since 2015 many people started to call everyone looking arabian, african or indian a refugee (perhaps because that sounds more adorable?). But a refugee is someone who leaves a country to seek for shelter, not someone whose intention is to kill people for religious reasons. Obviously, his refugeeness was just pretence. +1 for migrant. --Eliza Winterborn (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The headline in Die Welt article, which is currently the only source, translates as: "Suspect Pakistani, 23, probably lived in Berlin Refugee Accommodation". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where he stayed does not automatically make him a refugee. His official status is so far unknown, and his intent and actions have made genuine refugees look bad. -Mardus /talk 11:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I was just suggesting we stick as closely to sources as possible. That artcle says: "According to the authorities, the 23-year-old is reported to be a refugee in February on the Balkan route." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see something like an official statement from those authorities about what his status was. Granted, the investigation is early. -Mardus /talk 11:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Migrant" has become a sort of WP:NEO for a particular "new species" of immigrant/emigre, akin to the trope of The Wandering Jew back in the day. The "wandering jew" was a miscreant without any attachments to soil, wandering all around Europe drinking the blood of white babies and committing other mischief. The standard term is "immigrant." If it can be shown , he was merely transiting through Germany or wherever, he would fit the definition of migrant. If that's the case however, it should be stated directly, because "migrant" is now so carelessly thrown about that it has lost some of its meaning. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'refugee' is also very carelessly thrown about. For all intents and purposes, this person is not a refugee and never was. -Mardus /talk 11:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the German word "Flüchtling". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support refugee either--that's as bad or worse. Why not just say that he emigrated from Pakistan or wherever until we get more info? Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, why so complicated? He's from Pakistan, he's (a) Pakistani. No buzzwords needed. The official title for that period of immigration per current Wikipedia consensus is European migrant crisis, if it needs to be referred to. Samsara 12:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is new information, and the actual suspect appears to be still at large. I'd vote to keep 'refugee' for the person who was arrested, if he's been detained in error. -Mardus /talk 12:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been declared by the Berlin police that they arrested the "wrong man'.[11] This is already referenced in the article. As a consequence I have removed the lines from the infobox that say the motive was "islamic terrorism' (since no motive be verified at the present moment) and that the suspected perpetrator was "1 (in custody)'. Wittylama 12:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources such The Daily Telegraph call him an "asylum seeker". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the term is a good one to use, please make sure you source it to a publication that actually uses it. Do not attribute use of a term to a paper that did not use the term, especially after having this discussion where we discovered that the different terms have different connotations. Asylum seeker has a strict legal definition, it's not simply interchangeable with the other terms. Thank you. Samsara 16:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You think I added that term to the article there? But the second source is The Daily Telegraph?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The sentence read Die Welt reported, with a subsequent source link to Die Welt in which the term Flüchtling is used, not Asylsuchender. So you cannot use that source to support that statement. Samsara 17:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok die Welt calls him some word you're translating as "refugee", while Telegraph calls him "asylum seeker". For him to be a refugee, he has to be recognized by the authorities as having refugee status. Do you have evidence that's the case? And what's with all the sabre-rattling in the edit summaries, especially on such an iffy point? Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Samsara, you've now removed that three times? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're misdefining revert. Two of them were reverts, but I'm happy to meet you and Gucci at ANI over this if need be. You cannot misattribute quotes to a source that the source did not use. End of story. If you want to use the term, you MUST change the sourcing. It's wrong the way it was written. Samsara 17:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who said "revert"? You want to meet at ANI?? You realise, don't you, that when you made this removal, the second source there was this that said: "A man arrested under suspicion of ploughing a 7-tonne truck through a Christmas market in the heart of Berlin, killing 12, was named as an asylum seeker of Pakistani origin, German authorities said on Tuesday"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Two senior German officials briefed on the matter had earlier told The Washington Post that man detained was a Pakistani asylum seeker. The suspect, whose name has not been made public, arrived in Germany as an asylum seeker in December 2015 and came to Berlin in February, de Maizière said. European asylum procedures have been criticized as lacking in robust vetting, and de Maizière described a chaotic processing of the suspect’s asylum case. Several attempts to hear his claim failed, the minister said, “because he did not appear” for assessment. A later hearing, he said, ended in failure when the suspect claimed he spoke Balochi, a language for which German officials did not have a translator." [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pschemp (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is still relevant, as the situation is unfolding rather rapidly, but I've seen the portmanteau "refauxgee" ("faux" + "refugee", pronounced "reh-foh-gee") applied to those who claim refugee status, but aren't actual refugees (as in not actually escaping war, persecution, natural disaster, & so on). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Attacker is still at large"

According to the current text of the article, the police have "arrested 'the wrong man' and consequently believe that the attacker is still at large". The sentence has a source, but my German is not good enough to determine how well the claim is supported by the reference. Can anyone supply an English language source to confirm this? Gnome de plume (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Berlin's police president Klaus Kandt has told journalists he cannot confirm that the arrested man was the driver of the truck." according to BBC News. Not quite as clear as "arrested the wrong man". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although the title of [13] translates to "We have the wrong man"... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike Peel - I came here to say precisely the same thing. The BBC liveblog is citing the Welt source which clearly uses the phrase "the wrong man", while the BBC itself is being more circumspect by saying that they "cannot confirm that the arrested man was the driver of the truck". Nevertheless, Welt IS a reliable source. There will, apparently, be a new press-conference in half an hour (from the time I write this note)[14] so we'll probably get a whole bunch more reliable source references stemming from that. Wittylama 12:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) They're essentially referring to "talk among the Berlin police" - a concept perhaps not entirely unrelated to "rumour". Die Welt also reported that the suspect was "denying everything". [15] I don't yet see anyone firmly committing to calling him innocent or guilty. If he's not been released, his official status is either "suspect" or "in protective custody", but nobody has so far suggested the latter. Samsara 13:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CNN (on TV), said the suspect is denying any involvement and the police are currently unsure if he was involved. They are encouraging the public to be on guard. They also cited the fact that the gun used to kill the Polish driver is still missing as one of the reasons the police are concerned. Dragons flight (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours spread by Spiegel Online and others - beware!

The article currently uses a Spiegel Online (SO) source, but that source largely relies on the Welt article, and misquotes it! In SO, the source is referred to as "ranghohe Sicherheitskreise" (high-ranking security officials), but the Welt article merely cites police citing "Sicherheitskreise" (security personnel) - note that this probably not even second hand information, more like third hand! Die Welt in turn cites the Tagesspiegel (not the same paper! link is broken in die Welt but I added the missing characters for you). The Tagesspiegel, however, cites police as saying it is likely that the arrested suspect is the perpetrator, and that he has a record of sex crimes (plural). According to the Tagesspiegel then, the suspect has been in Germany only since February, has multiple sex crime convictions, but was not in custody. I think we should be really careful in what weight we give to any of this at such an early point in the investigation, and with such a high volume of rumours being both reported and debunked. Samsara 14:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, Nostradamus. Just to be clear, according to your source Tagesspiegel, he has been cited for "sexual harassment" in the past, and I don't see any plural. So he's not exactly one of them "rape-fugees." Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware of our policy regarding biographies of living people, and take particular note that it applies to all articles and namespaces, not just biographies of the people concerned. Thank you. Samsara 22:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was this a "note to self"?Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for ensuring you "added the missing characters for us". What do we owe you? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SPON (spiegel online), Welt, Zeit, FAZ, Tagesschau etc are bad sources. It's mainly biased stuff and propaganda. It's like using RT and Sputnik in an Ukrainian article. DerElektriker (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyviol images

These images are obviously copyviol, and they have been proposed for speedy deletion:

Please, don't use these images--Holapaco77 (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

"US warns of 'heightened' risk of terror attacks on Christmas markets in Europe as Isil loses grip on Mosul and Raqqa"

"The US has warned its citizens that Europe is facing a “heightened risk of terror attacks” at Christmas markets and other seasonal holiday events." Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/22/us-warns-heightened-risk-terror-attacks-christmas-markets-europe/

I think it's very important to mention it.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the subject of the article, unless you use original research, which you can't.- MrX 18:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can: https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/Europe.html ... and it has a lot to do with the article. If we have space to cite what Merkel said about it, we can quote what the US government told us. It has relevance. --Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simply, you can't connect articles that predate the event with the event unless a secondary source explicitly does so. See WP:SYNTH. Feel free to ask at WP:ORN if you don't believe me.- MrX 21:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

If we take a closer look at the German article, it has far less information than our. But they fill their lack of information with a gigantic reaction section. Personally I think it's a waste of time and space. What do you think? Should we fill the article with a reaction section? --Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should only include the most important reactions like important German politicians or any group that is responsible for the attack. All countries always have the same routine reactions of "Our condolences to Germany and the victims' families - we must all stand against terrorism!" Unless there are notable exceptions to that type of reaction, there should just be a summary that says "many world leaders expressed their condolences for the attack". --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think it's appropriate to dedicate the majority of the reaction section to blaming Merkel for this attack, since the asylum seeker that was arrested has been released. AfD and ANO 2011 (Babiš' party) both have "populist" in the introductory sentences of their wiki articles, I don't think we should give them a further campaign platform on Wikipedia. In my opinion it should be included (especially if the perpetrator does turn out to be an asylum seeker), but maybe in a sub-section because right now that section looks very biased. Littlecarmen (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polish driver last message was that he was in "strange area" where "only inhabitants are Muslim"

Polish driver last message was that he was in "strange area" where "only inhabitants are Muslim". He decided to go out of the truck to get a kebab to eat. This has been covered by Polish news[16], Spiegel reports this as well[17] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Spiegel article says "voller Muslime" ... my limited German knowledge would translate that as "full of Muslims" not as "only Muslims." Berlin in general is around 9% Islamic with heavier concentrations in areas like Moabit, Wedding, Neukolln, Kreuzberg etc so it's not unlikely that the driver, coming from Poland, which is about 0.8% Islamic would comment on the difference, even if he were in one of the areas with a lower percentage of Muslims. I'm not sure it greatly helps the article, though, or where we should note it? Valenciano (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant for the Wiki article, your statistics and conclusions are right. --分液漏斗 (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can a native speaker give us some insight on translation here? Saying a "strange area" in the U.S. would now typically imply that there is something unusual about the area, like all the people wear hats or something. But in older English usage, or in other languages, it might only mean "an area unfamiliar to the driver". These little details can really be the pea under the mattress with this kind of widely expanding coverage. Wnt (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjLFgsUKebA --分液漏斗 (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, it's true that it could mean "unfamiliar area" or "unusual area" but I don't think we need a native speaker to work out that it was obviously the latter. He was a long distance lorry driver, so he was constantly in new locales and would hardly be likely to comment on that, particularly when he had just visited his delivery address. With his comments about the percentage of Muslims (the Polish source by the way says he remarked that there were "only Muslims" there) and his background in a village in Poland (no Muslims) the "unusual area" is the only possibility. Valenciano (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfamiliar place for a Polish native, some areas look indeed "Muslim". As of 2010, the borough had a population of 310,283, of whom 121,000 (~40%) were of non-German ethnicity/origin. The percentage is significantly higher in the same-named locality of Neukölln. The borough is known for its large Turkish, Arab and Kurdish communities, which together make up roughly 18% of the borough's population. Ich bin übrigens Muttersprachler, völlig unwichtig für den Artikel. Außer man will seine Weltfremdheit demonstrieren. --分液漏斗 (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a polish speaker and multiple polish media reported that before his death he told his cousin that this was a strange(polish word dziwna) area because only muslims lived there and the only germans were office workers going to work there.Oranjelo100 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Dziwna literally means strange or weird in the feminine gender form, it never means unfamiliar in Polish and unusual is nietypowa.[reply]

I am a Polish native speaker as well, and also confirm that dziwna doesn't mean "unfamiliar", but strange/weird.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you come from a 0.8% "Muslim" world, some areas in Berlin will strike you indeed as strange/weird. 18% means that every 5th person (a 2250% increase) on the street is a Muslim and probably wearing a Hijab. But how does this improve the article? --分液漏斗 (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews

Need some help editing the wiki news article (see section "See also").--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at that, and I would be careful about the weight given to the IS involvement at this point - the claim about IS involvement comes from an Iraqi IS counter-unit who, if I understand correctly, claim to have obtained access to the contents of encrypted Twitter transmissions in which IS is being implicated. At this point, the more interesting aspect is probably the false suspect and continuing search for the real one. Samsara 22:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I changed the title on WN because ISIS claiming that they did something is not the same as "ISIS did something". - MrX 00:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing infobox map

The article says the truck came in from Budapester Strasse, so shouldn't the arrow in the image point in the opposite direction? --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? According to Die Zeit the lorry driver came from Hardenbergerstraße or Kantstraße and plowed through the Christmas market and the tour ends at the Budapester Straße. Image

--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should or shouldn't we call name the suspect Nave B.? I mean, all the big newspaper did it -- so his name is (even though he is a little anonymous) out there in the world. So I do not think we do any harm - especially since we write that he was released short time after the attack. It's maybe not the most relevant information here, but has still some relevance in my opinion.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should not perpetuate his name according to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. WWGB (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It keeps getting added, but it should not. The suspect was released, after all. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Random Reactions

Just wow. It's totally random. The only steady is the fact, that politicians gave their condolences all over the world.

How is Orban relevant, but the German AfD (attack in GERMANY) isn't? They say the same. And how is Orban more important than Donald Trump and Nigel Farage (who said the same)? I mean, it is totally random. How about we just write, that different people and parties used the attack to criticize Angela Merkel and her refugee politics? Everything else is just totally random. --Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update 1: I have changed it to a more general tone - since many populists (some of them even world leaders) blamed refugees and Muslims for the attack. Please feel free to add more information (i.e. I haven't mentioned that those populists have been criticized for baiting refugees / Islam; not to forget that many already wrote Islam / refugees before there was any informtaion (PS! we don't even know the culprit yet)). Not to mention that I haven't wrote about that Islam / Muslims have been critized a lot - by someone like Trump. And that a lof of Muslims actually were on the street for giving their condolences and giving a statement against terrorism.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"As Angela Merkel faces re-election soon this attack puts her under pressure." This is commonly said in Germany but even with the CDU's dropping and the AfD's rising numbers, looking at the poll results the Guardian cites, the CDU-SPD coalition is still at 54-59%, which is more than enough to remain in power (and Merkel has already been announced as the CDU's candidate for chancellor). My point is that criticism and lack of approval for Merkel doesn't actually put Merkel or her coalition in any danger. People opting to vote for the right-wing AfD just means that the only current alternative coalition that doesn't include the CDU (SPD, Greens, and Left Party) becomes more unlikely. Littlecarmen (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timing

The article currently says 20.02 (due, I think, to @AxelBoldt), with this ref. However, the BBC says 20.14 (which is what the article used to say). Does anyone know which ref is wrong? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL claim, and lack of proof

Previously, the article correctly stated, that ISIL claims responsibility, but without any proof. Sometimes the groups offer information which is not available to public, and later verified, but here no proof is given by ISIL. Now, that part is removed from the text. Should it be returned? EDIT: It's back there, nevermind :D Solarius (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New suspect

Spiegel reports police are looking for a Tunisian man: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/anschlag-in-berlin-polizei-sucht-tunesier-a-1126931-amp.html. Fences&Windows 10:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my recent addition on this a little bit, working in the Spiegel Online source. Thanks for the link! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to redundant version

User:Nergaal keeps on reverting to a version of the lead that redundantly calls the attack suspected terrorism twice. Could someone please deal with this? Nergaal can't even be bothered to explain these bizarre and pointless reverts. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipate more drama than it's worth it, but preemptively I will list a long list of edits by Curly Turkey that by themselves would not be worrisome, but considering the amount of them and the tactic generally employed of "curating" the existing information in the article in a very obviously biased manner, I would not be surprised if it turns out he significantly altered the shape of the article with his own perspective or agenda, preventing other editors from building on existing informations added by multiple other editors. Here is a list I quilt in haste: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. These are edits I noticed at a quick glance and there might be others, but I think most of them are explicit in their intent. Also, any admin passing by should be aware that the editor in question has been blocked at least 2 times on edits at Charlie Hebdo shooting article, a very closely related topic. Also: [40], [41]. Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I anticipate more drama" is what he says, folks, and he intends to make sure of it (such as with violations of WP:TALKNEW). His first piece of "evidence" is me removing something not in the cited source as per WP:V. Nergaal still hasn't explained why he reinstated redundant information in the lead, no matter how many times I've called for an explanation. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editor removed the text: "Berlin Police later confirmed that the Polish driver was found shot dead in the hijacked truck." with the edit comment "that's not what the source says", while the link removed quotes: "23:42 According to some media, the police confirmed that the Polish driver was shot. His body was in the cab of the truck." Either crass carelessness or deliberate misrepresentation of facts. Either way, there are 20 some edits on this article showing similar behavior. Nergaal (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the live update at the site added that information after I reverted. When I reverted, I was correct. You're trying way, way, way too hard, and only proving you're here for the drama. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line—Nergaal has editwarred to maintain redundancy in the lead. I'm not going to play this game with him. Can someone else please fix it? I'm leaving this mess behind to continue researching and generating content. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey's version looks better to me here, as it is less redundant and clearer. I've reverted to that version. No comment on the drama beyond that though! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: So "a truck-ramming attack killed 12 people" You are saying the truck rammed the bullet into the Polish driver making him the 12th victim? Nergaal (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be misreading that quote as "a truck killed 12 people"... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: A truck-ramming attack consists of a car running over people. Polish driver being shot is distinct from "truck-ramming attack". And you say the current version is clearer? Nergaal (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, you never seemed interested in talking about it until someone called you out. Of course, I've called you out any number of times over the redundancy, and you still refuse to address it. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gobble, gobble! Nergaal (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! So you've 4rred rather than 3—and still won't answer about the redundancy. Not that I expect you ever to address that. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 person not injured by truck; was first responder

Only 48 people were injured by the truck. No. 49 was a first responder who was hit by a wooden beam, when one of the stands hit by the truck collapsed some time later. That's what President Gauck stated in an interview after visiting the injured in the Charité hospital today. 84.162.52.159 (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Amri

Anis Amri is a public figure and there is a bounty on his head. I suggest that we mention him in the article.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He does not appear to be a public figure in the Wikipedia sense, and far from being convicted, does not appear to have even been charged with a WP:BLPCRIME. TimothyJosephWood 17:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." That is the definition of a public figure in Wikipedia sense. And as far as I know, a "multitude of reliable published sources" mentioning him.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the individual's name is only known in his (comparatively weak at this point) connection to the incident, and inclusion of his name in this context directly implies that he is likely to have committed a serious crime. He is not a public figure in the sense that the allegations would be notable even if they were untrue, compared to, for example, if Angela Merkel were accused of a crime, a person for whom there is not merely multiple sources, in the sense of more than one, but a multitude of sources, in the sense of a profuse number of diverse things. This latter is the sense of the word as linked to by WP:WELLKNOWN, meaning a public figure to an extent that it would provide legal protection in the case of a libel suit. TimothyJosephWood 18:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons subsection

Under Investigation, there is a sub-section labelled Weapons that says...

The culprit killed 12 people (11 of them with a hijacked Scania R 450 semi-trailer truck) and injured 49 by plowing through the market.[30][31] The hijacker is believed to have stabbed and fatally shot the original driver, Łukasz Robert Urban, with a knife and a small-caliber gun, respectively.[32] The weapons are still missing.[7]

I deleted this, someone re-added it. The number killed and how is already covered under the Fatal hijacking section. Repeating them here seems pointless. The only additional point is that the weapons are missing. So I suggest dumping this section and just putting that info elsewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's normal to have a weapons section under terrorist attacks. See the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting as an example. The weapon section there is mentioned in the article AND in a specific section. And just stop deleting whole sections that has been edited by many users. If you think a section should be deleted, discuss it on the talk page. Wikipedia is a common project - not a one-person-delete-action.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't operate on consistency or precedent. What is the benefit to our readers of repeating this information? --John (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Berlin_truck_attack&oldid=756073827"