Talk:2023 Hamburg shooting

Requested move 10 March 2023

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: consensus to move the page to 2023 Hamburg shooting at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Hamburg shooting → ? – "Hamburg shooting" is incredibly broad and does not give a clear detail as to the shooting itself. Personally, I'm not opposed to Hamburg Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall shooting or Königreichssaal Jehovas Zeugen shooting, or even the article's previous title (2023 Hamburg shooting). elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd go with 2023 Hamburg shooting, as it is very broad and adding the date to the title should be fine. Tails Wx 03:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that 2023 Hamburg shooting is the better title as it's more specific. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

+1. DecafPotato (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Prepending the year is common and should suffice for specificity. -- WA1TF0R^䷟ 11:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

That is what I've boldly done in the meantime. - L'Mainerque - (Talk - Signbook) - 12:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:NAME and WP:COMMONNAME. The media refer to it as "Hamburg shooting", not "2023 Hamburg shooting". The year disambiguator is totally unnecessary as there are no other articles in Wikipedia that it might otherwise be confused with - see WP:NOYEAR. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, "Hamburg Shooting" is too vague. 〜Festucalex • talk • contribs 11:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support 2023 the comment about the media not referring to the year is moot, they are news media covering a current event, this is an encyclopedia. Hamburg is a 1,200-year old city with 2 million inhabitants, this is not a Columbine or Hungerford that will be forever defined by this event. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• The title Hamburg shooting is too broad, i belive the Page title should be 09,03,23 Hamburg Shooting, if more shootings are to come, or the street name should be included (cant find it at the moment).
  sorry for bad english please tell me if i made mistakes 95.130.163.169 (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Support; yeah we haven't had a Hamburg shooting ever, but it's preferable to have a year in here. Plus Hamburg is a big city, and it's likely to have multiple shootings unlike other famous cities with shootings like Uvalde or Parkland. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If this is the first one Wikipedia knows about in 1,200 years, what makes you think another is likely in our lifetimes? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Various factors actually, such as the rise of Germany's far right, the inherent fact of the Schengen area, etc. The title is too vague as well and should have some sort of disambiguator. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Support. I don't see the issue in adding the year. Mooonswimmer 19:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose 2023 This is the only notable Hamburg shooting. No reliable source calls it the 2023 Hamburg shooting, it's original research. The year doesn't explain anything about its nature, as "mass", "Jehovah's Witnesses" or "Kingdom Hall" could, it's just clunky and lazy. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  How does WP:OR apply here? Mooonswimmer 00:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Some are trying to present material indicating this event is called the 2023 Hamburg shooting. No reliable source calls it the 2023 Hamburg shooting. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  The issue with ignoring this rule is that it makes Hamburg seem like a place that has had so many shootings over the years that disambiguation is needed. Makes people wonder about the others. There are no others. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose because this highly-publicised shooting is the only notable one in Hamburg. The title doesn't need lengthening. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Issue is what happens if another mass shooting happens there? Then you'd have to go back and re-edit the pages. It's short-sighted to not properly name the page now because you think it won't happen again. 209.128.7.206 (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

On that basis, we'd include the month in the title to account for the possibility of another notable shooting happening in Hamburg this year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support The common standard for naming, per the WP:MOS, is to use year and location. Thus, 2023 Hamburg shooting is the appropriate title, regardless of whether there's been any other shootings at the location. Silverseren^C 06:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Except the year isn't need in this case per WP:NOYEAR. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say that this is significant enough to fit into NOYEAR. Hamburg is a BIG city, a lot larger than most people realize, and "Hamburg Shooting", while marginally easier for comms between Wikipedia editors, doesn't help our readers as much. If the title was much more localized, such as a specific district, then there's a stronger argument to invoke NOYEAR. Think of it as events where just mentioning the place name in most contexts refers to the incident, such as Stoneman Douglas or Sandy Hook in the US. Hamburg's size as a city makes NOYEAR less helpful for our readers. Same with @Buidhe's comments on there being other shootings in Hamburg. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This is Hamburg's only notable shooting. None of the others have or should have articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You're potentially bludgeoning again; remember what happened the last time you did just this? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

By writing relevant replies in the correct place? If there's a rule that says something like the maximum number of comments any editor is allowed to make in a discussion is two, please direct me to it. If not, don't criticise me for doing something that you often do. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Support 2023, as the articles about other deadly incidents in Germany, which have never happened before, also include the year in the title, such as 2016 Berlin truck attack -What can I do for someone?- (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The 2016 should be removed from that title because it's Berlin's only notable truck attack. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You are making too much sense. They will not listen to you unless you stop doing that... - Woodrow 2600:8806:A310:9D00:4C00:DFDA:1A01:CF38 (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support disambiguation. Searching for Hamburg shooting and filtering pre-2023 results makes it clear that this is not even the only shooting in Hamburg in the last few years that received international news coverage, There was also a lot of shooting during the capture of Hamburg in 1945. (t · c) buidhe 11:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody will write an article about those first two stories (and the third is this one). If we needed to tell a mass shooting from a police shooting or single suicide, we'd use words like "mass" or "police" or "suicide", not 2021, 2022 and 2023. The capture of Hamburg is already disambiguated by the word "capture", and nobody's worried its broad yearless title makes anyone forever associate the city with that. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support adding 2023 or other disambiguator - The current title "Hamburg shooting" is quite vague and broad, as well as sounding quite current event driven. - L'Mainerque - (Talk - Signbook) - 11:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Silver seren. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support 2023. Improbable as it may be, it is not out of the question that another Hamburg shooting might happen in the future, and then we will have an unnecessary problem – whereas another Hamburg shooting in 2023 is very improbable (given the frequency in the past). --Jossi (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't it even less likely that another Hamburg Jehovah's Witness hall shooting will occur than another 2023 Hamburg shooting? I mean, it's only March. And when was the last time a Kingdom Hall was shot up anywhere? The reliable sources are using it. Come on... InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support 2023 per reasoning by Buidhe and others. – 82.23.242.26 (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Jehovah's witnesses do not believe in individual foretelling of the future unless the Bible itself...so the shooter was not a JW but some one who was in the line to become one...the article needs a serious rectification 154.122.208.231 (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Fusz was a former JW, which is clearly stated in the article. However, that has nothing to do with this discussion about its title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You did it again. You're incorrigible. I like you. - Woodrow 2600:8806:A310:9D00:4C00:DFDA:1A01:CF38 (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support 2023 Hamburg shooting unless another major one happens this year. Claiming this isn't its WP:COMMONNAME or that it's WP:OR show a fundamental misunderstanding of how we name articles about incidents like this on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm well aware of the way things go around here and know I'm part of the minority who aren't happy about the majority ignoring such basic rules with impunity. That said, I'm glad I can still occasionally voice my reasoned discontent without fear of a severe shushing. Many things once thought cool have gone out of fashion, and this too shall pass, but the sympathetic part of me will find some small joy if so many of "you people" get your way again in this regard for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shooter

Is there any confirmation yet about whether the shooter was among the dead? 2001:4430:5081:B91E:DCCE:5C8E:9421:50A8 (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Also what race was the shooter and lets wait until police investigate the shooters background to see what his/hers motive was. 95.130.163.169 (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

According to a press conference that is currently airing the shooter is indeed among the dead due suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vtfsobnf (talk • contribs) 11:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Pics & Location

The 35 y/o perpetrator is reportedly named "Philipp" ("published a book in English about God, Jesus and Satan") [1]

[2]

"He describes himself on his website as 'multicultural' and 'an avowed European'." [3]

Gun shots from outside of the building through a window by perpetrator filmed by a local resident [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:25C0:6C8:B8F6:E428:62B1:85E4 (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

[5] [6]

In the building to the left of the crime scene (Deelböge 15) is this painting business (incl. vid) [7] [8]

In these photos, the building of the crime scene (Deelböge 17) is captured on the right side of the pics [9]

[10] 2A02:8109:25C0:6C8:B8F6:E428:62B1:85E4 (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Perp's Name

The perpetrator's name is Philipp Fusz [11], even his website, where he refers to himself as "CEO", "operator" and the like, is still online https://philippfusz.com/. He posted a sensational success story about his consulting business on LinkedIn four hours before the attack: "After over two months, I can determine from my sales report that my book has a 100% satisfaction rate. No returns, however there are samples or used in the market. That is quite an astonishing record! Who else has a 100% satisfaction rate?" [12] 2A02:8109:25C0:6C8:F894:C4D5:8814:E92A (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for finding more info. Yes we can all be happy to know he left the World 100% satisfied, a record I cannot [yet] boast to. Wood Row Rev222 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)