Talk:2025 Mannheim car incident

Requested move 3 March 2025

2025 Mannheim car incident → 2025 Mannheim car attack – The event is better described as an attack based on available sources. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Support as opener "Incident" is a weird euphemism for what was quickly reported as an attack by reliable sources. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dreameditsbrooklyn, can you supply links to sources describing it as an attack please. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The first four RS we currently cite call it an attack, and the fifth calls it a suspected attack. More can be found by checking recent RS, which are abundant. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

They're not very convincing:

1. Sky News says, the police response in the city centre close to the scene of the suspected attack is considerable.
2. DW says, a German man, is being investigated for murder and attempted murder in the attack.
3. CNN says, Police have not yet said whether Monday’s incident was a deliberate attack.
4. France 24 says, a 40-year-old German man was arrested over the suspected attack, Investigators at the scene of the suspected attack in Mannheim.

We really need a stronger consensus amongst the sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The thing with German media is that they skirt around labeling these events too early. But they are referring to the driver as a perpetrator (not suspect) and calling the collision a "Todesfahrt".

https://www.fr.de/panorama/auto-rast-in-mannheim-in-menschenmenge-massive-haeufung-dieser-taten-durch-toetungsfantasien-zr-93605611.html

https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/polizeieinsatz-in-mannheim-buerger-sollen-innenstadt-meiden-100.html

https://www.morgenpost.de/panorama/article408467605/was-wir-ueber-die-todesfahrt-von-mannheim-wissen-und-was-nicht.html

https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/polizeieinsatz-in-mannheim-buerger-sollen-innenstadt-meiden-100.html Rubintyrann (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dreameditsbrooklyn, can you give the relevant quotes from these please. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You can use a keyword search in your browser to find the relevant uses of the word "attack" after clicking the reliable sources we've cited in the article. By way of one example, Reuters calls it an attack. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC) Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dreameditsbrooklyn, I wanted to see the quotes you thought supported your argument from the four German-language sources you linked to. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

That was not me Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dreameditsbrooklyn, whoops, sorry. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

no worries, I'll monitor RS as this develops. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rubintyrann, can you give the relevant quotes from these German-language sources please? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, media and government are refraining from using labels.

The tagesschau liveblog repeated the sentiment that it was "unknown if it was an attack or an accident" from midday, but in the evening also quoted Mannheim mayor Christian Specht "It is not an accident situation, but a great tragedy", which unfortunately also isn't saying much.

Most, including WDR, FR and Welt are using "death drive", but made comparisons to the Munich attack last month and talk about a "copycat crime" in Mannheim.

FAZ and stern are calling it a "rampage drive".

SWR and an ARD report explicitly call it an "attack", in the same vain as either a rampage killing or terror act.

All are referring to the driver as "perpetrator", with a minority calling him "suspected perpetrator". General consensus is settled on deliberate over accident, but avoiding use of "attack", like they did in Munich, for now.

The German article currently has "Todesfahrt in Mannheim" as its title and is describing it as a car-ramming attack. I'm mostly in favor of letting the title stick until at least tomorrow, when police are likely to issue an official press statement. Rubintyrann (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Support I guess the "incident" bit was used in the unlikely case that the collision was somehow accidental, but police have pretty much confirmed it was intentionally after the shootout with the suspect. Rubintyrann (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rubintyrann, "incident" is neutral as it includes deliberate and accidental. That is appropriate until we know for sure which it was. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair point, given that it's very much an unfolding situation still. It can wait until more information is officially provided. Rubintyrann (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

A week later, and now there's a general consensus that the drive was a) intentional and b) meant to be a rampage killing, as seen by the language shift from "Todesfahrt" ("fatal drive") to "Amokfahrt" ("rampage drive", just for distinction from "Amoklauf" i.e. rampage killing, usually referring to mass shootings). Other articles where the same descriptions are given are named "[city name] car attack" or just "attack". German wikipedia also settled on the term now. And the reasons why there was an unusual amount of hesitancy to characterise it as such compared to other mass casualty events by the news is also coming under fire.

News is already going under so the most recent examples are from 11 March:

State media like ARD and SWR using the same wording ("Amokfahrt in Mannheim")

Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock referring to it as "Anschlag" i.e. attack with terror motives ("mit Blick auf den jüngsten Anschlag, erneut in Mannheim", in light of the most recent attack, once again in Mannheim) Rubintyrann (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Support as in law enforcement terminology, the word "incident", on its own, implies a situation needing police attention that was not a crime. To be consistent with other articles where vehicles were driven into crowds, "attack" would be a better word in the title. However, the car was being used as a weapon to attack a "crowd" of people, so I wonder if some other word than "car" should be in the title, as the car was not attacked, but did the attacking. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

No, "incident" is neutral as it includes deliberate or accidental. Most road collisions start as incidents and then, based on court findings, are ultimately classified as an offence of some sort or as an accident, or whatever. We don't start by calling every road collision an attack until proven otherwise. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I think "incident" minimises what happened and is actually non-neutral in this situation. What happened is that a vehicle collided with people, causing injuries. That is usually considered a traffic offence in most countries, and is usually not considered accidental, but inconsiderate, careless, reckless or dangerous driving, depending on the degree of injury as a result of the collision. To say this is an "incident" suggests a "minimising the offending" point of view. Cameron Dewe (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe, but we do not yet know if it was any of those things as there has been no court case and no guilty verdicts yet declared. See WP:BLPCRIME which says, A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. An "attack" is a deliberate violent act intended to hurt someone - we do not know if that was the case here. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@DeFacto: However, this debate is about naming the event. Its title should explain what happened. What WP:BLPCRIME cautions against is naming a particular person as the perpetrator before they are convicted. We know an attack happened because people were injured or killed and that wording is used in both the sources and the article, too. To use an euphemism in the title is imprecise and a form of denial. If you can find another word or phrase that succinctly describe a vehicle being driven into a crowd of people, causing injuries, I would be happy for that to be used as part of the article title, too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe, yes. But we do not know yet that it was an attack and not an accident. Sure we have the 'views' of officials, but not yet a conviction - so whether it was an attack is not verifiable. BLP applies to identified or identifiable people, and it we say it was an attack we imply a crime was committed, not to mention that most days the name of the arrested person is added as the perpetrator. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The fact is a vehicle collided with a crowd of people. We don't need to know if it was accidental or deliberate. If you do not like the word "attack" find a better word or phrase that describes the situation. "Incident" doesn't do the job. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe, if we don't know if it was deliberate, how can we call it an attack? An attack is a deliberate act. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

But we also don't wait for a court ruling when the majority of RS are using a different word and when the perpetrator has been arrested on murder charges Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dreameditsbrooklyn, WP:BLPCRIME says, A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction., which means we do wait for "a court ruling", and ignore press speculation. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The press aren't speculating. They and investigators are calling it an attack, and we need to follow RS in this case. If the weapon used in a high profile murder is a gun, we don't call it an "incident" or a "shooting incident" Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The press do not know for sure what the court verdict will be, so they are speculating. A shooting is rightly called a shooting incident if it is not known whether it was a deliberate act, see Rust shooting incident. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

So you'll agree that before we close this move request with the supports in favor of attack we can at least call it a vehicle ramming incident? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dreameditsbrooklyn, I'm sure that the closer will follow the relevant policies and guidelines when closing this discussion, such as WP:RMCIDC, which makes it clear that, Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.. So not only deciding the policy-based consensus, but also whether any new name resulting complies with WP:NPOV per WP:NDESC.

I'm not sure "vehicle ramming" is neutral either. "Crash" might be though, and was used in the Wimbledon school crash article where blame was not established. "Mannheim market car crash", perhaps. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

And also whether it complies with WP:RS, which demand we call this a vehicle ramming attack... anyway, let's see what happens. I'm happy with "crash", it's less euphemistic and more WP:PRECISE than what we have now Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I am happy with "crash" - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Support I agree with @Cameron Dewe's argument, especially the first sentence. "the word 'incident', on its own, implies a situation needing police attention that was not a crime." (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 11:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The article also seems to use "attack" at certain points. "Incident" implies a lack of deliberacy. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 11:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Acer-the-Protogen, our article is written by Wikipedia editors and is not considered to be a reliable source. "Incident" is used by most reliable sources when referring to the event - it neither implies "deliberacy", or lack of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify. I meant that we should probably settle on which word to use, as there's some flip-flopping. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 20:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Support. RS using "attack":

• Reuters: The suspect has not been questioned yet as he had to undergo medical treatment after shooting himself in the mouth with a blank-firing gun after the attack.
• The Guardian: Merz says Mannheim attack is a 'shock' and a 'stark reminder to us'
• CNN: German authorities say a car-ramming incident in the southwestern city of Mannheim that killed two people Monday was a deliberate attack

--Un assiolo (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Un assiolo, what about the reliable sources using "incident", don't they have equal weight?

• Sky News: Police spokesperson Stefan Wilhelm said the incident unfolded on Monday....
• Independent: One man has been arrested following the incident on a pedestrianised street....
• The Telegraph: Olaf Scholz, German Chancellor, on Monday condemned a deadly incident in which a driver ploughed a car into a crowd....
• The Guardian: Police say no evidence that more suspects were involved in incident which left several people badly injured.
• BBC News: The incident occurred at around 12:15 local time (11:15 GMT), Mannheim police said.
• CNN: Monday's incident comes as Germany celebrates "Rose Monday"....
• ABC News: Police said a suspect was arrested shortly after the incident.
• DW: The suspect was detained following the incident.

And most of those articles used the term repeatedly. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Supports appear to have consensus and the attacker has now been charged with murder. https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-police-charge-man-double-193329072.html. Can an uninvolved close the move? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Your Guardian and CNN links are the same ones I posted. They use "incident" for elegant variation, but they clearly classify it as an attack. Your DW article: Authorities identified the suspect as a 40-year-old German man from the from the neighboring state of Rhineland-Palatinate. He is under investigation for murder and attempted murder in the attack that injured at least 11 others. Your Telegraph article: CCTV footage of the suspected attack showed a black Ford driving at high speed towards Paradeplatz, a pedestrianised square in Mannheim’s city centre. Your BBC article: Nine months ago, also in Mannheim and only a few blocks away from where Monday's attack is believed to have taken place, an Afghan man stabbed several people, killing a policeman. Your ABC article: The two people killed in the attack have been identified as an 83-year-old woman and a 54-year-old man. That's seven out of eight of your own sources using "attack". --Un assiolo (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Un assiolo, all of the sources I gave used the word "incident" at least once, and some of them used it many times more - that is the point I was making - to counter your support for using "attack" simply because 3 RSes used it. Sure there was a limited use of "attack" in some of the exampes I gave too, but why would we choose "attack" over "incident" when the latter is more commonly used, and especially when we do not yet actually know whether the collisions were deliberate and an intentional act? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@DeFacto: We do know it was deliberate; the police said as much. "Attack" is a more specific descriptor than "incident". I maintain that the word "incident" is used solely for elegant variation. Un assiolo (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Un assiolo, all we know is that police said it was an attack. We don't know if the court will accept the police's evidence though, and that is all that matters. "Incident" is neutral, "attack", as with "accident", is not. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NDESC as the current name reflects a neutral point of view as we do not yet know for sure whether it was a deliberate act. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong support: The police reported that the driver intentionally drove into them. [1] Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Stub

Can this article really be considered a stub? To me it seems like there simply isn't much more information available right now, which is why I'd suggest removing the stub tag for now. Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

It isn't a stub at the moment. I've gone ahead and removed the template. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)