Talk:2015–16 New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Weil am Rhein

[1]

I'm not denying at all that every act of violence against women is an act of violence against women, but I don't think this is in the same sphere of what this article is about, apart from the place of family origin of the accused.

The "new dimension" of crime which gave the other events so much attention was that they were in public, in groups, and by strangers. This (a rape is still a rape, full stop) has a different criminal Modus Operandi '''tAD''' (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; note the last sentence: "There is no apparent connection to the mass sexual assaults committed in Cologne on New Year's Eve." See WP:COATRACK. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Why specifically is this tag on the page? Are there neutrality issues outstanding? I'm just concerned that this tag may give the impression that there is debate over whether these events took place. --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 16:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Some figures and specifics were taken from early reports, and latter ones contradicted them '''tAD''' (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Is that really a neutrality question though? Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I solved the issue now by making the conflicting reports explicit. So this is no contradiction of the article anymore, but of the figures given by the authorities or other sources. As far as I can see, it is specified by whom and when figures were given. The template should be removed.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gerry1214 --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 20:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article reads like a Donald Trump ad. Someone please add more neutral sources and quotes.

I know for sure the sources I added (BBC News) is considered reliable. I think it's too early to add a neutrality tag given the fact the article is constantly being edited. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed again. Can we please discuss and give specific reasons and examples of issues before re-adding? --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 11:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 13:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Footnote [6] is unresolved

hey,

the Footnote [6] used so far 4 times in the article is has this message (Cite error: The named reference welt.de was invoked but never defined (see the help page)).

Thanks

--Amanouz (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The original source "Welt Newsticker" won't work. It will redirect to the newest ticker news. So that is probably not a good source. (The first 'Information' in the Box cited by that source is not in the Zeit article). --Det&cor (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: Attacks now reported from Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and Austria

According to Austrian police several attacks are now being reported against women in Austria during NYE committed by immigrants from Syria and Afghanistan. In Finland a group of 1000 immigrants mostly from Iraq reportedly gathered around main railway station and sexually harassed women. [2] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

English links [3] Finnish police reported Thursday an unusually high level of sexual harassment in Helsinki on New Year's Eve and said they had been tipped off about plans by groups of asylum seekers to sexually harass women...Three sexual assaults allegedly took place at Helsinki's central railway station on New Year's Eve, where around 1,000 mostly Iraqi asylum seekers had converged.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This is getting very hypothetical. Firstly, a police reporting a few harassment cases for large cities on the New Year's Eve isn't exactly news-breaking. We're easily within the daily averages for such reports - there are anywhere from 200 to 300 such reports a year in Helsinki, so 3 happening on one of the largest holidays shouldn't be a statistical anomaly. Secondly, for Finland, the latest information does not support a connection between the few harassment cases in Helsinki and the many cases in Cologne. I apologize for not having been able to find readily translated links, but in this one from Finland's national broadcasting company, http://yle.fi/uutiset/helsingin_poliisi_kolnin_hairinta_uhkasi_tapahtua_myos_helsingissa__1_000_turvapaikanhakijaa_asematunnelissa/8576615 , the same police who AFP refers to, says that "At this time, we don't have a clear picture of how organized this has been."

In another bit, http://yle.fi/uutiset/krpn_tutkinnanjohtaja_suomessa_ei_suunniteltu_vastaavaa_kuin_kolnissa/8576981 , the chief investigator of Finland's National Bureau of Investigation says that "In investigation, nothing has turned up that would give a reason to believe in retrospect that anything similar to Cologne (Köln) was being planned"

Seriously, this is a rumor mill, nothing more. Wikipedia's not a tabloid - but this is starting to seem like it was. Tzaeru (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the reported assaults didn't even take place at the Central Railway Station (in Finnish). Finland at least should be removed from the ingress but this whole issue makes the original news source (Australian) seem unreliable. 2001:14BA:21E6:4000:95A5:724D:1825:BFB8 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Similar attack reported in Zurich, Switzerland [4]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3390168/Migrant-rape-fears-spread-Europe-Women-told-not-night-assaults-carried-Sweden-Finland-Germany-Austria-Switzerland-amid-warnings-gangs-ordinating-attacks.html

http://nyheteridag.se/exposing-major-pc-cover-up-in-sweden-leading-daily-dagens-nyheter-refused-to-write-about-cologne-like-sex-crimes-in-central-stockholm/

still serious problems with prose

Particularly in the "Incidents" section.

Just take the first two sentences. First one talks about "the men". What "men"? This noun is just dropped right at the beginning as if the reader already knew everything about the topic. Then the second sentence talks about "the perpetrators". Perpetrators of what? Remember, the lede is NOT the introduction to the article but a summary of it. So first thing, right off the bat, the body text is missing an introduction or background or even a single paragraph which would explain the scope of the topic.

Then the same paragraph talks about groups of "30-40" and then repeats itself but this time talks of groups "2 and 20 people". The wording also leaves it unclear if these are groups of "perpetrators" or victims.

First sentence next paragraphs - similar problem. It talks about police denying that they did not know something. Shouldn't that something that they were accused of not knowing be explained first? Shouldn't the initial police statements come first? This is just a mess. The paragraph clumsily also lumps a bunch of sentences together without any structure. In the middle, between the "sexual amusement" and the "On January 8", it changes topic - in the middle of a paragraph. And then it jumps right back to discussing the ethnicity of the perpetrators. Then you have another sentence with effectively redundant information.

And thennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn we finally get to a freakin' paragraph which finally describes what they hey this article is about. At the end of the section. Remember your basics of journalism some of which apply to any kind of writing: Who? What? When? Where? How? We don't get any of that until this very last paragraph in the section.

Oh yeah, this one's funny too. The paragraph begins with "By January 8...". And it ends with "By January 7...". Last I checked, both numerically and temporally 8 comes after 7, unless we're all currently travelling backward in time.

I'm sorry, this whole section is an an ugly mess, I'm putting the copy-edit tag back on and please don't remove it until the problems have been fixed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Lack of focus, news story

This article has some problems. With its present title, it should exclude sexual assaults other than on New Years Eve and other than in Germany. But it presently says in the lede "In addition, similar assaults in Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland were reported." It also has the subtext "Asylum seekers are evil sexual predators who conspire to defile and rob German women." Very few things are referenced to reliable sources to satisfy verifiability, and it seems to be based on rumors. It smacks of a Conspiracy Theory. Ideally it would go to AFD as a news story per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME, but past experience is lots of neophyte editors would chime in and note that it was covered by lots of news sources and that they LIKE it. Edison (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You may create articles for the other countries, but for the moment I think it is enough that it is clarified that similar events in lower numbers happened also in other European countries nearby. You may interpret the article as you like - but it is based on dozens of reliable and verifiable sources. And if you would name the "rumors" or "conspiracy theories" it would be very helpful. This would put more substance to your arguments.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I quote the talk page of the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia: "Wir haben bisher keine validen Zahlen über Opfer, Taten, Täter oder Festnahmen." which says , via machine translation "We have no valid figures on casualties, acts, perpetrators or arrests." by German editor Logo at 14:44, 6. Jan. 2016 (CET). Instead we have constantly changing and inconsistent information which lacks validation from reliable sources. We do not have " dozens of reliable and verifiable sources." We need to get this right, since it has major geopolitical implications, and feeds into narrative of fear-mongering demagogues in more than one country. Edison (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

So are you arguing that we delete the article? It was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal the other day. The challenges we face here are the same as the challenges Wikipedia faces when dealing with any other evolving story. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Many news stories are on the front pages of newspapers for a short while, until the next sensation comes along. See WP:NOTNEWS. But I noted that too many people are fascinated by shiny things, so I would not nominate it at this time. Too many new editors would chime in , not understanding that we are not "News Of The Week." If groups of men had groped/robbed women in Times Square on New Year's Eve in 1932, would we have an article about it? Notability does not consider timeliness. Maybe in a couple of years if coverage peters out. The thing that might give it notability is the political consequences such as forced retirement of a police chief, new laws, new policies toward deporting asylum seekers who commit crimes (at present they must commit a crime which results in a 3 year prison sentence to get deported, per a German source), or right wing Europeans or Americans seizing on the reports to get votes. So far there are lots of conflicting and hazy reports which seem to contradict each other. Often, with a sensational story, 90% of what the media reports early on turns out to be wrong. Edison (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Cologne police chief resigned. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was alluding to. So far we have no secondary sources, just initial news reports, which are primary sources. A good secondary source might look at what happened in prior years at mass events (not just New Years, but sports events with drunken yobs) and might analyze whether it was actually a planned attack. The adequacy of security cameras, the adequacy of the numbers of police, compared to other large cities when there is a mass gathering, and their response is still hazy. Can German media use something like the US Freedom of Information Act to get official police documents as to who was detained or arrested, and on what charges? Edison (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2016

Source 6 should be http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2016-01/koeln-verdaechtige-asylbewerber-bundespolizei-silvester 73.187.81.35 (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The original source "Welt Newsticker" won't work. It will redirect to the newest ticker news. So that is probably not a good source. (The first 'Information' in the Box cited by that source is not in the Zeit article). --Det&cor (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Question: What exactly is wrong with the current Welt.de source? I can't read German very well, but I put it through Google Translate and it appears to verify the information it stands next to. We can add the new source in, but why does source 6 need to be replaced entirely? Mz7 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: I have added another instance of the Zeit source you mentioned, but I haven't replaced the Welt.de source. Let me know if I have missed anything. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to FOXpedia

It was later revealed by police that 18 of the 31 suspects checked by the Federal Police on New Year's Eve were asylum seekers.[6] None of them had been accused of sexual offenses before then.[13]

Correct: None of them had been accused of sexual offenses.[13]

This is just plain wrong! Non of the 18 asylum seeker were accused of sexual offenses, that evening (or ever as far as we know). They were accused of robbery e.g.. (The sexual crimes are done by some of the other 13 of the 31, allegedly). All Sources (including the cited).

--Det&cor (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

See above under "up to now".--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The article does not claim the injustices were committed exclusively by refugees. It does, however, note credible eyewitness accounts of victims as reported by reliable sources including The Guardian, The New York Times, BBC and Deutsche Welle. Hardly "FOXpedia" as you call it. Whamper (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It was later revealed by police that 18 of the 31 suspects checked by the Federal Police on New Year's Eve were asylum seekers.[6] They were suspected of mayhem, robbery and "insult on a sexual base", as sexual assaults could not been linked to them so far.

Wrong again. If 'they' are the 31 it would be correct. If 'they' are the asylum seekers it is just wrong. The Federal Police said clearly: no sexual insults linked to any of the 18 asylum seekers. Suspects: nine Algerians, eight Moroccans, four Syrians, five Iranians, an Iraqi, a Serb, an American and two German. All of them might be asylum seekers, except the two Germans and unlikely the American _{(the other way around there is a low single digit number of Germans who successfully request asylum in the US in some years, probably because home schooling is illegal in Germany)} . Just because the second source talks about foreigners it doesn't contradicts the clear statement of the federal police. Nowhere anyone says it is just not yet to be done to link any sexual insult what so ever to these 18 asylum seekers (Except of you, sir). They may be robbers, but there is just no single singe they could be sexual "insultans". If anyone would suspect them, the federal police hadn't made the statement.

The eyewitness are not linked to these 18 assylum seekers. --Det&cor (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is about 'New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany' not exclusively '31 persons accused of non-sexual crimes 18 of whom are asylum seekers'. The article does not take a position on whether or not the sexual assaults were perpetrated exclusively by asylum seekers. As already stated above, the article notes of credible eyewitness accounts of sexual assault as reported by reliable sources including The Guardian, The New York Times, BBC and Deutsche Welle. The reported incidence of widespread mass sexual assault remains regardless of what these 31 persons have been accused of (or in this case, not accused of).

Please also note that the article documents a current event. We do not know all of the facts yet and the case has yet to be definitely resolved. You state Nowhere anyone says it is just not yet to be done to link any sexual insult what so ever to these 18 asylum seekers (Except of you, sir). - Your English here makes no sense, but from what I can decipher, you appear to be accusing me of making a definite assumption as to who the perpetrators of the sexual assaults are. Your accusation is incorrect. Please do not assume others you address are a 'sir'. Whamper (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It was later revealed by police that 18 of the 31 suspects checked by the Federal Police on New Year's Eve were asylum seekers,[6] which were suspected of grievous bodily harm, robbery and theft, while sexual assaults have not been linked to them, but offenses classified as "insulting on a sexual base".[10][14]. Source[14]: (Headline, google translate, thus you don't like my english) "31 suspects, the federal police investigation for the assaults on New Years Eve, 18 of them are asylum seekers. Sexual offenses are the latter but not charged". PS Other source won't say any diffrent. --Det&cor (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay i c the problem: correct translation: but the latter [the asylum seekers] are not accused of sexual offenses. (no source at all for insultina on a sexual base for that particular incident by those) --Det&cor (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"The 31 suspects are not believed to have carried out assaults that were sexual in nature, according to AP." [5]. It was later revealed by police that 18 of the 31 suspects checked by the Federal Police on New Year's Eve were asylum seekers,[6] which were suspected of grievous bodily harm, robbery and theft, while sexual assaults have not been linked to them, but offenses classified as "insulting on a sexual base" . There's just no source for the struck out part. (And yes that is all I am talking about and it comes back again and again in the article without a source.) --Det&cor (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with what you say about parts of that sentence not being covered by the sources, Det&cor, but would you mind raising this issue above in the #up to now section, where we've been discussing exactly this in a content dispute that now undergoes dispute resolution because nobody stepped in? Thanks. --PanchoS (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of victims?...

I noticed that in the info-box it gave the number of victims as approximately 200, but I don't know that this is accurate. The latest information that I've seen is that 121 have been reported so far just in Cologne.

I know that with sexual assaults in general, typically only about one in three are reported to the authorities. And it would seem that in this sort of context, where the same crime and perpetrators have already been reported by others, and where the sheer number of simultaneous perpetrators makes identification of individual assailants much more difficult, that, if anything, additional victims would be *less likely* to want to come forward and go through the ordeal of being questioned about what happened to them and filing a report. So then, IMO, it would be reasonable to extrapolate that the real number of victims is probably at least 600, and likely quite a bit more.

But of course this sort of estimation and extrapolation can't be included in the article unless/until it's been published in a reliable source. In the mean time though, can we edit to make it clear that there's a high degree of uncertainty regarding the actual number of victims, or at least make it clear that the number given is the approximate number of victims who have gone through the process of filing a report, and that the number who have not filed a report is unknown?... -109.40.19.34 (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Au contraire, spurred by media reports, victims have come forward, that normally wouldn't have come forward. --Distelfinck (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Distelfinck - Of course it's speculatory either way, and I'm not sure exactly what sort of process a woman has to go through to make a report and be counted among the official victims. I think that your argument might make sense in certain other circumstances - for example if there is a single person (or perhaps a small group of people) who has been identified and charged as a serial rapist. Under such circumstances, this would provide a good reason for other women to come forward. But if a woman is one of many who was simultaneously attacked by say a dozen men in a large crowd and doesn't feel that she can readily identify any of them (this is what a number of the women quoted by media have said), then what would be the motivation for her to come forward? To spend hours talking with the police and reliving the horror of the attack, but not to do anything which would actually give the police any more information than they already have that would help apprehend the perpetrators?...So that the official tally will simply be 122 instead of 121?.

In any event though, this is largely beyond the point, since like I said, it's speculatory either way, which can't be included unless it's been published in a reliable source. In the mean time though, unless there is a good objection, I will go ahead and edit the article/info box to make more clear that there is uncertainty, and that the numbers given are based on those victims which have come forward.

Finally, another thought on the uncertainty: it would seem that the definitions and self-reporting is also likely to be less than ideal under such circumstances. For every woman who was more seriously assaulted, there was probably at least one other who managed to escape with only being subjected to more minor groping. So then how many of the women in that latter group would count themselves as victims and file a police report? Also, the media has reported that, though they weren't the primary target, a number of were also physically assaulted in order to separate them from their girlfriends or other female friends they were with. How many of these men filed police reports and were then counted among the victims? In any event, it's clear that there's still a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty regarding the number of victims. -109.40.19.34 (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Bias of title

This title focuses entirely on the sensational element of this event (SEX). The main crime reported seems to robbery and the sexual assaults, which are described appear to be acts of groping being used as a tactic to distract woman from acts of robbery. There were two allegations of rape made. I don't know about crime rates in other cities but I image that on New Years Eve there were many acts of robbery, perhaps also accompanied by groping designed to distract victims from the act of theft.

The use of "sexual assault" is also quite difficult since it's directly translated from the German legal code which states that in German "sexual assault" is "Whosoever coerces another person to suffer sexual acts by the offender." That is a unique definition which may not agree with sexual assault definitions from English speaking countries.

I suggest a title such as New Years Eve robberies and alleged sexual assaults in Cologne.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

An allegation of a crime named as a crime is not biased if the suspects are not named and pointed out as being found guilty before trial. See Category:Unsolved murders '''tAD''' (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

up to now

The Zeit article states that no asylum seekers (at all) were accused of sexual assault "up to now". About the 18: (= the 2/3 of the 31, the 'majority', the asylum seekers). "No sexual offences has been linked to them". The 'up to now' is kinda wrong.

That article works very good with google translate:

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/silvester-uebergriffe-in-koeln-innenministerium-gibt-details-zu-koelner-verdaechtigen-bekannt-1.2809907

https://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sueddeutsche.de%2Fpolitik%2Fsilvester-uebergriffe-in-koeln-innenministerium-gibt-details-zu-koelner-verdaechtigen-bekannt-1.2809907

--Det&cor (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The "up to now" is necessary. The persons were mostly suspected because of robbery - this was what the police officers could see and persecute more easily than the sexual assaults in the crowd. Several eye witness reports say so. Which does not mean, that the perpetrators who were checked have not committed such assaults. The article in Die Zeit seems to clarify this better than the one in the Süddeutsche Zeitung. It says: "Sexualdelikte seien bisher nicht mit den Asylbewerbern in Verbindung gebracht worden." ("Sexual offenses were so far not linked to the asylum seekers.") [6] That does not exclude that this will possibly follow during the future investigations.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Based on this important information, I removed the claim "Perpretrators: Majority Asylum Seekers" from the infobox as it is clearly misrepresenting the sources. Major topic of this article are the sexual assaults, and if not even a single asylum seeker has been linked to any sexual offenses, then this is massively misleading. Please help taking care that this misrepresentation isn't reintroduced again. Even if contradicting information should appear somewhere, perpetrators cannot be only be specified in the infobox if supported by unambiguous, reliable and verifiable information, if possible by official sources. --PanchoS (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand the whole issue. There are enough victim, eye witness, police reports that clearly link the assaults with the asylum seekers as made clear in the rest of this wiki article. The article in "Die Zeit" only says, that the 31 checked by the Federal Police (and there were many more checked and suspected by the local Cologne police) are so far not accused of sexual offences, which as I said may change during the further investigations. I strongly recommend to read eye witness, victim or police reports or other well founded sources about the issue before editing this article. This is not meant with disrespect, just as an necessary condition.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I introduced a new source, which should bring more clarity: "Bei den Straftaten handele es sich vorwiegend um Körperverletzungen, auch schwere Körperverletzungen sowie um Eigentumsdelikte wie Diebstahl oder Raub. Sexualdelikte seien als "Beleidigung auf sexueller Basis" eingestuft worden. Es seien Ermittlungsverfahren eingeleitet worden. Die Bundespolizei ist ihrem Auftrag gemäß nur innerhalb des Kölner Hauptbahnhofs sowie in dessen unmittelbarem Vorfeld eingesetzt." ("The crimes were primarily personal injury, even fatal injuries as well as property crimes such as theft or robbery. Sexual offenses were classified as "insulting on a sexual base". Investigations were initiated. The Federal Police is in service in accordance with its assignment in the Cologne main train station and within the direct vicinity.")--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I add the source also here: [7] --Gerry1214 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

By January 7 the number of complaints to the police in Hamburg increased to 70 -> see http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/uebergriffe-an-silvester-108-anzeigen-in-hamburg-41.447.de.html?drn:news_id=567265 108 complaints in Hamburg, 41 in Düsseldorf (...) According to police, most of the perpetrator were foreigners. -> http://www.welt.de/newsticker/news2/article150768600/Zahl-der-Anzeigen-in-Koeln-laut-Spiegel-auf-rund-200-gestiegen.html According to Spiegel, number of complaints in Köln rose to about 200. JeremyThomasParker (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your new source doesn't bring any more clarity on this aspect. I've not yet seen any reliable source stating that the majority of perpetrators of the sexual assaults were asylum seekers. I'm not saying this is unconceivable, but as long as it hasn't been clearly and unambiguously established, we can't pretend it to be a fact. So while we can refer to these allegations in the main article text (where we can use reported speech to clarify it's not yet confirmed), we can't include it in the infobox which covers unambiguous and confirmed facts only. --PanchoS (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your edit is not right. The Welt says clearly "robbery", it says "schwere Körperverletzung" which translates to "mayhem" or "grievous bodily harm", and it says at least "insulting on a sexual base". I will correct that. And it is clear from other sources in the article, that asylum seekers were involved. Der Spiegel says that, Arnold Plickert the chief of the Police Union says that, several policemen from Cologne say that. What you try to do here seems to be kind of nitpicking to deny the facts given by the sources.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gerry1214: What you call "nitpicking" actually means taking care the sources are correctly represented. The ZEIT article clearly states that asylum seekers were suspected to be involved in injury and theft, but not linked to sexual offenses.
Secondly, the WELT article does specify "injuries, including grievous bodily harm, as well as offences against property like theft or robbery," but it doesn't specify who was suspected of these offenses, nor does it say who was charged with "sexualized insults". Your repeatedly introduced allegation of asylum seekers being charged with sexual offenses clearly isn't backed by either of the two sources, but is a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS.
I'm therefore removing your unsourced statement again, reminding you that another reintroduction of your WP:OR would constitute WP:DISRUPTive editing. Bring a single reliable source that unambiguously links asylum seekers with sexual offenses, and we can talk about it to see if it is sufficiently reliable. --PanchoS (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. There is no consensus for your aggressive editing denying reliable sources as Die Welt. The facts are clearly shown here word by word. Die Welt backs everything I written. Die Zeit doesn't contradict that. Die Welt clearly says "32 Straftaten, zu denen 31 Tatverdächtige namentlich bekannt sind." ("32 offenses relating to 31 namely known suspects"), then talking about "the offenses" and "the suspects" as I cited above. So it specifies very clearly who is suspected. Also you are removing another well sourced sentence which comes close to vandalism. Just read the Welt-article sufficiently and understand it.--Gerry1214 (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. As I'm not interested in an edit war with you, we need a WP:Third opinion on this issue, unless anyone steps in here. I'm filing a request there. --PanchoS (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's further discuss it. Beyond that I'm sure the following days will bring more detailed information so that we indeed don't need to start a war on words.--Gerry1214 (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Gerry1214's version and I'm at a loss to understand PanchoS's removal of it. It's sourced, and the source is eminently WP:RS. Jeppiz (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources being "eminently WP:RS" is just a red herring. Of course the sources are reliable. Nobody disagrees with that. Point is that the claims, as repeatedly introduced by you and Gerry1214, are not given in any of the two sources or any other reliable source. I filed a WP:Third opinion request to help us settle this content dispute. --PanchoS (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

But it does say that. Perhaps you want to interpret the police saying that most of the involved they checked were Syrians as unsure as there has not been a trial, but that is to add your own POV interpretation. The source is RS and the source says most of the involved were recent Syrian immigrants. It may be right or wrong, but that's what the source says. Jeppiz (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It does say that a majority of suspects are asylum seekers. But it does not connect sexual delicts with the asylum seekers amongst all suspects, let alone the subgroup of Syrians. Only the ZEIT article specifies what is being held against asylum seekers, naming it as "injury and theft", and explicitly ruling out any sexual delicts. --PanchoS (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It clearly connects "insulting on a sexual base" with the suspects and it clearly links the suspects to these and all of the other offenses as I have shown above. So there is no reason for the tag "not in the citation given".--Gerry1214 (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The WELT article doesn't connect "insulting on a sexual base" with asylum seekers, so it doesn't contradict the ZEIT article which explicitly states no sexual delicts were connected with asylum seekers. So your claim is not covered by any o the two sources, and at least the tag has to stay there until new sources give more insight. --PanchoS (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"but offenses classified as "insulting on a sexual base"." not given in an any source. All sources say unambiguous "no sexual offense". (It is so apparent that I can only hope the reason is the language barrier. But I can't see that either. It is just not there. I don't understand it at all. There is an information given without a source (and there are thousand of sources in German and in English) and it seems to be common understanding that there is no source -the tag is there for I don't know 10 hours-, but the unproven information is persistent. Furthermore I hardly doubt there is a source according to the tone of the statement by the federal police (the statement would even be wrong, legally. Because an insult is -at least- a misdemeanor ("Vergehen", 185 stgb i think). The police states no sexual delicts "Sexualdelikte"(Zeit) (not the civil wrongs, obviously. In English maybe criminal wrongs?). And evan a parking ticket is a delict (a "criminal" wrong in english I guess. But a parking ticket is not "criminal" it's an Ordnungswidrigkeit (don't know the English term). But it's still a delict. It's just wrong. It's my first wikipedia-article edit. So I back up for now (This is way to time consuming) --Det&cor (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you can read German, but please do me a favor and translate the following from the WELT article: "Bei den Straftaten handele es sich vorwiegend um Körperverletzungen, auch schwere Körperverletzungen sowie um Eigentumsdelikte wie Diebstahl oder Raub. Sexualdelikte seien als "Beleidigung auf sexueller Basis" eingestuft worden. Es seien Ermittlungsverfahren eingeleitet worden." [8] And for Pancho: I explained in detail here how it is connected, but it seems to me, that you don't want to understand the source. This is the last time I will repeat this, because it is ridiculous to explain simple clear sentences from a newspaper article.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not new. The article is about the 31 (minus the two German). It doesn't say that the sexual attackers were asylum seekers. It does only accuse any of those 29. The other articles clarifies that information: there was no sexual attack done by the 18 asylum seekers. --Det&cor (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I repeat it especially for you as you seem to read articles and discussions selectively. Cited from the Welt article: "32 Straftaten, zu denen 31 Tatverdächtige namentlich bekannt sind." ("32 offenses relating to 31 namely known suspects"), then talking about "the offenses" and "the suspects", while it gives in detail with nationalities the suspects for these offenses: the 31 persons which by majority are asylum seekers. So the 31 are suspected of the crimes named in the article. If you continue nitpicking by saying: we have an American sexual offender here and asylum seekers who only picked flowers in the flower shop, then I have to cite Lemmy: "Come on. P*** off." ;) And read the rest of the sources. Please.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Following a quick idea, I replaced in the article "them" with "the suspects". I hope this satisfies your search for the odds and ends. ;)--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gerry1214: Please return to civil behaviour. Four-letter words will only bring you in trouble, they won't intimidate the contributors you're swearing at.
Again, exactly this is my argumentation:
(1)The WELT article doesn't say a word who exactly was charged with the sexual delicts.
(2) The ZEIT article explicitly says asylum seekers were not charged with any sexual delicts.
→ It is not covered by any source that sexualized insults nor any other sexual delicts were linked to asylum seekers. Quite the contrary. Your wording however still suggests exactly that.
I'm not so sure anymore if I'm too blue-eyed, but for now I continue assuming you're acting in good faith. Therefore I want to assure you that I'm not trying to whitewash what happened on New Year's Eve. What happened there is scandalous on several levels. At the same time I can't and won't accept POV-pushing by misrepesenting sources – deliberate or not. --PanchoS (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I put forth a proposal to settle our dispute. It's a real compromise as I still think the last half-sentence should be removed, but I could live with it and move on. It's my last word though. Within reason, the source can't be bent further towards your POV. --PanchoS (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Everybody, please see the new section I recently added below. With the recent coverage in the Independent this issue can finally be put to rest! -109.40.141.1 (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this Independent article is a game-changer, turning our dispute moot. Though it remains to be seen whether one or the other source misinterpreted something or whether this just reflects recent developments in investigation, I will readily replace the contentious sources by your new source. If all sides can accept this, we can consider the dispute ettled at this point. --PanchoS (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorporated the new Independent source in this update, so if @Gerry1214, Jeppiz, and Det&cor can all live with my wording, I'm ready to withdraw the dispute resolution request I filed. --PanchoS (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks for your edit! Jeppiz (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Changed title

I notice the title of the article was changed to 'New Year's Eve sexual assaults and robbery in Germany' is there a consensus that this is the correct title, sources I've read indicate that the sexual assaults were the main focus of the attacks with the robberies being secondary. If robbery should be in the title then shouldn't it be plural too, just from a grammatical point of view?

I also note that the thefts are listed as thefts but other crimes have allegedly or alleged as qualifiers. Is there a reason they are treated differently? -- Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 21:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a consensus about the title above. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 22:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The events in Cologne are covered worldwide and should be a subarticle. German States of America (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jonas Vinther - With all due respect, I would question the basis of your assertion that "there is a consensus about the title above." I don't see a requested move having been done here, or any of the other sort of processes to ascertain whether there is consensus for the new title. This should usually be done *before* the article is moved. I would ask that the article be reverted to the previous title until/unless a consensus for the new title can be established. -109.40.141.1 (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

A few thoughts on why the recent title change is not a good one:

1. The sexual assaults have received the lion's share of the coverage and analysis on the events thus far. Were it not for the sexual assault aspect, it's unlikely that the story would have received such widespread international coverage and the public outcry which led to the firing of the police chief and Merkel discussing changes to Germany's immigration policies.

2. Following WP:COMMONNAME, our titling should reflect the fact that most headlines on the event to date have focused exclusively on the sexual assault aspect of the event, not on the robberies. The press coverage has indeed *mentioned* the robberies as well, and our article certainly should, but it was almost never part of the *primary focus* or *headline*, so it shouldn't be in the title of our article either.

3. This is more a grammatical nitpick, but even if we were to include the robberies in the title, we should at least have some grammatical consistency. I don't see any reason for "assaults" to be in the plural and "robbery" to be in the singular. Had this proposed title been subjected to a discussion process then surely someone else would have noticed this. So I would cite this as further evidence that the recent title-change DOES NOT reflect consensus at all, and was instead simply a hasty and unilateral action on the part of one user (or perhaps a small group) without getting input from the rest of the interested community. -109.40.141.1 (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

For the reasons I and 109.40.141.1 have given above can we move back to the earlier title or discuss and reach an agreement on the correct title? Apart from anything else the plural/singular mismatch will need to be fixed, but my preference is 'New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany'. --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 16:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Orange maintenance tags

We've seen several rounds of disruptive maintenance tagging, and it has to stop. This article is currently listed on WP:ITN. That's why I'm here. I'm one of the admins who watches over that page. The article was placed on the home page once it was determined that it met the criteria. If there's a problem with the article serious enough to require an orange maintenance tag, we will pull it from the home page. This cannot be done by mere fiat of one or two editors. Please explain here what's wrong and if there's a consensus, I will allow the article to be tagged, and pull it from the home page. This has to be a thoughtful, deliberate action, not a reaction driven by one or two persistent editors. Please discuss. Jehochman ^Talk 01:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out to you, "listed on WP:ITN" is no reason to remove legitimate tags. What is disruptive is you edit warring over the tag, when as an administrator you should know better and lead by example. If there are problems with the article then they need to be fixed. Adding a tag alerts both readers and editors and invites them to help fix these problems.

If you had actually been paying attention rather than engaging in drive-by blind reverting, you'd notice there are TWO sections where these problems are ALREADY discussed. There's in fact a dedicated section right above which I started. It is extremely disingenuous for you to ask people to "Please discuss" when this is actually the first time you've bothered to ... you know, discuss. It's even more disingenuous since previous requests directed at YOU to engage in discussion were met with derision, condescension, assertions of faux-authority which you do not have, and personal attacks [9] - in short a refusal to actually participate in discussion. So take your own advice first, then give it to others please.

I don't care if you pull it from main page, other editors can make that decision.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

And frankly, it's dishonest to write "I will allow the article to be tagged" on the article talk page right after you've removed it for the third time. Also, consider this your 3RR warning. I'll do the formalities and leave on your talk page as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I've pulled the article from the home page because of your tagging. If another ITN admin comes along and reviews the situation, I am pretty sure you will be warned, but I will leave it to them. Please do not post to my talk page again under any circumstances. This is not VolunteerMarekOpedia where you get to exercise unilateral control of the home page by tagging articles you don't like. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are edit warring and tip toeing up to the 3RR line then policy requires that I leave a warning on your talk page before reporting you. If you do break 3RR and I do report you then I will also post the required notification to your talk page. Otherwise, don't worry, your talk page is not a place I enjoy visiting anyway.

And I'm sorry but tagging a single article that has obvious problems does not constitute "exercise(ing) unilateral control of the home page". You are being ridiculously hyperbolic. It's merely just that - tagging a single article which has obvious problems. Which still haven't been fixed. If you are so concerned about the, uh, "home page", then fix the danged problem.

And let me repeat it one more time because you are completely ignoring the main issue: there is no policy what. so. ever. which says that an article which is linked to from the main page cannot be tagged for problems. That would be a really stupid policy, which is probably why it doesn't exist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I've also voiced my opinion regarding this article. I can see the reason why Jehochman pulled it from the main page, but I also see VolunteerMareks point of view. I think the main problem with this article in particular is that coverage of the incident and the confirmation about what realy happened (as opposed to the contradicting statements) is met with slow progress directly affecting the "Quality" of the article. But at the same time, its coverage in media is globe-wide, making it definately news-worthy material. And as VolunteerMarek explained, although the "Goal" of the ITN page is to adress quality unambiguous news events, it does not rule out the fact that newsworthy events can be covered with insufficient of the desired quality. Which leaves the question: "Is removing an article which suffers from this, not newsworthy anymore?" I think not. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Clash of cultures vs. Racism debate

@Monopoly31121993 and Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: Would you guys please both stop "discussing" controversial issues via edit summaries of reverts, and instead discuss it with us here on the talk page? Feel reminded of the WP:3RR rule.
Monopoly, it's been a good idea to include more material on the public debates unfolding, including the issue of racism, but it is a very bad idea to build your argument on spurious blogs that got everything wrong – that's why I reverted you once, and might also be the reason why others reverted you several times. Please stick to reliable sources, don't add WP:OR, and resolve disputes here on the Talk page. Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with removing that information (most recently removed here [10]) and keeping the victorygirlsblog.com blog source [11] it's based off out of the article for the following reasons 1. It's a blog. 2. Although it's a blog it could potentially still be a reliable source if it meets further strong criteria but its not a blog of a news outlet and its editor doesn't claim to have any professional journalistic qualifications in its "about" section [12] 3. Only 2 of its 14 writers claim to have journalistic qualifications. 4. The qualifications of the writer of the article are simply that she is a grown up army brat, travelled in Europe and Asia, is a wine enthusiast, a Betty Page fan and likes soft animals. 6. The requirements for being a writer of the blog are that you are conservative and send them a story that that they like. 7. The original way the Wikipedia editor tried to get the information into the article was to mimic the claim the blog title is saying: "German Feminists Claim “Muslim Rape Gang Story” Just A Cover For Racism" but just by reading the source that's obviously not true. It quotes 1 tweet of 1 feminist of note but she is English not German, so she can't be an example of German feminists doing anything. It then quotes another random tweeter that is of no note, leaving me the reader thinking, "so what, I can find 1 single random tweeter of no notability that says any random thing I want to write a blog article about?". 8. The claim in the blog is wrong, gives no evidence that it is of particular weight or representation in the German feminist community or representative of a particular media view and doesn't really give a firm indication of why it deserves to be in this article. 9. The inserting editor initially included it as an anchor point to include further information into this Wikipedia article on a theme of about how rape claims are being used to justify racism and that was his reasoning in the edit summaries when reverting it back and including the other information with it [13][14][15][16], but that's not even what the blog source is saying, it's actually mocking that view. So the only way to keep it in the article without getting immediately reverted was to switch to mimicking what the source content rather than title actually says, so now we're left with this weird, surreal paragraph in the media reaction section that essentially says a couple of people tweeted something and this blog thinks what they tweeted is rubbish - which will leave anyone reading it thinking "OK, so why on earth is this in the article then"? Year Zero is a concept (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice read… so yeah, that's the long version of "spurious blog that got everything wrong." Guess we'll find better sources to cover the ongoing debates… --PanchoS (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Bielefeld ?

I (native German) have intensely read almost all articles at FAZ.net, spiegel.de, zeit.de and sueddeutsche.de , also some at regional newspaper sites like ksta.de, kr.de, rp-online.de, and have also watched the main news TV (tagesschau.de, heute.de) . Bielefeld wasn't mentioned.

this detailed article (regional newspaper) writes Auch drei Raubdelikte verzeichnete die Polizei, unter anderem wurden zwei Frauen in der Innenstadt die Handtaschen entrissen. (three robberies; two of them: the handbags of two women were snatched) - it does n o t write that they suffered Sexual harassment . The combination of Sexual harassment and Robbery is (here in Germany) seen as one characteristic that makes the events in Germany so special.

=> I propose to remove Bielefeld from the article (including the mark on the map). --Neun-x (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I added more on Bielefeld as of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. In this source sexual offense ("kissing") is clearly mentioned.--Gerry1214 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. this article (phrased cautiously) contributes to the thesis that Bielefeld is 'worth mentioning' in the wp article. It quotes a police report saying that policemen in der Silvesternacht mehrfach Hilfestellung bei der Durchsetzung des Hausrechtes durch die Diskotheken geleistet hätten. Die für alle Beteiligten nicht vorhersehbare Aggressivität der beteiligten Männer gegenüber den Sicherheitsdiensten war erheblich . --Neun-x (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Status quo title restored by EdJohnston. Will be simpler to just close this and anyone advocating for a new title can start a new RM. Jenks24 (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

---

New Year's Eve sexual assaults and robbery in Germany → New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany – This is a move back to original title. The move was done without consensus and the current title has grammatical and other issues, see Changed title above. I did try to change myself but the original page was edited after the redirect so I can't for technical reasons. Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 17:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Tough question, I think the best approach is not to determine which usage is predominant among ALL rs's, but rather look to the best. Newspapers like The New York Times, Wall Stree Journal, The Times, Financial Times, TV networks like BBC, and NBC/ABC/CBS. Offhand it looks like all of them mentioning robberies, with UK newspapers using a clearer sex-assault frame than US. NYT headline mentions "attacks on women" and first para says "groped and robbed"; WSJ headline and first para only refer to "assaults", though third para describes the complaints as being "largely for sexual assault"; The Times headline refers to "scores of sex assaults" and first para says victims complained they were "robbed, sexually assaulted or raped"; Financial Times headline declares "Cologne sex assaults" and first para describes it as a "shocking mass sex attack". Without looking at TV, I think on balance it is being framed as a mass sex assault more than a mass mugging. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Point of process - I've gone ahead and moved the page back to the previous title. The move had been done without consensus, so it should not be the starting point for a move discussion. Consensus should be required to move the page away from the previously established title, *not* to move it back there after it had been moved without consensus. If some people aren't happy with the previous title then they should start another RM, and it can be moved again if/when there is consensus for this. -Helvetica (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Update - I had tried to moved the page back to the old title, but apparently the move didn't go through because the old title still existed, as a redirect page. An admin probably needs to do the physical move. Nonetheless, my larger point above stands. The article should be immediately moved back to the old title, as soon as technically possible, and the previous title and *not* the current one should be then be the starting point for any move discussion. Consensus should not be required for *anything other than* the previous title. -Helvetica (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I restored the article to the shorter title per a request at WP:RMTR. The voters here will decide what the ultimate title will be. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2016 (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.