Talk:2018 Freiburg gang rape

Another Freiburg case

Greywin there's been another noted case in Freiburg: https://www.dw.com/en/freiburg-murder-trial-truck-driver-admits-attacking-woman-jogger/a-41476498. There are plenty of sources in German. AadaamS (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Like FAZ: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/verdaechtiger-im-endinger-mordfall-wird-ueberwacht-15055399.html AadaamS (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, yes I know the case (also mentioned by DW source here), a standalone article would be justified. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no lack of notable cases.--Greywin (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

RT source

I can find absolutely no "Russian propaganda" in this deleted paragraph, RT seems a reliable source here, describing reactions that it found in the internet, as it is common in many other media outlets: In the internet there was criticism of the immigrant policies, the authorities failing to deport criminal foreigners and of the "inadequate" coverage of the case in the German media, such as Tagesschau.German immigration policy under fire after gang-rape of young woman in Freiburg</ref> Per WP:BREITBART, there is no consensus that RT is not a reliable source. And it is needed here in the reactions section, cause it paints an applicable picture of a sentiment in the internet and considerable parts of the German population, which shouldn't be denied.--Greywin (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Note, that the criticism of Tagesschau (see the article) is very similar to the Ladenburger case.--Greywin (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"It is not generally reliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Which means that it is not generally unreliable, as you claimed. In this case we can easily check this, as RT just cites statements. If you can prove that this is fake news, then we should not include it. If you can't then we should.--Greywin (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Greywin note that none of the sources in German, or German sources in general, have generated these sorts of conflicts in similar articles. It could be eaiser to focus on those as they are in good standing. A few international sources are good to prove notability, but for the bulk of the facts & commentary I think German sources are the better ones. AadaamS (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Correct, German sources are better in describing the facts; but in most cases they fail to describe what a considerable part of the population thinks and says about the case for reasons of so-called "political correctness". As the local population is in fact the affected group, it should be represented in the reactions section. But you are right, if we find a better source for this than RT, we should prefer it. If not, I would think to come back to it.--Greywin (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think comments & condemnations by the mayor, or protest marches and vicils are most likely to be reported by local German media. There is nothing to say that international media are more likely than German media to report protests & resistance among locals. For instance the mayor of Rome came out with a powerful statement on the Mariottini case, that I interpret is her speaking on behalf of the people. AadaamS (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Why no article in German?

Why is there no article on this topic in German wikipedia? Deb (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Deb theck the language links, there appears to be a de.WP article now. Kind regards, AadaamS (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's been created by an anon (presumably User:Greywin) after he was blocked from English wikipedia. I wonder why it didn't exist before? Deb (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about whether there is one in German than whether there should be one in English. Rape is, sadly, common; this looks like a potential WP:NOTNEWS situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Quite. I don't mean to use OTHER STUFF as an argument. My thought is that, if it wasn't considered notable enough for someone to create an article in German Wikipedia as soon as it happened, why does a native German speaker (whose English is far from perfect) choose to create an article here rather than there? Other language Wikipedias have different standards for inclusion and I'm not familiar with them all. So I would ask AadaamS and other German native speakers whether the same arguments are going on over there as are going on here? Deb (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's be honest, there's not currently any evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage here. Every ref is local and from within the same 3-day window. And while I do feel icky about chopping off information about any rape, WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply here. About the only reason this particular crime is getting the encyclopedia treatment seems to be so people can use it to advance a false narrative about immigration.Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Focus (German magazine) is not local news and they published 3 november, outside the "window". AadaamS (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

T-Online pulished a news item dated 3 November in the Home > Panorama > Kriminalität section, that is the "crime" section, not "local news". AadaamS (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Deb my German is usable, but I am not at all a native speaker of the language. AadaamS (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, a false assumption on my part. Deb (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Focus has got into notable levels of trouble before for racist crime reportage. So my "getting the encyclopedia treatment so people can use it to advance a false narrative about immigration" statement seems apropos. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK Focus is WP:RS. Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung is not "local news" either, it's a 6h drive away from Freiburg and in a different Bundesland altogether. AadaamS (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Well you know, if a crime happened in Halifax and got reported on here in Charlottetown the same levels of "not local" would apply. But I doubt anyone would try to use the Charlottetown Guardian to provide notability under WP:SUSTAINED in contravention of WP:NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

But let's back up. What's the case via WP:EVENTCRIT? Before we take this to AfD let's talk it through and see if there is a justifiable reason beyond "German Press has a Crime Section" Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Imho an AfD is preferable. AadaamS (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to hear you explain the grounds for the article via WP:EVENTCRIT before I decide if AfD is appropriate. It seems better to give the article a fair hearing. Because so far what I'm hearing is "occasionally the media reports other crimes committed by refugees even though a conservative paper describes the town as liberal" and that's weak notability grounds.Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source for t-online.de being a conservative newspaper? the German T-Online article says rather that t-online.de is Germany’s biggest news portal. AadaamS (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

An AfD is "a fair hearing" imho. AadaamS (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you justify this article per WP:EVENTCRIT yes or no? Simonm223 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath

An editor has repeatedly tried to add a section called "Aftermath" which says absolutely nothing about the crime this article is about, and the claimed relevance is that an article says that the police announced that crime after this one, which is not a connection between the crimes. It should not be added unless some relevant relationship is shown. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

An editor has repeatedly tried to remove reputably sourced material which is clearly connected by WP:RS. There is no "relevant" or "unrelevant" relationship. There is just a relationship, made by WP:RS. So please stop removing from now on.--Greywin (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources do not claim that this the aftermath of the other event, just that this is something else that occurred in the same city. Relevance is judged all the time in editing Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources do. Just read them. And stop removing sourced material.--Greywin (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Nat Gertler, you are completely correct. There's no suggestion in the article or the sources that these two are connected or that one is a consequence of the other. It could be that the article creator does not understand the meaning of the English word "aftermath". Deb (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And you are here just to hound me again and again, I repeatedly told you to stop. I understand the meaning of the word aftermath, not sure if you do. But the journalists who wrote the WP:RS do, even if you want to deny.--Greywin (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The journalists don't use the word "aftermath". There were three sources listed, two of which were actually the same article run on two sites. That article just said that the announcement took place after or following the other event, not because of it; it is not an aftermath. The third source doesn't mention the subject of this article at all. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

They use the word "after", this indicates an aftermath. Keep on quibbling.--Greywin (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

To the contrary, the word "after" only implies a sequential chronological relationship. Aftermath implies a causal relationship. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Then we can simply change the section header. But let me guess, that is not what you want, because you want to deny the connection made by WP:RS.--Greywin (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

What connection made by the source? The source claims no connection except that it's the same police force and the two events did not happen simultaneously. If that's going to be a "connection", we can just pipe the police blotter for the city right into this article. It tells us nothing about the event at hand. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The connection is that it is one of several sexual crimes that happened and were publicly discussed in Freiburg in the recent months and were noted at least nationwide, see also the background section where such a connection is made by highly reputable sources Deutsche Welle and Die Zeit (and I can find much more sources making this connection).--Greywin (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information about the suspect

The main suspect has become a public figure, plenty of sources name him, even his father has given an interview. So stop protecting suspected rapists even determined by a DNA test just to deny unwanted information!--Greywin (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• "A public figure is a person such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely concerned by the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society." That does not seem to apply. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Greywin is using far too broad a definition of WP:WELLKNOWN so let's stop the edit warring please. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of sources name him, so he is. But the suspect is not even named anymore. So it doesn't matter, if he is or not. It's relevant information about the case, which you obviously want to deny, because you just don't like it.--Greywin (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

BLP standards even when the individual is not specifically named. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, then no article about current crimes, terror attacks etc. would exist. You really want to protect a suspect clearly proved guilty as a gang rapist by a DNA probe and mentioned over and over throughout the press? That would be absolutely ridiculous.--Greywin (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't call somebody clearly proven guilty until they're actually found guilty by a court. This. Is. Basic. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

We present key information given by WP:RS. This is much, much more basic.--Greywin (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Not in violation of WP:BLP we don't. Seriously put down the WP:STICK. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no violation of WP:BLP as there is no name, so nobody can feel offended, except users who dislike what the WP:RS say. Better refrain from denying key information.--Greywin (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Look Greywin You've run up about six reverts now by my count. This is such clear edit warring, and from your edit history it's not the first time. Hell, it's not even the first time on this page. I'm going to suggest one last time that you really should self-revert, read WP:STICK, read WP:RGW and maybe take a break before one is enforce on you. Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't take advice from people denying key facts and protecting gang rapists.--Greywin (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And obviously want to spread their socialist ideology in the project, according to their user page. Obviously politically motivated action of you.--Greywin (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You'll know I'm trying to spread socialist ideology when I start talking about collective ownership. For now I'm just trying to prevent the use of Wikipedia as a platform for POV pushing about the purported guilt of a suspect in a politically charged crime. Now I'll thank you to please WP:AGF and not turn this page into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Greywin: our policy on information about living persons says that you may not add information to articles about people who have been accused but not convicted of a crime, when that is all that they are known for. It's really very simple: this information will not be added. End of story. I have protected the page to give everyone an opportunity to politely discuss other changes to the article, such as the related incident you added. Please do so. If you only want to call other editors names then you'll be blocked from editing instead. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Are the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter and the US mail bomber already convicted? (Could give you dozens of more examples.) No they are not? Oh, seems to depend on the person (or the ideology?) if WP:BLPCRIME applies or not. Strange. Biased.--Greywin (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE would apply here. We're not talking about those people on those pages, nor are we beholden to the consensus reached on those pages. Simonm223 (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Again: Completely biased.--Greywin (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, and I suggest to reach a consensus on this page to include the material, because no one is named and WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply (even unlike in the examples linked by me).--Greywin (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. Which is disputed. And your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour is making it hard to actually have a conversation about this. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not my interpretation, it is a fact that no name is mentioned.--Greywin (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear... Your interpretation of the policy that it matters you excluded the suspect's name in your proposed edit. I mean, I thought that was obvious. It's been disputed that excluding the suspects name is sufficient to circumvent WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPREMOVE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It can't be disputed. You can't offend someone or harrass him when he is not named here. In addition, it is absurd to fear that a suspected and DNA probed gang rapist, whose name is published by the largest newspapers in Germany, Switzerland and so on, can or deserves to be "protected" in any way. Absolutely absurd.--Greywin (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And, this added as a personal statement, he is protected: by the jail keepers, and vice versa the latter protect the people from him, and both is good and a fair legal standard. He doesn't need protection from Wikipedia or Wikipedians.--Greywin (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It can't be disputed? But several people here are doing so. WE ARE ACCOMPLISHING THE IMPOSSIBLE! In actuality, BLP is not limited to statements where the specific name is given. "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia". --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe a word of this, given the links to other examples above. There are hundreds, if not thousands of articles containing reasonable, well-sourced material about non-convicted suspects, so was this article. The legal practice is apparently completely different! And you want to "accomplish the impossible" coincidentally in this case? Smells very, very fishy.--Greywin (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Greywin has decided they'd rather rail on about a left-wing conspiracy than participate in the discussion, so I have blocked them and unprotected the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Martin Horn

Two things: first off, if he's notable I'd suggest we shouldn't be linking to a disambiguation page where he's a red-link. Secondly why is (independent) included after his name?

Proposed edit: Remove wikilink from Martin Horn until such time as an article exists for him and delete (independent). Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Independent" indicates, that he is member of no party ("parteilos" in German). The concept should be known throughout the world. It is also common to name the party of a politician and to use the "ill"-template.--Greywin (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not a convention we typically use in inline prose on English Wikipedia, though it might be on dewiki (I don't know, I don't edit there). As for disambiguation you'd be looking for Martin Horn (politician), which is a redlink, and it's odd to have a disambiguation page populated only by interlanguage links. In English the notability standard suggests that mayors are not interently notable unless they're the mayor of a major city or are notable for other reasons. WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests "mayors of cities of at least regional prominence", and I don't know if Freiburg im Breisgau qualifies (honestly don't know, I'm not that familiar with German demographics). What I'm saying is why not write the article, or translate it from dewiki? That solves the redlink problem. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not common for a politican to have their party affiliation (or lack therof) next to their name inline. Especially in municipal politics, where, in many regions, there isn't any official party mechanism. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess you could use wording something like "Martin Horn, the Independent mayor of Freiburg"...? Deb (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Other crimes are not due in this

You can't go and insert information about other unrelated crimes into this, they're entirely WP:UNDUE and this sort of dog-whistle has no place in Wikipedia or even polite society. Simonm223 (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I am sick of seeing all these individual articles (and great long lists) of "crimes committed by immigrants" when crimes committed by Germans don't seem to be considered worthy of note by the German media. That's one reason why I asked whether there is much discussion of this general topic on the German-language Wikipedia, or indeed any policy or guidance on the matter. I feel I am witnessing a concerted effort by one or two editors to get immigrants' crimes more widely publicised by creating English-language articles about them. To me, that is not in the spirit of NPOV, even if the sources quoted are reliable ones. Deb (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's call it what it is: WP:TEND with an explicit anti-immigrant POV. Edits like this are a mockery of neutrality. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Crimes noticed

greywin (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly trying to insert the claim that one of the suspects had committed a certain number of prior crimes. The source he is using says that a ministry has "aufgefallen" - that's "noticed" in most translations - that number of crimes. Noticing is not conviction. Per our BLP standards, "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." The earliest version of the insertion flat out stated that he had committed those crimes, but even the later versions merely claiming that the government source claimed he had done those crimes are problematic. I am removing the claim again, and it should not be reinserted until the BLP matter is cleared and consensus is reached. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is Greywin's MO. Deb (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

An official statement by the State Ministry of the Interior is problematic? Why?! It is official information given by an authority! If anyone's rights were violated by this, this would be a scandal in Germany indeed. But this is obviously not the case, because an authority gives only material to the press which is checked if anyone's rights are harmed or not, because otherwise legal proceedings against the suspect would be in danger. They have experts to check this (unlike some Wikipedia editors here, they are NO experts at all and should be much more careful to judge material they obviously don't understand). This deletion of sourced material is completely ridiculous and a scandal itself, if it should continue.--Greywin (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Therefore tagging the article for POV. An article which fails to include official information from reputable sources can't be neutral - it is biased by editors who want to deny undeniable facts.--Greywin (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It's problematic under our BLP guidelines, yes. For the reason described above. We do not have the same set of standards as a German ministry. If you would like to see BLP standards change, this talk page is not the place to do that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Greywin With a bit of patience the article can be updated once there is a conviction. Per WP:WIP: Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is WP:NODEADLINE. Also this didn't happen in Sweden so they are unlikely to be acquitted. In the long run, the editors who bring the best quality sources to a dispute generally prevail in talk page and AfD discussions. It well be the case that enWP guidelines are stricter than the publishing code of media in Germany, not sure how de.WP handles these cases . AadaamS (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be tagged for lack of balance. I had been planning to do it anyway. Deb (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Good you agree that it is biased by not telling all facts about the case.--Greywin (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. The article was biased the moment it was created. Deb (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it was biased from the moment certain people began to remove material sourced by WP:RS.--Greywin (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

So we are not allow to publish crime statistics anymore because they are about living persons who may not have been convicted? This would be the consequence of your interpretation of WP:BLP: Even if a suspect is not named and not identifiable, we are not allowed to publish any "possibly harmful" information about him. So every crime stats and other data material which may include non-convicted people have to be removed from Wikipedia. Not only that we could abbreviate the surname (<redacted>, as German Wiki and many WP:RS do), but on top of this we are not allowed to publish info if we would change the name to John Doe (as some WP:RS do in such cases) or leave it out completely, as we do right now? This is so absurd, that it could be the plot for a sequel of Franz Kafka's The Trial. --Greywin (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

So we are not allow to publish crime statistics anymore because they are about living persons who may not have been convicted? This would be the consequence of your interpretation of WP:BLP - no, actually, it's just crap you made up. BLP specifically makes clear that there's a difference between talking about an individual and talking about large groups. --00:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Who's making up crap here? BLP is indeed valid for persons who can be identified and harmed by gossip or sth like that. Not for official, reliable information published by authorities and covered by multiple WP:RS You will find enough sources to see that he is a person of public interest. --Greywin (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

BLP is valid for those who could be identified, not just for those who are specifically identified. That's clear in our applying BLP to small groups, as well as in many BLP noticeboard discussions in the past. Government claims that someone committed a crime do not cross the threshold quoted above, as a claim is not a conviction. That we specify conviction, rather than accusation, makes it clear that a mere government statement that someone did something is not enough. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Concur. @Greywin: Your comments were a clear and obvious BLP violation and had to be redacted. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

No way, it is sourced by multiple and highly reputable WP:RS like Frankfurter Allgemeine. Stop removing immediately, or I will report it.--Greywin (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Greywin, stuff like "It is official information given by an authority!" really means nothing at all here. You seem to be completely unaware of our own policies. I've posted about this on WP:BLPN; until that is resolved, do not restore this stuff here. It is entirely possible that all of this will be revdeleted, and it is also possible that someone will look more closely at your edits (and, as Deb said, your MO) and decide to take administrative action. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V mean everything here. And WP:TPNO is a very basic principle, too. It is a scandal that material from highly reputable sources shall not only be kept out of the article - it is even erased from talk pages without a comment by User:Primefac while the discussion is ongoing! This is shaking the rest of my belief in this project to the core.--Greywin (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Greywin, according to your edit history you've only been here since February and made a total of 1,493 edits, many of which have been problematic. Your investment in the project is tiny compared with most of those involved in this discussion. You didn't even realise you were shooting yourself in the foot when you tagged the article for lack of balance. Deb (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Greywin has now been blocked based on a WP:BLPN discussion, and a parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-warring_BLPCRIME_violations_after_warnings_and_a_block suggests that that is not likely to be overturned. This should ease matters. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Deb and NatGertler, in both your opinions, does is this crime even notable? Tragic and shocking, yes, but I still think it falls under what Wikipedia is not with only news reports typically of the media cycle as sources. It is also difficult to write on this with a NPOV. But that is just my stance on the issue and would appreciate other views.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Should it have gotten as much attention as it has? No. Rape is sadly common, and the specific attention that this one has gotten has more to do with politics than with the crime itself. Does it merit a Wikipedia article; that I'm less certain of, as the New York Times article indicates that attention would go beyond local crime coverage. Certain crimes do clearly have a place not for the scale or unusualness of the crime but for the attention they are given; the murder of Matthew Shepard, for example. Does this meet that standard? I'm unsure; at this point, I would probably vote neither Keep nor Delete at an AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I voted to delete. However, there is a tightly-knit group of users who have supported Greywin in creating his set of articles. The most that can be achieved is to tag those articles for lack of balance. Deb (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I nominated this article for deletion. I don't think it meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for crime per WP:NOTNEWS but my attempt to get the article deleted failed. Oh well. If somebody else nominates this for deletion I'll !vote delete again with the same justification. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep the article

I have read the discussion above. Let us keep the article as it is now. It was useful to me. Zezen (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"as it is now"?? An article based mainly on rumors instead of the legal checks of the allegations shall stay in its rumor state? Please be aware that the topic is heavily debated in the German media and society, so sources and phrasing should be chosen careful. Now, during the trial becomes visible, that a lot of people just heard something about someone, but haved even been witness. See article of 22nd of July, 2020. --Amtiss, SNAFU ? 11:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Updates needed

The article doesn't reflect the ammount of rumors on which the arrest seemed to be based. Result of the trial is, that several persons were taken into custody wrongly (as there was no proof for the allegations). --Amtiss, SNAFU ? 11:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a curious interpretation of the trial outcome, in which ten of the eleven suspects were convicted. Please provide a reliable source that states that 'several persons were taken into custody wrongly'. Anastrophe (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I read more sources now, so my first message is only partly true and not detailed enough. During the investigations 4 were released from custody, 3 were not under suspicion anymore. Only 8 of the 11 persons were convicted because of rape. The two others I think because of "denial of assistance" ("Unterlassene Hilfeleistung"). Rumors accused up to 15 people and their saviour being part of the crime. A lot of information is currently updated in the german language article. Sources can be found there. If you need a specific one, just ask again. --Amtiss, SNAFU ? 13:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not at all unusual, in a criminal investigation, for some people who are initially suspects are found during the investigation to not actually be involved. That people were mistakenly accused, but then exonerated, shows that the justice system worked as it should. Perhaps it's a language issue, it seems like you are attempting to minimize the crime: "only 8 of the 11 persons were convicted because of rape". "Only"? Eight people were convicted of gang raping an innocent person. Two stood by and watched. This is a horrible crime for which the guilty are justifiably being punished. Again, I may be misinterpreting what you are suggesting. If the only concern is that it doesn't address that several people who were accused, were later dismissed as suspects, I'm not sure quite how important that is to the case itself. As I said, it is fairly routine that some people may be accused but later exonerated after the investigation. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all, with my second statement I updated the first. I don't want to overestimate the relevance of rumors, but with "stood by and watched", I think you are repeating a mistake the media and social media did from the beginning. By calling it gang rape, it became that, but as the court concluded, there were serial rapes, not several people standing in line. Still it is a horrible crime, and at the same time it is also unjust, that people were in prison because of wrong accusations. Wikipedia should not be used to perpetuate the emotions that came with that horrible crime, but also to show up, all that what is related with the crime. And prejudgement is also related with this. So, maybe, if you agree with me, you can check the suggested correction, I will put into the article now. Greetings, Amtiss, SNAFU ? 19:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are going to have to specifically identify what portions of the actual article are repetitions of rumors, and why those portions would faile WP:RS and WP:Notability.

You wrote "but with "stood by and watched", I think you are repeating a mistake the media and social media did from the beginning." Please explain why this characterization is a mistake - two of the men were charged with not rendering assistance, which is the 'nice' or 'formal' way of saying that they were present for the crimes, but did not participate - but therefore guilty of not stepping in to stop the crime. In other words, they stood by and watched, instead of helping the victim.

You also write "By calling it gang rape, it became that, but as the court concluded, there were serial rapes, not several people standing in line." I fail to see a meaningful distinction. What the court described is precisely what the coloquial term "gang rape" describes. Is the suggestion here that it is not a "gang rape" unless the victim is penetrated simultaneously by one or more of the perpetrators? If so, it's akin to arguing that a murder was less of a crime if the victim was stabbed with a steak knife rather than a hunting knife. The distinction is a distraction, and an excuse.

You also write "it is also unjust, that people were in prison because of wrong accusations". I'm unsure whether the *one* person who was exonerated was actually imprisoned or instead jailed - the distinction is minor - but again, this is how criminal justice works. The accusations proved to be false, and he was exonerated. Yes, it is terrible that he was incarcerated while awaiting exoneration, but the alternative would be than an innocent person would have remained imprisoned for something he did not do - or that a perpetrator was not found, and remains free to commit further crimes.

You also write " Wikipedia should not be used to perpetuate the emotions that came with that horrible crime,[...]". You will have to show that what is in the article does _not_ reflect what reliable sources have stated. Descriptions of emotions are valid, and if reported accurately, are not barred from the article.

You are, of course, welcome to edit the article. Anastrophe (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The conclusion "In other words, they stood by and watched" is not valid. They could have known about the situation, but not be helping while being somewhere else. keine Gruppenvergewaltigung, sagte Bürgelin, sondern eine "serielle Vergewaltigung". (Bürgelin is the judge), Eine gleichzeitige Vergewaltigung durch mehr als einen Täter sei nicht sicher nachzuweisen, sagte der Vorsitzende Richter. If you have any source, showing that they were standing by, i'd be happy to read it. I don't want to ascribe smth. to you, but it seems you are lead by your imagination, about the case while it seems that it has been different: Danach sei er wieder nach drinnen gegangen und habe anderen von der Frau im Gebüsch erzählt. - perspective of the attorney: "After the rape, the main suspect went back inside the club and told others about the woman outside". Can you tell me, if that still fits with the term "gang rape"? I think, the differentiation I cited would have not been done by the judge, if it really was like you describe / imagine it. Especially since 2016 there is a law for crimes done by groups: [1]. ("Mit Paragraf 184j wird ein neuer Straftatbestand der sexuellen Belästigung eingeführt. Er richtet sich gegen Personen, die aus einer Gruppe heraus eine andere Person bedrängen, um sie zu begrapschen oder sexuell zu nötigen. Künftig macht sich bei einer Haftstrafe von bis zu zwei Jahren schon derjenige strafbar, der Teil einer solchen Gruppe ist." The verdict would have been based on different offences / laws. --Amtiss, SNAFU ? 22:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You wrote "The conclusion 'In other words, they stood by and watched' is not valid. They could have known about the situation, but not be helping while being somewhere else." First of all, that was my characterization, but it is not characterized that way in the article, so this isn't a meaningful issue. Your characterization may be true as well, but unlikely in my opinion. Regardless, they were convicted of not rendering aid, which is rarely done when someone wasn't intimately involved in the crime.

Yes, I agree, you should not ascribe to me that I'm being 'lead by [my] imagination' -- which is precisely what you've done. I would appreciate it if you strike that comment, as it's uncivil.

"Can you tell me, if that still fits with the term "gang rape"?" Yes, it does - did you bother to follow the link in the very first sentence of the article, that describes what gang rape is?

I'm afraid I do not know the German language, other than the small bits I picked up while watching "Dark" :^) so it is difficult to gather all the details, even with google translate.

We seem to be at loggerheads. I interpret your edits to the article to be guided by minimizing the severity of the crime, which does not seem to be supported by reliable sources (if it were not a severe crime, there would not be an article on wikipedia about it).

I think that your current edit severely minimizes what took place in this incident. The quibble about whether she "reported it" as gang rape is tendentious - the opening sentence merely needs to be reworded to describe that she was gang raped, not what she initially reported. But I'm not going to edit war about it. I think we need some additional editors to step in and discuss. Anastrophe (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all: Just revert or edit the intro. I won't reroll if you accept that the following things are not true or need sources:

• She reported multiple rapes (in the trail she only remembered the first one, she was drugged and probably lost memories)
• There was not a gang rape in a way that more than one person was there at a time. If that was the case, then the verdict would have had something with the newly made law (which was just made for sexual harassment and alike - so there is a convincing reason that your assumption >>"not rendering aid" => gang rape<< is false)

I just made the edits, because I don't have the words to say serial rapes without using the wrong term gang rape in an elegant way. I mean, you do see the title of the page right? This is still pushing into the readers view. That said, we can stick to the sources in which no one of the parties (court, attorney, victim or criminals) is saying that it was a gang rape. If you want that information in the article you need sources for that, do you agree? Also, if you check out archive.ph for the NYT article and the other archived source in English, you will see they are not talking about gang rape at all.

Why would the verdict not include group crime, if there was evidence? The trial was based on circumstantial evidence, so if there was even circumstantial evidence the verdict would have included a group crime. I think they had analyzed over 360 pages of whatsapp messages.

If you want me to check out a specific question in the sources, just let me know. For the question, we are discussing mostly, I have already given you two sources. For the report, I would have to check for sources, but as I said, I actually wish for a rephrasing that removes the need of a source for that (in a way that the intro doesn't make an assumption what she reported and instead the court ruling is used to talk about the multiple rapes).

Last and(!) least (and last time): i tried to explain to you, that I changed my mind about the rumors and their importance. When I first came to the discusssion page, I had only read one article about the ongoing trial (and not the verdict) and older sources. Later I read several more sources, to edit the german language article accurately, which made me see, that some of the statements here were not neutral and belittling the crime. Currently you putting a lot effort to judge me, and too few on the discussion of the facts stated. Amtiss, SNAFU ? 08:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Point by point: As I stated, the intro sentence is badly worded. The article is about the gang rape, what she reported to the police initially is immaterial, as the facts that arose show it was not a single rape. The lead of the article should be a summary of the body. A better intro would be:

"On 13 October 2018, an 18-year-old woman was raped by a 22-year-old Syrian Kurd and then raped by eight other men. In July 2020, the eight perpetrators were convicted of rape, while two additional men were convicted for not aiding the victim."

That summarizes the article. And it even leaves out the apparently offensive term, gang rape.

This comment still suggests you are intent on minimizing the crime: "There was not a gang rape in a way that more than one person was there at a time." I will ask one more time: have you read the article Gang rape? What you described is a gang rape. The victim was gang raped. Please read the definition at the destination article. "Serial rape" is gang rape. A single innocent person was raped by eight men. Whether 'all at once' or one after another, this was by definition a gang rape. The German court is free have used a 'less offensive' term to render the decision. That does not change the fact that it was, with certainty, a gang rape as one is defined.

"so there is a convincing reason that your assumption >>"not rendering aid" => gang rape<< is false)"

I am completely baffled by the above statement. I have never presented such an equivalence, so therefore I am not guilty of the assumption you present. You are putting words into my mouth, then attacking me for them.

" I don't have the words to say serial rapes without using the wrong term gang rape in an elegant way." Why are you intent on finding an 'elegant way' to avoid using the correct term for what took place? That you don't like the term 'gang rape' does not mean that you get to redefine the term in order to avoid using it.

You claim that no other sources describe it as a gang rape. This is patently false and misleading.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-freiburg-gang-rapists-to-spend-years-in-prison/a-54292001

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53517022

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/07/23/world/europe/ap-eu-germany-rape-trial.html

https://www.foxnews.com/world/syrian-migrants-convicted-germany-gang-raping-woman

https://www.euronews.com/2019/06/26/germany-gang-rape-11-men-on-trial-over-attack-on-woman-18

https://www.thelocal.de/20181130/police-arrest-additional-suspect-in-connection-with-freiburg-gang-rape

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/world-digest-july-23-2020/2020/07/23/fcfc884a-cced-11ea-bc6a-6841b28d9093_story.html

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/german-court-convicts-men-2018-gang-rape-18-71939919

"The trial was based on circumstantial evidence" Nonsense. You're saying there was no direct evidence of the rapes? The DNA of eight men was found on her. Perhaps this is the language barrier, but such a claim is an absurdity. One woman, DNA of eight men found on (and in) her. But you need an 'elegant way' to describe it as something other than a gang rape?

Reliable sources have called it a gang rape ever since it was learned that she was gang raped. This should not be 'controversial'. Efforts to try to scrub the term gang rape from the article suggest non-neutrality, particularly when compared with what the sources describe.

So, all that said, up above, I presented a replacement lead for the article, and as compromise, I've removed the term gang rape from it. Is this acceptable? Anastrophe (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should focus on the the nationality of one perpetrator, particularly since the focus of the noise surrounding this was more on the refugee status. Perhaps "On 13 October 2018, an 18-year-old woman was raped outside a discotheque in Freiberg, Germany by a series of men. In July 2020, eight perpetrators were convicted of rape, while two additional men were convicted for not aiding the victim. The case drew public attention, due in part to the refugee status of many of the perpetrators."? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the nationality in particular is covered in the body, that seems adequate. I think it's more reasonable to end it with "The case drew public attention, due in part to the refugee status of all but one of the perpetrators", since that is the fact in evidence. Anastrophe (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should avoid that precision, simply because the reaction to the case was largely taking place before all the details of the perpetrators was known, and addressed the perceived status of the folks believed to be involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem there is that the 'perceived' status matched the reality. Only one of the perpetrators was a German citizen. I think a fair compromise would be to state 'the refugee status of most of the perpetrators. Anastrophe (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

With that amendment, I have made the change. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Gang rape - now i have read the part Gang_rape#Characteristics_of_serial_rape_gangs and the related german language term. For the german language term (Gruppenvergewaltigung), I'm sure that it doesn't fit, which is consistent with the edits of several other users in the german language article about this criminal act and the verdict and the sources about the verdict. For the english term, I am not sure to what part you referring to. I don't feel confident enough to judge it. Maybe a third person can comment on this. If you are calling Fox News "Reliable sources" I'm out. The way you are arguing tends in an adhominem direction, when you are tearing statements from me out of context. ("The trial was based on circumstantial evidence, so if there was even circumstantial evidence the verdict would have included a group crime." - partly based on circumstantial evidence to be clear, but it was part of a point I made, not what you are making about it.) So, please stop attacking me and focus on the topic. I didn't see any comment on the fact that the verdict doesn't include a punishment based on the group crime article I referred too. However, the german article has solved the problem showing both terms, the law term and the media / colloquial term. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 15:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I presented eight sources that refer to the crime as gang rape (and there are many, many more). You cannot reject the rest of them, they are reliable sources. The German language wikipedia is immaterial to this matter.

I have no more 'attacked' you than you have done likewise, so let's drop that pretense - I have 'attacked' your arguments. Thus far, you have not presented any argument that is supported by wikipedia policy for eliminating the term. I don't see much point in further discussion. Peace be upon you. Anastrophe (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Same situation in german news. I think you missed the point. As I said, a third person should look at that. --Amtiss, SNAFU ? 20:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's just seek more neutral wording that you can both agree on. "Gang rape" is rather an emotive term - couldn't we just change it to "rape", which is quite bad enough? Deb (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

A single rape is indeed quite bad. A woman - intentionally incapacitated by drugs - then raped repeatedly by multiple assailants is, in fact, quite worse, and that's why this crime garnered worldwide attention. Gang rape is the term that is used to describe what took place. 'Softening' the term strikes me personally as repugnant, but that's immaterial. The vast majority of reliable sources have, and do, refer to what took place in Freiburg as a gang rape. Please see the list of references I provided above. I'm still waiting for someone to offer a policy-based reason why we should not refer to the crime precisely as it has been presented in reliable sources. Anastrophe (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Because there is a dispute. And because there is no need to make a Wikipedia article title longer than it needs to be. Deb (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I support maintaining the extant title. Whether you see the event as a single rape or as a series of rapes, the title loses clarity with the reduction. If it's 2018 Freiburg rape, well, unfortunately there are likely many rapes in that city in the year, given the sad truths of the world. If it's 2018 Freiburg rapes, that makes it sound like a general coverage of the state of sexual assault in the city for that year. The extant title is more clearly addressing a single event. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I'd like to know when this discussion changed from being about the use of gang rape in the article body to now changing the title of the article. That is not what has been under discussion, nor in dispute. Furthermore, a dispute over people's feelings is not a policy dispute. Please state the specific Wikipedia policy that is supposedly at play here. Simply disputing whether one likes or dislikes a particular term is not tenable. The mass of reliable sources that are extant completely overrides this nonsense. Wikipedia is not censored. Anastrophe (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The title should stay as it is. I was suggested to clarify the introduction. I read you want to keep it short. Then it would be to used the mainly used term gang rape and maybe the verdict. I do prefer the solution of the German language article, referring to the verdict and the media title. The current situation is: both terms are present "gang rape" in the title, series of rapes in the intro. The question is, does the intro need a change? (At least a explaination in a later paragraph is needed, that verdict and name are deviate. Several sources state that as given above.) --Amtiss, SNAFU ? 20:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the term "series of rapes" is not used in the intro, "raped by a series of men" is. That is not inconsistent with "gang rape". It doesn't need to be aligned with the title any more than if an article's title said "murder" and the intro said the victim was "shot to death". --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)