Add topic
Active discussions

Failures and shortcomingsEdit

@Pincrete: Thanks, @XavierItzm:, for adding some critical issues to the article. Citing one instance where EURODAC may have failed, however, especially one where the investigation what actually happened is still ongoing, does not help and is (in this case) mostly off topic. What about researching some RS with a focus on EURODAC and possible critisism or an analysis of shortcomings and using these as a starting point for adding a description of possible shortcomings of EURODAC? LucLeTruc (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that (at the moment), this is largely WP:OR. It is very possible that criticism of the system or of Greek or German implementation may emerge, but I see none at present. I removed this myself, but couldn't be bothered to revert the re-insertion because the text was so self-evidently disconnected from the article subject that most people would just assume it was on the wrong page. Pincrete (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The article needs sources and here I provide 4 WP:RS. You don't like the grammar, fine, how about some constructive effort to fix it, instead of censoring out 4 very good 2016 sources? XavierItzm (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

which man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with grammar. Adding "random" examples for failures of Eurodac specially at moments when it is totally unclear (yet) what has failed does not improve the article. So why should this be included, XavierItzm? Just because sources mentioned is not enough. One other reason for excluding it is totally unclear what went wrong here as of now so this is mostly speculation. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Mentioning this case here is totally misleading. According to Greek and German authorities, the suspects data was in EURODAC and German authorities could check the data. The whole discussion about possible failures is about the question why Greece did not put the data into Interpol as Eurodac by design does not carry any data about crimes and convictions. I removed the sentence because of this. Sources are: [1] and [2] LucLeTruc (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but issues about Interpol: (1) are WP:OFFTOPIC to this page, and (2) have no impact to the very good 4 sources on Eurodac in 2016 that you deleted. As I think you deleted by mistake, I will re-vert and edit to clarify.XavierItzm (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Neither did I revert by mistake nor do you think that i did so. The argument between Greece and Germany is about Greece not putting the suspect into Interpol databases. Eurodac by design does not and can not contain any information about crimes only about asylum applications. So the whole paragraph you keep in the article by persistent reverting is off topic for the article.LucLeTruc (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to formally advise you that you are WP:OFFTOPIC and COATRACKING.

  • This here EURODAC article nowhere mentions Interpol.
  • The four WP:RS provided do not anywhere mention Interpol.
  • The wikipedia article does not mention Interpol.

It is only you who mention Interpol. Very bad form, if you ask me. XavierItzm (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, XavierItzm, you need to understand the aspects you write into an article before putting them into the article. I only checked two of the four sources you are talking about and both mention that the main problem was that Greece did not put up an international arrest warrant (which could not happen via Eurodac) and not that there was anything wrong with Eurodac. The sz source even uses the word "Interpol" for this. LucLeTruc (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The sources cover several aspects of the crime. None of the citations mention Interpol at all. The article does not mention Interpol. This is an article about EURODAC. Interpol has nothing to do with this. XavierItzm (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments: Mentioning of the murder caseEdit

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

Should the discussion around the Murder of Maria Ladenburger be mentioned in this article? LucLeTruc (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


Remove because of two reasons: (a) it is relatively unclear at the current state of the investigation what actually went wrong there with which European database and the news reports are rather vague and contradicting. (b) The main argument between Germany and Greece is that Greece did not put the suspects information into Interpol databases. Eurodac by design does not contain any information about crimes. Hence the mentioning here is WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:COATRACKING. (Sources: [3] and [4]) LucLeTruc (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - Not sure what Interpol has anything to do with the entry. It is certainly not part of the entry at all nor do any of the 4 WP:RS cited mention Interpol at all. The argument "remove because of Interpol" seems quite strange. XavierItzm (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
With your remark, XavierItzm, we are getting really close to the core of the dispute here. If you do not understand the mentioning of Interpol, you do not understand the core of the events described by the text you put into the article. The debate around the rape case is about the question why Germany did not know, did not check or could not check the fact that the suspect commited a crime in Greece and was wanted there because he violated his conditions of probation. Eurodac, however, by design does not contain such information about crimes. So even if Germany did check Eurodac and it would have produced a hit (the sources report contradicting information about whether Eurodac was checked or not), the information about the crime would not have been available to the authorities. The only way for Germany to know of the suspects conviction would have been to check Interpol databases. Greece, however, apparently did not put the suspect into the Interpol database. So, to sum this up: The whole debate about the case has nothing to do with the EURODAC database. LucLeTruc (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
None of the four cited WP:RS mention Interpol at all anywhere. The article does not mention Interpol. Formally, you are WP:COATRACKING and WP:OFFTOPIC. XavierItzm (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to read the sources which I linked for you above to read the information about interpol. LucLeTruc (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing in the citations nor the article about Interpol. This article is about EURODAC. The facts are that the article needs citations about EURODAC and the section in question provides 4 WP:RS about EURODAC and issues with its performance. For instance, Greece uses EURODAC and enters data in EURODAC but apparently Germany is not able to make matches in EURODAC. These are topics very germane to the very raison-d'être of EURODAC, its performance, etc. Please stop trying to insert OFFTOPIC mentions to Interpol that have nothing to do with this article. XavierItzm (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove - Whole section should go, what evidence is there that there is any controversy? What went wrong, isn't yet clear nor at present a 'controversy', that could change, but at present it's off-topic. Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The 2016 Eurodac controversy consists of the following: Die Zeit, Deutsche Welle, Welt, and other WP:RS, reported that the Greek government stored a convicted criminal's fingerprints on EURODAC in 2013. Nonetheless, Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that when the German government searched EURODAC, «"the verification of Eurodac did not produce a hit."[1]». Therefore, there is quite a controversy. How is it possible that the fingerprint data was stored by the Greeks, yet the Germans were unable to find it? Isn't the whole point of EURODAC to enable Euro-wide search and ID of fingerprints? XavierItzm (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I would propose to close this discussion and to keep the paragraph about the "controversy" out of the article as, quiet obviously, there is no consensus for including it but rather several voices against including it because it is WP:UNDUE, because the controversy largely exists in the WP:POV of one editor, because even if there would exist such a controversy, it would be about other aspects than Eurodac (i.e. Interpol) and finally because at the moment it is rather unclear what actually happened during the suspects immigration. Also the discussion does not seem to be moving anywhere with arguments just keep getting repeated. As I understand it, I can not close this discussion, so can somebody else do this and check whether my asessment of the different arguments is correct? LucLeTruc (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


  1. ^ "Tragic Chains: The Way of Hussein K. Through Europe". Süddeutsche Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 19 December 2016. The file contains the date of birth of 12 November 1999. Whether this is true is still unclear. But it is important when it comes to condemning him. In Greece, according to media reports, the date of birth is January 1, 1996. The verification of his fingerprint at Eurodac did not produce a hit

18 months? What happens then? Is the fingerprint resent after that?Edit

Or can the illegal immigrant freely move to other EU country without papers and make up a new name and birthdate and start the immigration process again? ee1518 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)