Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany

Donald Trump

US president Donald Trump is not an expert on crime in Germany, therefore his comments are irrelevant. Demonstrate relevance before re-adding. 1Kwords (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans you have not discussed it, you have reverted without explaining how Donald Trump is an expert on Germany, immigration to Germany or crime in Germany or any European country. Trump's comments are WP:IRRELEVANT because they are only WP:RUMORs spready by Trump. As such they belong in the Donald Trump article. Politifact may be a debunking website, but ENWP isn't. 1Kwords (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

For the millionth time, the PolitiFact source is covering the relationship between immigration and crime in Germany, and citing expert assessments and research in assessing the immigration-crime relationship. It's 100% on point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Not an explanation on why inexpert Donald Trump must be mentioned in this and every article. His comments are WP:RUMOR. ENWP is not a debunking site. We should prioritise German statistics and conclusions from the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) or Landeskriminalamt (LKA), not political posturing. Political posturing comes quite far down the priority list. 1Kwords (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The Trump section has been moved to "Political impact", where it belongs. Discuss before reverting. 1Kwords (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with 1Kwords who said: "US president Donald Trump is not an expert on crime in Germany, therefore his comments are irrelevant." Peter K Burian (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• WP:OFFTOPIC - reads like message is Trump was right (!?) rather than a name-free conveying data and logic of positions. I would not use the cite though due to distrust any election period content and that the remark by Trump was not significant detail. It seems just a brief line reflecting DIVERSE, a common impression and concern similar to UK fears not something specific, and said/opposed as part of getting votes rather than facts. Might do better to look for polls of public beliefs on this, or quote the local officials. Even UK rhetoric would be more closely related than US quotes. Markbassett (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump - third opinion

A third opinion would be useful on this edit

• Using chronologcy in this article
• bumping Donald Trump to top of the article
• reordering to non-chronological order
• unexplained deletion of sourced material

Also see above discussion #Donald Trump. 1Kwords (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I fully support the position of User:1Kwords. Not only is Trump of low significance for the article - and can be mentioned at the end -, there seem to be users here who don't want to accept well sourced material for whatever reasons.--Greywin (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I prefer Snooganssnoogans' version. I think they're correct in that the best sources are ones that provide an overall look at the relationship between immigration and crime; I'm extremely skeptical of the alternative structure, since it feels like it's throwing disconnected factoids from unrelated studies together in order to try and WP:SYNTH up a conclusion, which is absolutely the wrong approach to take when we have so many sources flatly stating that there is no correlation between immigration and crime. 1Kwords' version just throws a bunch of random, disconnected individual studies and numbers at the reader (often with contradictory or potentially-confusing results), without using secondary sources for interpretation or summary. I'd also point out that WP:RS states that Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The sentence on Donald Trump could possibly be omitted or moved around, but the basic conclusion that the fear of refugee-related crime is groundless is well-cited and belongs both in the lead and at the top of the section. But in general, we should be focusing on secondary sources that provide summaries and interpretation rather than trying to construct our own argument using primary sources and individual studies. --Aquillion (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"that the fear of refugee-related crime is groundless...". Are you aware of this study? [1] "For years, criminal acts of violence in Lower Saxony had declined, but in 2014 and 2015 the police registered a considerable increase. The number of such offenses grew by more than 10 percent, including robbery, serious assault, homicides or sexual offenses. And for the largest part, namely 92%, criminals are responsible for this increase, which are refugees - that is clear from the perspective of the authors and they prove this in their report. Thus, the number of suspected refugees in Lower Saxony increased by 241 percent between 2014 and 2016." Now you might want to add, that the number of refugees increased, that there are many young men and so on. But this doesn't matter for the local population and all the victims of the crimes, whose fears in fact are justified on the base of scientific facts. And it shows that your statement is untenable. At least we agree on the Trump issue, so this should be moved soon.--Greywin (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I have another one for you: [2] This shows that the share of unreported sexual crimes is 94 percent, also proved by a study, as the linked n-tv article says. Now look at the graph of sexual crimes in Germany. It rose from roughly 46.000 to 56.000 within two years, 10.000 more. If these 10.000 are committed by 92 percent by refugees (remember Lower Saxony above), and if these 10.000 (and the 56.000 sexual crimes in general) are only 6 percent of all the sexual crimes committed (the rest unreported...), this leads to much higher numbers than reported and registered by the authorities. And please compare also the rise of murder and bodily injury within the last two years. There is a demonstrable rise of serious crimes connected with the European migrant crisis.--Greywin (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Prefer Aadaaams version generally, for BESTSOURCES highlighting scholarly and German ministers rather than pop media sources, but would like to see some inclusion of popular opinions and recent too — so long as US-centric or Trumpisms are not included. No mention of Trump at all, no mention of US view at all, get some German or at least European input for the German topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump - consensus

So .. it seems that editors Peter K Burian, Greywin and Markbassett agree that the Trumpisms should be moved to a less prominent place in the article. Or deleted outright? 1Kwords (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Seems OK to delete him and more generally exclude American opinions. Use WP:BESTSOURCES, European and German, scholars and official studies. There's no significant information from the eight words of campaign interview posturing, no enduring meaning, and no effect on the topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• The attribution of a statement to Trump has been removed. There's zero justification for removing PolitiFact's assessment of the relationship between immigration and crime in Germany. If you want to argue that PolitiFact is not a reliable source, go to the reliable sources noticeboard where you'll inevitably lose. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Politifact may be WP:RS on American politics, but that isn't the subject of this article. Nobody has to go to the "reliable sources noticeboard" because Politifact do not even claim to be experts on crime in Germany, only Snoogan does. Intead Politifact writes PolitiFact is a nonpartisan fact-checking website to sort out the truth in American politics. PolitiFact was created by the Tampa Bay Times, a Florida newspaper, in 2007. In 2018, PolitiFact was acquired by the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit school for journalists. The staff does does not have a single expert on Germany and no criminologist. The remaining text sourced to Politifact is problematic because WP:BESTSOURCES the German overnment institution Bundeskriminalamt is simply a stronger source on crime in Germany and clearly explain that some groups are overrepresented in crime, therefore the sourced statement is contradicted by a stronger source. Go ahead, read the "About us" page on Politifact, they don't claim anywhere that they are experts on crime in Germany. 1Kwords (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• The "about us" pages for the New York Times or the Washington Post don't describe them as experts on anything in particular. Doesn't change the fact that they are RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think there is a rough consensus with good arguments here, even more sceptical users admit that Trump is not relevant for the article's subject. --Greywin (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Federal Criminal Police Office report on immigration

If there is "no connection between immigration and crime" as some editors/academics claim above, it is disproven by the fact that Federal Criminal Police Office (Germany) publishes reports on exactly this. In the interest of using the best sources available, here is the link to the 2017 report - click the PDF. It contains several figures and graphs. Here are links to the 2015 and 2016 reports. 1Kwords (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Knife Attacks

I added context on the knife attacks section. There is far more correlation around the domestic nature of most of the murders than any other element, so I'm including it. It was reverted, and the reverted version included an opening line that said "Apart from islamism", which is bizarre, because it's not mentioned elsewhere. I'm undoing the reversion because it makes the article poorer and less informative and asking the reverter to post and explain why they want it reverted back here. Thank you. Berrocca Addict (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It's unreasonable to explain what happened in each prominent migrant crime. This page should not be a recitation of individual crimes committed by migrants, just as we shouldn't recite individual migrants who did not commit crimes. It's fair to mention migrant crimes if they affected public discourse on or had broader implications for the relationship between immigration and crime in Germany. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You are reverting to a list of individual crimes, without context. Either add a statistical breakdown of the crimes, or include the context of the crimes you are referring to. Also, mentioning islamism, randomly, makes no sense. And removing the POV of the Police Union makes no sense. Stop reverting to a worse version. Berrocca Addict (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Is germany riddled with crime?

Per this edit, some fact checker in the US is constantly inserted near the top of the article. Say for instance, Donald Duck screamed "All of Canada is covered by tropical forest!", would the Geography of Canada article then claim "All of Canada is not covered by tropical forest". The reader is left knowing nothing about Canada. That's how that edit is unencyclopedic. 1Kwords (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• I see that edit as an attempt to instil the Wikipedia:NPOV principles into this article - which seriously needs it. Deb (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a very poor attempt, which should be ended soon, just to instil the Wikipedia:NPOV principles into this article. The discussion result above was already largely in favor of doing so.--Greywin (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Tagging for POV

The new "historical background" paragraph describes the history before 1990 as if the link between immigration and crime was only the crimes of the Germans; there were excessive crimes of Germans (not only, but especially) in the colonial and Nazi eras, but there were also problems with immigrants over the centuries mentioned here; this has to be included to grant neutrality. In the paragraph "Criminal activity by immigrants since the 1990s", the overall rise of crime by immigrants since the 1980/90s (Yugoslavia/Eastern Europe) is missing completely. This can't exculpate crimes against immigrants, but it is needed to understand the background of the some of the ressentment.--Greywin (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And I want to question, if the colonial history belongs here; is this really "immigration and crime in Germany", or is this just needed here to show that all Germans have always been evil? ;) How is this connected to "immigration and crime in Germany" or can the connection be improved?--Greywin (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

No one will have any objection at all to you adding genuine, sourced evidence of crimes committed by immigrants before 1990, but do bear in mind the comments already made at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Immigration_and_crime_in_Germany, where it has even been suggested that the whole article should be deleted.Deb (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I asked a question about the connection of the history of the colonies. I can not see any connection to the page title (immigration and crime in Germany!) in the presented material.--Greywin (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The clue is in then titles, it is not "crimes by Germans against none Germans", and no two wrongs do not make a right. Just because I rape your wife in no way justifies me raping yours. But is RS make the claim we could certainly mention that RS think this is a justification.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I just added that and you undid it. Please read before you do a blanket deletion. Deb (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I did read it, and I do not agree it is on topic.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

So how do you propose we bring this article onto a level playing field where it is not just a long list of crimes committed by immigrants in the last five years? Deb (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

By finding sources that discus Crimes committed by (and against) immigrant (that is immigrants to Germany, not slaves and not places outside Germany) over 5 years old. You do not create a level playing field by talking about maters unrelated to immigrants in Germany. This should not be a fork of Racism in Germany or antisemitism in Germany.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"This" article should not exist at all; it's totally unnecessary, but while it's here it needs to be freed from the implication that immigration and crime are inextricably linked and that all crimes are committed by immigrants. Forced labourers brought into the country as immigrants are still immigrants. Fifth and sixth (etc...) generation immigrants are still considered immigrants by many of the German population. I took great pains to ensure that everything I included was relevant and your opinion that it is "unrelated" does not exactly constitute consensus. Can you not see that even the order of the paragraphs and the wording of the headers is designed to make the article biased towards a certain conclusion? Deb (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Mush of this is unrelated to the issue of what you added, now if you want to AFD go ahead. The forced laborers were not immigrants (immigrant ˈɪmɪɡr(ə)nt/Submit noun a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country) they were transitory slaves. And read wp:consensus, yes my opinion does not exactly constitute consensus, what does is agreement, and you do not have it. As to structure, then restructure it, but do not add material without consensus once it has been challenged.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

So, eh, ahem, if that's what an "immigrant" is, how are they "non-German"? And do you think this is in any way unproblematic? BTW this "don't add if challenged" does not apply here. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is so obviously slanted it's disgusting. Might as well call it "Wikipedia giving you reasons to vote AfD". If these editors here, some of whom seem to just say "ah well you take care of the earlier stuff, I'll do the anti-Muslim content", would spend as much time and attention on Crime in Germany we might have a decent article there. And the fact is, of course, that "this is about immigrants, not jews" completely misses the point, as if there was some unified German thing called "Germany" before the Gastarbeiter of the 1950s. Saying "the jews were not immigrants" misses the point completely--at some point of course they were immigrants, just like everyone in Germany--all you have to do is go back a few more centuries, to the Migration Period. But the Jews were, of course, always especially singled out as aliens, so there is no reason to remove that, since it's as relevant as Ganz unten. You can't have it both ways, and you can't define "Immigration" as something new and simple. The days of the MGH are over. (And if you don't know the italicized German terms, maybe you need to read up before you edit this.) Drmies (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes we are all immigrants (well descended from them) thus we should also talk about crimes committed against non Jewish Germans (after all they are all descended from immigrants?). If RS make a link so can, do they? are any of the RS making a direct link between Germans traditional racism and its modern attitude towards immigrants? The point is that RS have to make a clear connection, not us.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, and while I accept that synthesis is a danger when trying to summarise RS, you seem to be saying that it's okay to change the article as long as I change it to something you agree with. I don't call that consensus. I don't think either of your statements about the forced laborers is true. Another definition of "immigrant" is "a person who has come into a foreign country in order to live there". And after the war, many of the forced labourers weren't allowed to go home. Deb (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No I am saying you can change it to something that RS agree with. And your definition of immigrant equally does not apply to people forced to comer to a country as mine, they did not go to a country, they were taken there (and the fact some were not allowed home (source?) is also irrelevant, they did not choose to live there).Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

There is still not a single connection of the colonial history to "immigration and crime in Germany", so I removed this material again. Please refrain from re-adding.--Greywin (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

In general, only finding sources and adding material improves the article. Let's take a collaborative approach. While sections of the article may be unbalanced, it is only a question of finding more material to balance it out. It's a question of WP:SOFIXIT rather than starting arguments on the talk page. 1Kwords (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

And the first thing is if a an RS does not make a link neither do we, no matter how obvious it may be (it is so obvious there must be sources making the link, so I do not get why they are not doing that).Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

AFD

Is in properly, formed, and thus is not going go anywhere. Make the case here as ti why we should delete and someone might be able to lunch it properly.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry? I don't understand what you mean. Deb (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You had not completeed the proccess, which noptmalyy is done in one go. You have now completed it, though I would rather you had run it by us first. I am not sure the tone of the AFD is going to win you many allies.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it can't be done in one go because there are steps that have to be followed and I have followed them. You have been here long enough to understand how it works and you should know better than to try to jump in within seconds of the AfD notice appearing - assuming that's what you did. Deb (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This nomination is a again a clear revenge action by you after your non-connected material wasn't accepted.--Greywin (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Fundamentally I think the AFD launched by editor Deb to be the right thing to do. 1Kwords (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

By region

Not sure why we need this, removing it might help balance the article.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The Nazi period

The paragraph spreads Nazi propaganda. The crimes, really.Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Concur that this material shod be deleted. It is about the forced labour of the untermenschen, that is, the non German peoples (often Slavic,) defined by Nazi "race science" as genetically inferior were dragooned into forced labour in conditions (forced labour camps) that killed many of them (part of the Nazi program was to work Slavic and other non-"Aryan" peoples to death and settle their homelands with Germans.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahhh then I agree, they are not (by most definitions (all?)) immigrants but slaves.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

OFF-TOPIC: The monstrous plan EMG mentions is the Generalplan Ost for all of Eastern Europe. Basically, the Kaiserreich had occupied large parts of Eastern Europe and this was formalized in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918. Then Hitler wanted to do the whole thing again and thus Operation Barbarossa of WW2. So German forces indiscrimatedly murdered millions of civilians on the Eastern Front as this was the fundamental aim of the war. 1Kwords (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Honor killing#Germany should be described

Much better de:Ehrenmord#Ehrenmorde in Deutschland. Xx236 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

far too long, maybe a brief mention.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Crimes specific to immigrants should be listed.

honor killing

Female genital mutilation [3] Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Did not say it should not be mentioned (but is that even true? is it only carried out by immigrants and not people born German?, do you have a source?).Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a part of some African or Asian cultures, like honor killings. The operation is performed outside Germany, Vacation circumcision. Xx236 (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

So its not then carried out IN Germany?Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

de:Weibliche Genitalverstümmelung#Rechtliche Beurteilung The crime is punished in Germany even if it's committed outside, since 2015.Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It is still not being committed in Germany.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Part of the conspiracy is committed in Germany.

If white women were operated abroad, it would be a crime, so the same is true for any woman.Xx236 (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

So?.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

BKA has written a report on honor killings (Ehrenmorde) see this link. 1Kwords (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The page describes mostly crimes of immigrants against Germans but ignores crimes against other immigrants. It's biased.Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Sending a girl from Germany to Africa or Asia to mutilate her there is a crime in Germany. Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

But the crime was not committed in Germany. The lead (and maybe the title) needs to be changed if you want to include crimes committed by immigrants that are against German law.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I expanded the paragraph from Die Welt source. According to the source FGM is partly done in Germany by foreign doctors. But also the planning of the crimes is done in Germany. So the paragraph has to stay. I'm not sure if it should be mentioned as crime by immigrants or against, because it is both - maybe a separate paragraph inbetween?--Greywin (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The material about it happening in Germany is all we should have.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

A bit of context is usually a good thing. Greywin is right that FGM where immigrants are both the perpetrators and the victims and so fits into both categories. 1Kwords (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

https://www.dw.com/de/als-der-ehrenmord-nach-deutschland-kam/a-42491010 Some Germans believe that the name is wrong.Xx236 (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The subject

The page informs about immigration from outside of the EU. Crimes committed by EU citizens should be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree, they are immigrants.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes they should. 1Kwords (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Crime in Germany#Organized crime describes criminal organisations of immigrants. Xx236 (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

RT source/2018 Freiburg group rape

There's a discussion about the admissibility of this [4] RT article at Talk:2018 Freiburg group rape. The case should be included here anyway, as it is a very rare and outstanding crime in Germany.--Greywin (talk) 13:31, 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)

This part of the discussion should not be happening on two talk pages at once.--Greywin (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It's strange that such an "outstanding" crime didn't have an article in German wikipedia until after you were blocked. Deb (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Female Genital Mutilation

The trend should be described in a table rather than by words.Xx236 (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Xx236 it's a good idea but I think it's only possible if all the sums and years come from one single source, otherwise it's difficult to make the judgment that the figure from say, 2015, is comparable to that of 2017. If there are official statistics published by one authority that could be usable for a table. 1Kwords (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of Bild as a source

Bild is clearly not a reliable source. It's the equivalent of the UK tabloid, The Sun, which we would never use as a source in this encyclopedia. Please find an alternative. Deb (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

External links

@1Kwords: Please do not start edit wars by deliberately reverting my good faith edit twice re adding the BBC article as an external source. The correct place for discussion of such things is here. If you finish reading the sentence you linked to after reverting for the second time, having given an unjustifiable reason the first time, i.e. "There is indeed a reason per WP:ELNO: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links", you will see that what follows is "...to:" and then enumerates a number of exclusions. I believe that the BBC article falls within these guidelines. There is no "official page" for this subject; it's in English; the BBC is regarded as a reliable and neutral source. If you don't believe so, you can discuss here, invite others, etc. and I will abide by the consensus decision. If you have a better or alternative external link, please add it. There is plenty else wrong with this page but IMO adding a link to a fact-checking article is low on the list. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is upon the editor who wishes to add material - non-official links should generally be avoided. There is no "official page" for this subject therefore no link might be the best option. WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid in talk page discussions. 1Kwords (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In this particular case, 1Kwords is correct to remove it from external links as it's already referenced in the body of the article and it doesn't need to be in two places. Incidentally, that's not correct reference formatting any more. The article is such a complete mess anyway that there hardly seems to be any point trying to improve it. Deb (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion, @Deb:. The way I read note 5 on WP:ELNO, i.e. "This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles", there is no rule against providing a link to a site also used as a source. Am I missing something? I agree that the whole article is very sub-standard, and with half of the citations being in German, this reduces its usefulness even more, but I don't have the time spend on it now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I can see how that is an interpretation of that note (which in my opinion is not well-worded), but I can't really see why you would want to link to the same article twice. Also, if you include one article as an external link, you could end up with a host of other articles being listed in that section; that might not matter if this was a decent NPOV article, but I feel like it's better to restrict the amount of dross. Deb (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, my rationale was that as a citation for a single fact, few readers would have found and read it, whereas as an external link it might take an interested reader to a recent article which addresses the whole topic (which I think few if any other references here do), and is regarded as a reliable source with NPOV. I'm not arguing that it's the best or only article on the topic, but it might serve as a useful summary. Anyway I'm happy to leave it for now because as I said earlier, it's a minor point when there is so much else in need of improvement. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Just for reference for anyone else reading this discussion in the future, this BBC article was the link in question. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed a paragraph

I removed this paragraph from the article:
"In January 2019, the police authority premises in Neukölln was firebombed where vehicles were burned out and the nearby building was damaged. The far left autonomous movement celebrated the firebombings as a vengeance for police raids against crime clans two days earlier, which they said stigmatised individuals and members of clan crime groups."

As currently worded, there is nothing in this paragraph to explain its relevance to the topic of the article. Deb (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If it's going to stay in, the connection with immigration needs to be explained properly. Deb (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"As currently worded, there is nothing in this paragraph to explain its relevance to the topic of the article." Agreed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Not seeing what this says about immigrants.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The autonomous left (German: Chaoten) support immigrant crime clans. That's what the sources say. 1Kwords (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The this is about the "autonomous left" not immigrant. Also where does it say these are Immigrant crime clans?Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Try searching for Clankrimimalität Brandanschlag Ordningsamt Berlin Chaoten in your favourite search engine. Also see this source for instance. 1Kwords (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Readers shouldn't need to go to a German-language source to find out the relevance of the paragraph to the topic. If there is any relevance, explain it clearly in the article, and please avoid WP:SYNTH. Deb (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I've argued before against having only German references, unless the item is of such significance that it clearly needs them because English sources are not available or do not cover the detail. I had to go to Autonomism in a quest to find out what "autonomous left" means, which says (uncited) that they are currently greatly reduced in Germany. As it stands, the paragraph doesn't add anything relevant to this topic and it looks to me as if the bombing was only tangentially related to the "autonomous left", if they celebrated it but didn't claim responsibility? If anything, I would suggest gathering some more material about these chaoten, preferably in English, and add it to the Autonomism article. I cannot find anything recent and useful myself with a quick Google. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think trivialising the extreme left in Germany, when they caused millions in damages during the G20 riots in Hamburg, to be the best way to go about this. 1Kwords (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, but that statement is blatantly political and has nothing at all to do with immigration in Germany. I would suggest you try and take a more neutral standpoint when editing this particular article. Deb (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Who or what is "trivialising the extreme left"? The point is that this article is not about the extreme left. If you want to add information about them, it belongs somewhere else (if there is a relevant place on Wikipedia), in a factual and balanced way. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Autonomism in a quest to find out what "autonomous left" means, which says (uncited) that they are currently greatly reduced in Germany using uncited Wikipedia material as a source, is a null and void argument and not useful to a constructive discussion. Why even bring it up? 1Kwords (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The WP:RS sources are quite clear on that the autonomous movement have published a statement in support of the crime clans. 1Kwords (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see my previous comments. "...the paragraph doesn't add anything relevant to this topic...I would suggest gathering some more material about these chaoten, preferably in English, and add it to the Autonomism article." This article is about Immigration and Crime in Germany. It is not about far left groups who may cheer on attacks on the police. Your original paragraph does not include anything about a "statement in support of the crime clans" - and even if they did state their support, are they themselves committing crimes or part of the problem? Why not wait until the perpetrators of this police bombing are found or convicted, and assess the relevance to immigration and crime? WP:NOTNEWS is also relevant here. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Supporting crime is clearly relevant to the article, just as relevant as police fighting crime is. The question is not "relevance", it is whether the cited source is reliable. Nobody in this thread has argued that the source is unreliable. 1Kwords (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Your attitude is beginning to worry me. Can you really not see what everyone else is telling you? This article is supposed to be about crime and immigration, and the wording you added makes no mention of a connection between crime and immigration or even any mention of immigrants. Until now, I had thought that you were impartial, but your personal views are beginning to interfere with your edits, as shown by several of your comments above. Deb (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC) - for example, this edit, which is obviously a POV statement. Deb (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment on content not users, if you have an issue wit ha users POV take it to their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

1Kwords Please review WP:TPO and restore the comment by someone else that you deleted. I think that this discussion is done and is just about ready to be frozen and archived now. Only one person thinks the paragraph is relevant, to an article which is already way more overblown and detailed than its topic merits (but I digress - perhaps to be discussed in a separate section). Laterthanyouthink (talk)

Yeah, this looks like a completely irrelevant digression; also a pretty gross WP:NPOV violation. Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Since 1Kwords decided not to restore my comment, which they deleted, I've restored it here. I would ask that they refrain from deleting my talk page comments in the future, as per WP:TPO. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleting that comment was unintentionally done, it is not something I habitually do or something I intend to make a habit. My apologies. Didn't get a chance to check in until now. Sorry for the unintended deletion & tardy response. I will take better care in the future. 1Kwords (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

On topic: This isn't that big of a deal after all, let's wait and see if further events result in more sources. 1Kwords (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

migration origin

Hi Deb, the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees has an official definition of Migrationshintergrund which is literally translated to "migration background": https://www.bamf.de/DE/Service/Left/Glossary/_function/glossar.html?lv3=3198544. Roughly translated it says: foreign citizens, foreigners who have received German citizenship and descendants of the aforementioned. 1Kwords (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This is about immigrants, not people who have a "migration background" (after all that can mean a lot of people, how far back do you go?).Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid it doesn't work in English - you will have to define it clearly, 1Kwords. Deb (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Deb I did post a link to a clear definition and I was hoping, as English is not my first language, that someone could suggest a better expression / translation / phrasing. Slatersteven the link to BAMF.de clearly defines how far back it goes - why ask me? 1Kwords (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have to go somewhere else to find out what the words mean, it makes the content of the article more difficult to follow. Using blanket terms like "migration origin" is exactly the kind of thing people do when they want to obscure their meaning in order to support their argument - particularly when dealing with statistics. Deb (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I know what it means hence my comment. This article is about crimes by (and against) immigrants, not their descendants.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

In Germany, it seems not uncommon to also consider the integration of descendants of immigrants with respect to crime, like on page 5 "Zweite Generation". http://www.uni-siegen.de/phil/sozialwissenschaften/soziologie/mitarbeiter/geissler/ueberblick_1_08.pdf 1Kwords (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It is no surprise that an article titled "The "criminal alien" - Prejudice or reality? To the stereotype of the "criminal foreigner" that they would discus issues around the perception of "non Germans". I am not sure this is enough to establish this establishes they are legally regarded as immigrants.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok if we are going by the legal definition, some crimes can only be committed by foreigners, such as illegally residing in a country and statistics & research sometimes reflect this (I could pulll out sources if prompted). An approach where we go strictly by the legal definition, that would then lead to this article calling all people without residence permits criminals. Researchers seem not to take this approach, but instead deduct offenses against alien laws. So I don't think going by strict legal definitions will do. Instead we should use the same approaches reasearchers/academics/statisticians/WP:RS do in Germany. 1Kwords (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Latest additions by 1Kwords

The article is starting to sound more and more like a rant. Deb (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This page is a mess

My deletion of the grossly WP:UNDUE section "by region" was an attempt to deal with the serious WP:NPOV problem with this article, which filled up with unnecessary and inappropriate detail of crimes purportedly by immigrants. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It's good that you have started the discussion, Simonm223, and I thank you. No, per WP:STATUSQUO, let the material remain until others have had a chance to weigh in. I, likewise, will closely examine the material. ——SerialNumber54129 14:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Please justify why you believe this bigoted mess of a section has any value. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not wholly convinced it is all undue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Its long standing content, it is down to you to make a case for removal.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I did. It's deeply WP:UNDUE and contributes nothing except to skew the article toward crimes done BY immigrants rather than crimes done TO immigrants. As such, it is egregiously in violation of WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And I don't give a shit that it's long-standing. Lots of long-standing things in this world need to be torn down. It's within our ability to tear down this one. And what's more, as a violation of WP:NPOV it's within the scope of this project to tear it down. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You should not have re-inserted a comment I had removed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not do so deliberately. Probably edit conflict related annoyance. Apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Then expand the material about crimes done to immigrants if that is the issue, it needs expanding.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This article doesn't need any expansion. It needs paring back to only those things that are neither a WP:NPOV nightmare, nor blantant WP:SYNTH. Frankly I think the premise of the article is WP:SYNTH and if I thought that Wikipedia had any desire to rid itself of that category of inappropriate content I'd have it before WP:AFD already. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment. Let's face it, most of the article is WP:UNDUE. However, by its very nature, it is never going to be a decent article. Deb (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And drive-by WP:STATUSQUO protections of content aren't doing anything to make it better. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Neither are PA's or refactoring peoples comments, it was not a drive by I have been editing this page for a while.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I already told you that the refactoring of your comment was a mistake caused by an edit conflict. Please go ahead and correct that record. And perhaps consider the possibility that certain statements weren't about you at all. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

OK then.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that the "drive-by" culprit (if that's the right word) was User:Serial Number 54129, who, if I know him as I think I do, would surely recognise that the article as a whole is unbalanced even if he disagrees with the removal of large sections in one go. Deb (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, apart from the fact that "drive-by culprit" verges on the tendentious, I certainly do not agree that the quality or otherwise of an article justifies removing large swathes without discussion. Personally I'd agree with deleting the whole thing as WP:SYNTH: but since we can't do that within policy, what we can do must be. ——SerialNumber54129 15:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The "by region" section is relevant since germany is a federal republic of 16 states: see States of Germany. Adding material to the article about crimes done to immigrants is a good idea and would improve the article. 1Kwords (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Should the content be removed

Yes

• Obviously for all the reasons above (WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH and it being pretty bloody racist to boot.) Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, but then I also think that the whole article should be removed and I didn't succeed in getting it deleted. Deb (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, a random collection of facts/claims with little likelihood of ever presenting any coherent overall picture. The whole article itself has fairly random collection of examples, the selection of which represent an implied (WP:NPOV-ish WP:SYNTH. Pincrete (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No

• No the "by region" section shouldn't be removed because Germany is a federation of 16 states per States of Germany. 1Kwords (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. Germany is a Federal Republic, composed of States. Just like the United States, where articles commonly have a state by state section, articles on Germany, including this one, need to have a state-by-state section where there are WP:RS to sustain it. Evidently this section is well supported by WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: you're a bit late to the party, there's been an RfC. But I'd like to know what articles actually have a state by state section - ie for all states. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's one at random: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling_in_the_United_States. XavierItzm (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, ignoring the fact that it doesn't cover every state, it's covering sitations where there are different state regulations. Are you arguing that the different German states have different laws regarding immigration? If not, apples and oranges. Doug Weller talk 11:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That's an absurd response. The example was brought about to show that national articles do break down into state-by-state cases as needed. Sad! XavierItzm (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Not only did you fail to understand my point, you found it necessary to cast aspersions. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

They won't get the edit summary :-). Deb (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC

• I think we should ask for input from disinterested parties via WP:RfC or WP:3O. 1Kwords (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Really? WP:TEND much? Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

If you want to launch an RFC go a head. me I am happy to accept consensus here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll launch an RfC in the next few days, hopefully that will result in input by editors who read German and that could only be a good thing. 1Kwords (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

re-scoping the article

Slatersteven per this edit, you are right that foreigners need not be immigrants. The german article is named Ausländerkriminalität (check de.WP) which translates "foreigner crime". Therefore I propose that the article be rescoped to foreigners and crime in Germany. here is a source from BKA with this scope. 1Kwords (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Would you care to elaborate on your objection? 1Kwords (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It continues the argument about whether it is balanced to make a link between crime and non-German people. Deb (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

And perhaps we should de-link from the German article, which apparently is not an exact equivalent of the English title. Deb (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Such a re-scope would definitely make the whole article clearly WP:UNDUE so I think just deleting it would be faster. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

When are we going to delete the article then? ——SerialNumber54129 13:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

As soon as the number of editors who will ignore WP:DUE to protect an article they use to promote nativist political philosophies drops enough that they stop swamping AfD attempts with statements that their WP:SYNTH hit-pieces are being subject to WP:IDONTLIKEIT attacks and reminding people that wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We've been through this game. It's transparent gaming of the system, and I'm tired of it. But I don't really need to waste time on a needed AfD that will be unlikely to succeed because the same 5 editors who always defend these garbage articles will show up with unlimited time to argue semantics. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggested tactic: if ediitors are disrupting an article, they should be t-banned from it. Then the AfD becomes...more likely? ——SerialNumber54129 13:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is what happened last time. Deb (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

An example of the problems with this article: Apparently nothing ever happened to foreign residents of Germany before 1950.

Hmmm... I wonder what political group ruled Germany throughout much of the 1930s and 1940s that treated foreign residents violently and encouraged crime against them... Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, so add it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

And what happened when I tried to do that? This did. Deb (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That is because this is about immigrants and crime, not racism in Germany.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

What I added was about immigrants and crime. The Jews were considered immigrants and undeserving of the same treatment as the Aryan population. QED. I think you know that this was removed, not because it was not relevant, but because (1) it dealt with historical crimes against immigrants and not with crimes by immigrants and (2) it dealt with the historical context and not with the perceived "crisis" of 2015-16. Deb (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Unless the article is to be renamed "Immigration and crime in Germany since 1950" (which would be odd), then there must be some kind of background / historical / overview material on crime, immigration and Germany from before the point at which the article begins. ——SerialNumber54129 14:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Were they considered immigrants, or just "not German enough"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

They were seen as people who didn't belong there. And you're right, it is racism but we see from what 1Kwords has already said that in Germany the distinction between "immigrant" and "foreigner" is a fine one. Deb (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it, or just the fact that German and English express things in different ways? I agree they were seen as people who did not belong there, but that does not make them immigrants.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Also this all disregards the question of whether, in fact, any person ever immigrated to Germany prior to 1950. This article seems to suggest no. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Also not true [[5]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

By region is reasonable in a country which is a federation

It seems that nobody disputes that Germany is a federation of 16 states per States of Germany. Could anyone provide a counter argument instead of simply deleting the "By region" section, please? 1Kwords (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the argument would be that it implies that every region has a problem with immigrant crime - just as the existence of the article implies that the whole country has a problem with immigrant crime. Deb (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I know about "other stuff", but how do we treat the USA?Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Take for instance For instance North-Rhine Westphalia has 17 million inhabitants, that's 7 million more than the Czech Republic, which has a Crime in the Czech Republic article of its own.

Deb, every region in Germany does have a problem with crime and a Landespolizei to deal with it.

Slatersteven - how would an argument about the US translate to an article about Germany? How are they different or similar in terms of size, population, demographics, immigration policies, crime rates, judiciary, prisons and policing?

1Kwords (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Both are federal republics that have degrees of regional autonomy. Size is not the issue, organisation is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The by regions section wass a WP:COATRACK and frankly, federal republic or not, Germany is nationally homogeneous enough to make the information effectively irrelevant and very WP:UNDUE. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And I'd suggest you drop the WP:STICK. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The section and its content are WP:DUE because there are plenty of sources for everything in that section. Editors are bound by the available sources, not whims of editors. WP:STICK is an essay and just like WP:TAGBOMBING, they are neither policies nor guidelines. Nobody has criticized the quality of the sources and if that's what sources write about, enWP does too. Also try to find some sources and add the kind of material you'd like to see in this article. Consensus simply can't overrule available sources. 1Kwords (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven - please make your point about the US. 1Kwords (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I did.Slatersteven (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven - Nothing you wrote so far about the US forbids having a "By region" section in this article. Do you have an opinion about the "By region" section of this article? That's what this discussion thread is about. Size is both important and relevant, those regions are larger and have greater populations than some European countries. Germany is a country in Europe. 1Kwords (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I never said it did, I said I see no reason (given the similar political structure) why we should not treat them the same.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

User:1Kwords, you wrote "that's 7 million more than the Czech Republic, which has a Crime in the Czech Republic article of its own". Did you miss the obvious point that there isn't an article on Immigration and crime in the Czech Republic? Deb (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

PS. There also isn't an article on Immigration and crime in the United States. Deb (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed obvious but we were holding out for a relevant counter-argument. Imho the United States does not have a privileged position on enWP as some special kind of yardstick. There's an article named Gun violence in the United States but no article named Gun violence in Germany. Shouldn't you create one? If you can bring up WP:OTHERSTUFF then so can others. All this proves is that nobody has a counter-argument based on sources, because all that's been brought up so far is other Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia is not WP:RS. Please base your arguments on WP:RS. Instead of States of Germany, please instead check Föderalismus und Bundesländer by the German Federal Agency for Civic Education. 1Kwords (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are the one who brought up the Czech Republic with a completely false argument which would have led a casual reader to assume that there was an article about the Czech Republic that was a parallel to this one. Deb (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Please show me the WP guideline on "parallel articles". Really we are only interested in arguments based on either wikipedia policy, guidelines or reliable sources. 1Kwords (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Re-stating my argument: the deletion of the "By region" section is an anonymous editor saying "statistics on crime in states of Germany are irrelevant". My counter-argument is that states in Germany are a big deal (Czech republic was provided as a size & population comparison) and that the information is based on WP:RS and therefore should be restored based on WP:PRESERVE. We don't care about the United States on this talk page. Consensus simply can't override sources. 1Kwords (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• A section is not subject to the WP:GNG, therefore comparisons with non-existent articles are irrelevant.
• Material in a section is subject to WP:V verifiability by WP:RS sources.

Can anyone provide an argument based on sources, enWP policy or guidelines? Don't make up more imaginary rules about articles which do or don't exist. Refer to en WP guidelines or sources. Don't refer to WP:ESSAYs. 1Kwords (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a question as to whether the presumed connection between immigration and crime works differently in different German states. If a region is not mentioned in the section, can we assume it doesn't have any immigration or crime?

Here too there was bias: "A 2018 study showed that in Lower Saxony, chosen by the researches because of its typicality, reported violent crime increased by 10.4% in 2015 and 2016, with 92.1% of the increase was attributable to migrants." However, the reference does not say that Lower Saxony is typical, it says that it is "average", which means something different. Deb (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point, it is just as relevant if there is little or no crime as if there is. Either the section lists all German states (and only states), or we do not have it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

My original statement that the content was WP:UNDUE was not citing an essay. Furthermore Consensus is part of WP:5P4 which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Since you are the only person asking to insert this baldly undue section, consensus is not with you. The citation of WP:STICK was a piece of helpful advice, lest you be seen as falling into WP:TEND WP:DISRUPT patterns of behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

No longer the only editor. Also, all the sources in that section are on my side of the discussion. Still I think it would be better to have input from more editors with German language skills. 1Kwords (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Gun violence in Germany

Let's turn it around. There's no Gun violence in Germany article - therefore we should delete Gun violence in the United States despite the latter being reliably sourced. This is only added to show the absurdity of that sort of argument. 1Kwords (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Not the same, gun politics (and thus gun violence) is a major issue in the USA (in a way that almost no other thing is in the rest of the world).Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

1) It seems that Germany and the United States are quite different with respect to crime, then. Glad we agree on that.

2) It is lucky for all of us that what an editor considers "a major/minor issue" affects neither which articles can be created nor limits what material can be added to an article. 1Kwords (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The "By Region" section

The consensus is that the removed material should be both restored and improved. There is no consensus on whether the material should be improved before being restored or restored and then improved.

Cunard (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

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.

---

This edit removed the "By region" section. Please provide a third opinion on whether that section should be restored, improved or deleted

• Restore
• Improved
• Deleted

Previous discussions have been held in sections #Should the content be removed #By region is reasonable in a country which is a federation. Please contribute. 1Kwords (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

*Restore I don't really see how the content is "racist". It's sourced fine, it's relevant, and it's reflective of Germany's geopolitical structure. I don't buy WP:SYNTH either, the content appears to pull pretty clearly from the RS. WP:DUE. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• • "it's reflective of Germany's geopolitical structure." How is a reader supposed to know that? No, if it's staying, it needs to be extended to make it clear that many regions have no obvious problem with immigrant crime, and also to include crimes against immigrants, which are at present conspicuous by their absence. There should also be balance - just as one example, the section on Baden-Württemberg focused on the number of knife crime suspects who were asylum seekers, implying that the rise was statistically significant, without stating how many suspects were not immigrants. Deb (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

NO issue with that, if it is not clear a brief explanation (and link to an article on the subject) is OK.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Restore ... summoned here by bot. Seems fine to me but also wouldn't be a huge loss either. DocumentError (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, a random collection of facts/claims with little likelihood of ever presenting any coherent overall picture. The whole article itself has a fairly random collection of examples, the selection of which represent an implied WP:NPOV-ish WP:SYNTH. Pincrete (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Improve. (Summoned by bot) The section on Berlin is too long and the sections on the other regions are too short. The implied message is "Look, Berlin is now a hellhole of crime because of all those dirty brown Muslim invaders took over!" I can see why people are concerned. We should cover the regional differences, but not in a way that unduly weighs content or masquerades biased opinion as statistics. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Restore but improve (as above) as Germany is a federation of states.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Restore + Improve I think the section could be improved with above suggestions. 1Kwords (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• delete. Please note that 1Kwords is violating NPOV on every article about immigrants in general, and muslims in particular. He also removes source content that he does not like.178.232.14.249 (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not about him.Slatersteven (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

HOW ABOUT we improve it first? Maybe 1Kwords could draft a new version in his sandbox or elsewhere that we could all take a look at before restoring anything. Deb (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2019 (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.

RfC: "By Region" section

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.

---

What do you think should be done with the whole section "By Region"?Deb (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Improve
• Delete
• Keep

• Comment This RfC is malformed. Please follow the instructions at WP:RFCST, especially the clear and neutral question part. --Pudeo (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Is the amendment satisfactory? Deb (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Looks good. --Pudeo (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Also, the Delete option shouldn't be in this RfC, the result of the last RfC was Keep and we shouldn't have to vote more than once. 1Kwords (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The previous RFC was about four months ago; things can reasonably change since then, especially given that most keep voters also wanted it improved and that clearly hasn't happened. Also, just at a quick glance, the first keep !vote (and the only one unequivocally arguing for keeping without improvement) is from someone who was later banned as a ban-evading sockpuppet, which calls the outcome into question. In fact, I would suggest a binary keep / delete RFC; one of the problems with the previous RFC was that it implied the possibility of vaguely-defined "improvements" without any clear direction, leading to a muddled result (especially, again, when you exclude the !vote by a sockpuppet.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The improvement is to add every state of Germany to the section, it's not vague but obvious. It shold be clear to everyone. 1Kwords (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. We need to revisit the previous discussion. Those who said that improvements were needed to this section were in the majority. Who is going to make these improvements and when? If no one intends to, then I propose once again that the whole section be deleted. A couple of users have been adding content, but only to the sections for regions that have a perceived problem with crime, and only about crimes committed by immigrants within those regions.Deb (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, and strong oppose all existing suggestions for "improvement", which propose actively harmful changes and which would exacerbate the existing problems with the section. The previous RFC was tainted by sockpupptry and concluded with a request for improvement that has not occurred (and which, in my opinion, will never occur, since this listicle-style way of arranging information is fatally flawed.) Sections like these are a magnet for random trivia; they aren't really useful to most readers. Specifically important things should get their own section, but a massive list that implicitly contains all crime by immigrants in any region of Germany that has received enough coverage to pass WP:V isn't a helpful way to organize or present information and raises WP:SYNTH / WP:OR issues in the context of the rest of the article - it's trying to make an argument by dropping a bunch of random articles and events that editors here happened to think was cool. It also raises WP:NOTNEWS issues, in that most of these are just random collections of news reports with no indication of any sort of WP:SUSTAINED significance. EDIT: Also, strenuous opposition to the 'improve' suggestion below, which would actively damage the article purely for what seems like WP:POINTy reasons; even the people who think that the material in the article could somehow be salvaged have no argument or explanation for how it could be "improved" beyond indiscriminately dumping more random stuff there in hopes that the WP:SYNTH / WP:OR issues go away. Including a massive indiscriminate list of every single crime committed by any immigrant anywhere in Germany isn't going to improve the article; it will just bloat it with more unreadable trivia. Furthermore, the underlying WP:OR issue remains - the list still seems intended to lead the reader to a conclusion about crime in Germany. We should summarize the topic from broad summary articles, not try to do WP:OR from an indiscriminate collection of random news reports. We absolutely should not be expanding the section in its current form. --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Aquillion Per WP:USELESS, usefulness has no importance on whether material should be included in enWP. 1Kwords (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

First, that's an essay (expressing one person's opinion), not a policy. Second, that essay expresses opinions on what arguments are best when arguing over including / deleting entire articles; it isn't about how we focus or structure things within articles. Furthermore, as it says, why something is useful or useless is a valid argument - it's merely "this is useless" with no other explanation that is unhelpful. As I explained, the structure you are arguing for doesn't really convey information about the subject to the reader in an optimal manner. When deciding how to arrange an article and what aspects to focus on, its usefulness to the reader is an absolutely central aspect of how we determine what to include. But I've reworded to 'helpful', which might make it more clear - the problem here is that this structure fails to present the material in a readable fashion, violating the WP:MOS. Also, I'll note that while you misunderstood the essay you were linking and therefore misjudged its applicability, your comment implicitly accepts that this serves no useful purpose in the article - ie. it doesn't convey meaningful information to the reader. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It is WP:V verifiability that qualifies material for inclusion, not usefulness, essay or not. The mission of an encyclopedia is to be informative, not necessarily useful. Usefulness would then lead to the question "to what end"? Which end do you have in mind? Also your arguments about "readability" are irrelevant as your votes is delete, you aren't really arguing that the section should be improved in terms of readability at all. Why bring it up? How is deleted material readable? 1Kwords (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Concur with Aquillion that the sock puppetry issues with the previous RfC are a serious problem. Furthermore, the comments of both Aquillion and Deb regarding the failure of previous keep !voters to actually make any improvements to this WP:COATRACK for anti-immigrant POV pushes makes me inclined to be more strident with my support for deletion rather than less. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Improve the rest of the states of Germany should be added. Everyone is welcome to contribute sources. 1Kwords (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• I mean, you had several months to improve it and did not. It's still an anti-immigrant coatrack. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Neither did you and Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE. You can improve the section at any time. 1Kwords (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Strenuous opposition to this suggestion for 'improvement', which proposes something actively harmful to the article's readability. Indiscriminately adding the rest of the states of Germany, purely to fill out the article, would go against the spirit of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and would damage the readability of the article more than the WP:SYNTHy indiscriminate collection of random things already present. This is the opposite of an improvement - you are proposing taking an existing problem and actively making it even worse. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Outright deletion fatally damages readability of any material. 1Kwords (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep the "by region" subheader and the content here are entirely encyclopedic. Sourcing seems ok, Die Welt etc. I don't see why there would be a RfC option about "improving". Generally, Wikipedia is WP:WORKINPROGRESS and even featured articles should be improved. It doesn't matter if one sockpuppet commented the earlier rfc. Keep and improve like any useful content in Wikipedia. --Pudeo (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed, none of the criticisim is based on available sources. Also WP:V material should be retained on the basis of WP:PRESERVE. 1Kwords (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Saying things over and over won't give you an extra vote. Deb (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The arguments are still valid. The sourcing is solid, like this one: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1047848713 by Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen. It would also be unfortunate if this RfC was decided by editors who do not read German comfortably. 1Kwords (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be even more unfortunate if it was decided by editors who can't write English correctly. Deb (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Remove, almost unreadable WP:SYNTH collection of material. —Kusma (t·c) 20:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Improve. There is nothing wrong with the subject, but like any article editors need to be given the opportunity to collaborate and improve it. And if editors feel it's coatracking, they need to find sources to support that POV. Bermicourt (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

* Bermicourt, thank you for your input. What do you, in general, think of the idea of having a By region section? Germany is a federation per States of Germany. 1Kwords (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I came here from the Wikiproject and hadn't seen this before today. It's full of synthesis, random facts/statements, old material, etc. It's embarrassing to read as it's so badly written. A random example: "In the 1990s, police in the Berlin district Neukölln raised concerns about a dozen Lebanese-kurdish families, but their concerns were rebutted because the families being war refugees who would eventually return to their home countries.[citation needed" What the hell does that contribute to the encyclopedia? It's almost as though editors added, presumably over the years, random disconnected edits with no understanding of what an article in an encyclopedia should be or of our policies. Sadly it looks as though many of those had an anti-immigrant pov. Of course that's no surprise, such articles are always going to attract anti-immigrant editors. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The "In the 1990s" information was in the given faz.net (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) source, a direct quote has been added. FAZ is a daily German newspaper founded in 1949 and is WP:RS. Although good faith is assumed on the part of the editor who wrote this, a friendly reminder that this vote violates both WP:CIVIL (policy) and WP:AGF (guideline). 1Kwords (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The second citation needed tag in the Berlin section has also been resolved by a direct quote from the given WP:RS source. Thanks for pointing out the citation needed tags which gave me opportunity to resolve them. 1Kwords (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Improve Being the mentioned section (i.e. By Region) would be definitely better and factually more informative for the readers of the article; and I think this can increase the quality and quantity degree/level of the article. On the other hand, considering being more states of Germany (which are presumably involved the issue) could confirm the necessary of "improving" by keeping and adding more states/sources plus other related matters. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Ali Ahwazi, thanks for your input, but it's very difficult to understand what you are trying to say. I'm wondering if you have fully understood the discussion. Deb (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

briefly speaking, I mean: this section "By Region" is a helpful section for the article; also it can be more informative/helpful to add other related states of Germany to the mentioned section (to improve the page). Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as per Deb and Doug Weller.176.11.51.232 (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. I came here because the discussion is listed at WP:ANRFC, in order to close it. But there is a serious problem with WP:UNDUE which has not been given sufficient attention in the present discussion, in my view: the whole section is unduly anti-immigrant. Therefore I thought I would !vote and leave the matter to someone else to close. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2019 (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.

Recent edits

@Master90chief: I understand that you've got a police report with some WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims in it. However with only a few media sources making these claims currently I'm a bit concerned about validating the accuracy of the claimed statistics. Even governments might release material that meets WP:FRINGE definitions. Do you have a link to the actual report? Ideally in English as my German is not amazing, but I will muddle through if necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Master90chief:You reverted the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim back in again; please come to this article talk page and discuss. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have an english version, but the direct link to german report is aleady and the newspaper link source Welt is definitively legit.

I'm not disputing that Welt is a legitimate RS - rather I'm questioning whether the report they're discussing falls within the purview of WP:FRINGE - this is something that applies to poor methodology in social sciences as well as hard sciences. And as I just so happen to have a degree in the social sciences it's something I'm pretty good at reviewing. Also please sign your comments with four tildes. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Whooh!, you are saying you get to analyse sources? I suggest you take this to RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

If I review it and find fringe methodolgy I'd take it to WP:FRINGE/N Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits are concerning because of their one-sidedness and the fact that the required improvements to the section on regions have still not been made. Deb (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

By region - the missing states

A place to gather sources.

Bavaria

• This is an article about nazi murderers, the trial happened in Bavaria, a state which we have a section for already. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44764827 1Kwords (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hesse

Here's a crime that's obviously immigration-related: [6]

Deb a good find and it should be added to the article in the Hesse section. Also, I wonder if you would care to sign your comment? 1Kwords (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Deb do you have more? Please add them. 1Kwords (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

From Focus: https://www.focus.de/regional/mecklenburg-vorpommern/kriminalitaet-lka-2016-gab-es-erstmals-mehr-kriminalitaet-in-mv_id_7248881.html 1Kwords (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Schleswig-Holstein

Public report: https://www.schleswig-holstein.de/DE/Landesregierung/IV/Presse/PI/2018/180307_Polizei_StudieKriminalitaetZuwanderer.html 1Kwords (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Above link is presentation of study, this is the study itself: http://kfn.de/wp-content/uploads/Forschungsberichte/FB_137.pdf 1Kwords (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Why do you want to highlight these in particular? What makes them noteworthy? Just dumping indiscriminate random news reports into the already-bloated section will only make its intractable problems even worse. Hard opposition to adding any of this; we need to be severely cutting, summarizing, and finding secondary sources to indicate long-term impact for the events we do include, not adding random cruft like this. Your proposals here would make the section worse. --Aquillion (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• de:Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen (KFN) is a criminology research institute financed by the de:Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kultur, so this isn't a "random news report". They are therefore experts at criminology. How is this report not WP:RS? And yes, it was used because it was the best source that I came across while searching. If you find other sources of equal quality, please present them. 1Kwords (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Aquillion KFN is a secondary source. It's an institute based in Niedersachsen writing about Schleswig-Holstein. Christian Pfeiffer cited by BBC is a former director of KFN acording to the deWP article I linked above. The article content you destroyed was citing the summary of the report. 1Kwords (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, think-tanks and the like aren't a great source for WP:DUE arguments. But more generally, I don't feel we should be expanding the section while it's in such a shoddy state - focus on cuts for now and on establishing a clear baseline for what goes in, then we can talk about expanding it. If we just keep dropping random factoids like these in, the section is just going to get more and more bloated - we need to focus on fixing its overarching structure and inclusion criteria first, which means beginning with heavy cuts. --Aquillion (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion which WP:RS classifies the de:Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen as a "think-tank"? In what way are KFN not experts at criminology - note that I am not asking for your opinion, but rather the opinions of other criminologists criticiszing the KFN. A Thousand Words (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• There are quite a few things wrong with this section:

1. Obvious WP:SYNTH, e.g. "Although non-Germans only represented 8% of the population in SH, they were victims in more than 50% of crimes with non-German perpetrators suhch [sic] as killings."
2. You talk of "immigrants to Schleswig-Holstein". In English, that means people who have come into Schleswig-Holstein from outside Schleswig-Holstein, including other Germans - this is presumably not what you intended.
3. Most importantly, you haven't included page numbers from this long paper, which makes it difficult to check your statements.

• I recommend you remove this section until such time as you have put it right. If not, I'll have to. Deb (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Deb my addition does include page numbers: 93-95. The chapter Zusammenfassende Darstellun starts on page 93. So the page numbers don't appear in your browser? I'll add the URL to the PDF to the source. Please check the relevant pages in the PDF. If you would review the statements in the section for clarity and accuracty, the input is much appreciated. 1Kwords (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay. You've stated that the statistics are reported "after age and gender differences in the groups had been compensated for". But doesn't it actually say on that page that not all variables have been taken into consideration, and that they should be? Deb (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

* The report, in the end, didn't compensate for every variable. The section could add that not every variable was accounted for. As to whether it should have been done, it seems the researchers didn't prioritise this effort in the end or they would have done it prior to releasing the report. They didn't. It is better if the information added to enWP focuses on the research that was actually done, rather than go into a meta-discussion about how research is to be conducted, that better belongs in an article or section about criminology, not crime.

* Compensation is itself a controversial issue. Suppose that young immigrant girls are overrepresented as victims of violence by young immigrant men. Using "compensation" is then the same thing as saying those girls don't count as victims.

* Now that compensation is used for age and gender, the article should also elaborate on what the proportion of young males are. If the report was to compensate for low education, it is also reasonable to add what the distribution of low-educated young men is.

Thank you for your insight, input and for taking the time to check the source Deb. 1Kwords (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sentence removed

I've removed this appalling sentence: "According to a migration official in Neukölln, of the 204 young repeat offenders, half had an Arab name." The source backs up the fact that the official said this, but what part does such a prejudicial statement have to play in a supposingly objective article? Deb (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS on young repeat offenders in Germany which says the ratio is different? Has any WP:RS criticised the statement or rebutted is as "prejudiced"? A Thousand Words (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised that you ask this. Surely you can see that "having an Arab name" is irrelevant - Barack Obama has an Arab name but he's not an Arab, and lots of Arabs have European names. The fact that some repeat offenders "had an Arab name" is clearly not relevant to the discussion and has been introduced by the official, and by the person who added it to this article, to cloud the issues and make it appear that the proportion of people of Arab extraction among young repeat offenders is unusually high. In fact, the only thing that backs up this suggestion is that "an official said it". Deb (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That sentence is not inappropriate. Many European countries do not have statistics on "race" like the UK or US, so these kind of studies are either done based on mothertongue or surname origin. For instance, a 2014 study by University of Helsinki's Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy concludes on page 88 that "24% of rapes are estimated to have been committed by individuals with foreign surnames in Finland". So this is how some studies have been done on the subject and have been reported by RS. I see no reason for removal. --Pudeo (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Pudeo, whose well-researched argument ought to put an end for the unsourced, unsubstantiated claim that the claim that the statement published by FAZ, the Newspaper of Record of Germany, is "appalling". XavierItzm (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Appalling or not, it doesn't belong in the article. Of course if we do have substantial studies in Germany on this issue we could probably use them, but not this. The fact that it was published by FAZ is irrelevant. Being verifiable is a necessary but not a sufficient reason for inclusion. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

FAZ is a WP:RS and the information is within the scope of the article and thus belongs. No source has been presented where an expert critizes the official's statement. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Spinout article created

Draft:Immigration and crime in Germany by region. See RfC close above for my reasons.—S Marshall T/C 17:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

There's much to be said for this solution. Thanks. Deb (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

No doubt this is, effectively, the Delete option prevailing despite Delete being eliminated in the previous RfC. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete wasn't eliminated at any stage.Deb (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The consensus of the previous RfC was The consensus is that the removed material should be both restored and improved. There is no consensus on whether the material should be improved before being restored or restored and then improved.. Another RfC could be launched in a few months time to have the material restored. A Thousand Words (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Taking the more recent RFC into consideration, the clear consensus is that the material should be removed until it has been improved. The earlier RFC had lower participation, and some of the participants were hopeful that the material could be improved (though if you disregard the banned sockpuppet as mentioned below, most of the people arguing for restoration specifically said their position was weak), but it's been months and not only have there been no improvements, there hasn't even been any indication of what an improvement would look like. The only changes you seem to have attempted took the existing problems highlighted in the RFCs and made them worse. In light of that, and especially considering the landslide "delete" outcome of the second RFC, it's pretty obvious the material needs to be removed until there's a consensus that it has been properly-improved - no RFC has supported leaving the existing text in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• TLDR your only suggestion was deletion - that's harly "improving". It is wrong to suggest that improvements are the responsibility of a sole editor. You made long arguments about "readability", but your actual vote was "Delete" so your stance was kind of contradictory. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• As an aside, since you asked about the sockpuppetry (and I realized I should have been more specific), ModerateMikayla555, who !voted in the first RFC, was later discovered to be a sockpuppet who was banned for the entire age of their account. Their opinion therefore has to be disregarded (which, given the low participation in the first RFC, would generally invalidate it.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It's sadly the case that sometimes the only way to improve an article is through deletion. I agree entirely that the sock's vote is invalid and that the spinoff is the best solution. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

POV and LEAD banners

What are the remaining issues that warrant the POV and LEAD banner? A Thousand Words (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Historically this article has suffered enormously from anti-immigrant edits and the contributor who created it was banned for his/her continual introduction of POV material. I do not think it's safe to remove it, and it still suffers from a lack of balance. Deb (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: ? E.M.Gregory was blocked due to abusing multiple accounts. If you meant Greywin (who you hounded all over Wikipedia[7][8][9][10][11][12]), he was blocked for alleged WP:BLPCRIME violations and edit-warring over them: December 2018 ANI thread. --Pudeo (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

If you think that a minor edit correcting the formatting of a bio article constitutes "hounding", your definition is clearly different from that of most contributors. Wikipedia:HOUND specifically says "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Deb (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Deb So do you have any specific justifications for the banners based on the current content of the article? Please contribute constructively to the actual topic of this section. A Thousand Words (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@1Kwords: please read WP:AGF. You could have just asked for specifics without the implied suggestion Deb is contributing unconstructively. I note that she hasn't been online since her post above. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller Noted. For the record, since Deb is able to read and check sources, Deb is one of the most constructive editors on this article and on this talk page. Now that you're here, which specific issues in the article warrant the banners? A Thousand Words (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@1Kwords: no time for a pov review, but the lead's a mess. The first "sentence' has no verb and the paragraph itself fails WP:LEAD in that it doesn't summarise the article. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

From my perspective (as I have said on some other articles) its valid as long as you think there may be possible POV violations at any time.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input on the LEAD.

The documentation for the Template:NPOV says The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. This would rather indicate that the template should be used for specific issues only. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven (off-topic) when you write some other articles which articles might those be? A Thousand Words (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well for a start the most recent one was 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria‎ it no longer has it, but my argument was for keeping it for just this reason.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

As to "for specific issue", as I said there at any time (and you only have too look at the talk pages) there are always going to be POV issues with articles such as this. It just saves time not to take it down, when there is good reason to think POV will be a constant complaint.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The template is dated "October 2018", that's a year ago. The template's documentation doesn't say anything about "saving time" or "look somewhere in the talk page" or "there are exceptions for articles such as NNN". It clearly states that the template addresses a specific issue, otherwise it can be removed. As for saving time, I could have saved time by simply deleting the template but I would rather, in a spirit of collaboration, give fellow editors a chance to identify a specific issue. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Just back from holidays. Thank you, Slatersteven and Doug Weller, for your helpful contributions above. I don't think I need to add any more to the reasons I've already given above or to the numerous discussions which have already taken place on the Talk page. Deb (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Deb please add one specific concern to this discusison and then the template can be re-added. There is no concern that the template's instruction should be changed or ignored. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think there's still serious problems that need to be addressed. Going from the top:

• The Trends in criminal activity since the 1990s section needs to be more of a summary; currently it's a bunch of random quotes to studies, without any rhyme or reason except what looks like an attempt to WP:SYNTH out a conclusion that the summary at the top disagrees with. Per WP:RS, Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields.
• For that matter, the Availability and reliability of statistics section has similar problems - it places massively WP:UNDUE weight on a single line from a single source (devoting nearly an entire section to it), and places that section prominently in a way that implicitly casts doubt on the rest of the article. Also, while this is something we ought to discuss on talk rather than in the article, this source makes the rest of the article's reliance on random statistics more dubious - if we have a source casting the statistics in doubt, that's all the more reason for us to focus on conclusions from reliable sources rather than trying to perform our own research using a bunch of possibly-cherrypicked stats that, based on this source, need further context to interpret.
• The Organised crime section places seriously WP:UNDUE weight on the Wall Street Journal - while it is definitely a reliable source, we still shouldn't cite one publication for almost the entire section, especially one that is slightly WP:BIASED. Additionally, it devote a massive paragraph to a single opinion piece (nearly half the text in the section!), which seems clearly WP:UNDUE.
• The Honor killings likewise devotes an entire section to just one source.
• The Sexual offences has the same problem mentioned above - pulling random statistics out of sources to lead the reader to a conclusion, despite citing broader summary sources that don't support that conclusion. Additionally, the cite to Spiegel in particular uses a cherrypicked statistic to misrepresent its overall conclusion. (Which is Right-wing websites claim that Germany is facing an alleged epidemic of rape cases committed by refugees, fueling panic about the recent influx of foreigners and the safety of women in the country. We investigated one site's reports and found many problems with them.) Merely pulling out one statistic from a source like that to make it look like there's a problem is misrepresenting the source; we need to include their larger context.
• The first paragraph of Gang rape has uncited, clearly-controversial statements.
• Violent crime has the same problem mentioned above - just one random statistic with no context. In fact, that is the entire section.
• Female Genital Mutilation, again, has random statistics with no context.
• Crimes against immigrants since the 1990s has almost the exact same problems as the Trends in criminal activity since the 1990s section - a bunch of random studies when it needs a conclusion - though in this case it seems a bit less WP:SYNTHy and more just a mess.
• The lead is a bit of a mess for the same reason as the body - it quotes people and stats without any clear rhyme or reason as to why, when what it needs to be doing is providing more of a summary. By definition this will lead to WP:DUE problems.

To be clear, the vast majority of the page's text has WP:POV issues, especially WP:DUE and to a lesser extent WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"a conclusion that the summary at the top disagrees with". If the main text does not support the summary, the summary needs to be amended to reflect the main text. Duh. XavierItzm (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you consider these serious issues to be unimportant reveals a lack of understanding of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view principle, which is one of the five pillars of this project. Deb (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• But the summary is cited, which changes things. In that situation we should go with the sources making a broad summary with full context over a bunch of random statistics in order to avoid WP:OR / WP:DUE issues. --Aquillion (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion thanks for taking the time to check the article. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've revised Female Genital Mutilation. Looks fine to me. XavierItzm (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• The FGM section could use more context. Say, now that FGM is illegal, has there been any prosecutions and how many of those annually? The lack of context imho means that the FGM section is incomplete, it doesn't constitute a POV violation. Also, the BMFSFJ is not "random statistics", it's statistics published by the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Chechen mafia not mentioned

https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/bka-warnt-vor-tschetschenen-mafia-a-1266338.html Xx236 (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Xx236 Der Spiegel is a WP:RS so you can use it to add material to this article. Thanks for the research. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

My English is extremely unpopular here.Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Xx236 okay, I'll see what we can do with the source. If you have the time, it would be much appreciated if you could keep posting sources. I read German, but googling and coming up with search terms which yield good search results in German is hard. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Latest contributions

A Thousand Words, You've written "crime by asylum seekers, refugees and tolerated aliens is significantly higher than any other group in Germany". That's unclear, which is why I removed it previously. "Asylum seekers, refugees and tolerated aliens" is not a group, it's three groups. If you mean that the average for the total group consisting of these three groups is higher, then say that. Deb (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The source says clearly that these three groups are combined as Zuwanderer by BKA. It's been removed again by another user. A Thousand Words (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's good that the source says it clearly, but you didn't say it, so how do you expect a reader to understand the article? Deb (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The article as it stands now The first quarter 2019 BKA report stated that crime by immigrants is significantly higher than any other group in Germany is clearly more wrong as the news article writes about Zuwanderer, not Einwanderer. Foreign students and labor migrants are not meant, yet that's what this article now states. Also this edit makes it appear as though origin had nothing to do with higher crime rates, but that's not what the SZ article says, either. On the whole, the inserted text misrepresents the source. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to take that whole section out. It was clearly inserted with the intention of making the immigrant crime problem seem worse by cherry-picking from the article. In fact, I'll remove it immediately in view of your comments. Deb (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Deb, the section needs some clarification on terminology before being restored to the article. For other interested parties, the WP:RS source is this one: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/fluechtlinge-kriminalitaet-statistik-1.4556323. I translated Geduldete, one of the three categories as tolerated alien, but I am not sure that's the English term for individuals who have been issued deportation orders but can't be deported due to the situation in their country of orgigin. What's the English term? Also, the URL says fluechtlinge which also gives a hint that the article does not concern immigrants in general, but refugees. A Thousand Words (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if there even is a term for that; maybe the meaning would need to be spelled out to readers. Deb (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

German wikipedia has a whole article on Geduldete, it's heavy reading: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duldung_(Aufenthaltsrecht). A Thousand Words (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is absurd. Zuwanderer is the official word, coined in 2005. Einwanderer is the historical word that's been used in German, by Germans, for generations. Zuwanderer just happens to be the politically correct neologism. But they mean the same, i.e.: immigrant. I challenge anyone to dispute this. In any event, whether you use Zuwanderer or Einwanderer, the translation is the same. The source says: "Zuwanderer begehen im Durchschnitt deutlich mehr Straftaten als der Rest der Bevölkerung." This translates as: "Immigrants commit significantly on average more crimes than the rest of the population." Straight from the horse's mouth. I've restored the edit and added the original text, as per policy with regard to disputes. XavierItzm (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that you chose to leave out other sections of the article that commented on the reasons for this, because they didn't suit your political agenda. Remember your NPOV responsibility. Deb (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Imho both claiming "immigrant culture/ethnicity has nothing to do with crime levels" or claiming "all immigrants are highly overrepresented" are both POV, but from opposing ends. What should be done, is to neutrally represent what the source says. It has a lot of nuance and that nuance belongs in the article. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

From the source: Tatsächlich fällt keine andere Gruppe der Polizei so negativ auf, keine andere Gruppe beschäftigt die Ermittler so intensiv wie Asylbewerber, Flüchtlinge und "Geduldete"; das BKA fasst sie in seiner jüngsten Auswertung "Kriminalität im Kontext von Zuwanderung" (Stand: 31. März 2019) als "Zuwanderer" zusammen. Diese Menschen, die großteils seit 2015 nach Deutschland gekommen sind, machen zwar nur zwei Prozent der Bevölkerung aus, rund 1,6 Millionen Menschen. Here the text refers to most the people categorised as Zuwanderer have arrived since 2015, that would not make any sense since Germany has had labour immigration and foreign students for decades. So it's true that Zuwanderer are immigrants, but not all immigrants are Zuwanderer by this BKA definition so it shouldn't hurt if the text in the article reflects this. A Thousand Words (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

1Kwords, I don't have any sort of problem including this clarification regarding "Tatsächlich fällt keine andere Gruppe der Polizei so negativ auf, keine andere Gruppe beschäftigt die Ermittler so intensiv wie Asylbewerber, etc., etc., etc." In fact, I think it would be a much better and more useful clarification to say that about these people, who are zwei Prozent der Bevölkerung, than the weak soup of an "explanation" currently in the article XavierItzm (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, A Thousand Words, I know that you are doing your best to include everything that's in the source article, but you actually say that you want to include "a lot of nuance" and that means POV wording. What you've now done is once again to include poor and ambiguous English phrasing. I see no alternative but to delete the paragraph again until such time as wording can be agreed. Deb (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph should definitely stay. Deb's aspersions here are troubling: because they didn't suit your political agenda. I don't think the chapter needs the wording "left-leaning professors", but otherwise these concerns over "poor and ambigious English phrasing" are overblown. In the November 17 comment, Deb is saying that she is more than happy to take the whole section out, so it seems like a waste of time to debate the exact wording, if her goal is to remove it. --Pudeo (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Pudeo The wording "left-leaning" is perhaps not absolutely necessary, but it's absolutelly in the source. Eher linke Kriminologen wie der Bochumer Professor Thomas Feltes argumentieren deshalb .... No idea why SZ writes this, never heard of prof Thomas Feltes at Bochum Uni before. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

See [13]. Deb (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyediting the paragraph

An early 2019 BKA report stated that asylum seekers, refugees and individuals with no residence permit (German: Geduldete) are distinctively overrepresented as crime suspects in Germany. This group numbers about 1.6 million people, of which the majority arrived in 2015 or later. They represent 2 % of the population in Germany, but account for 11 % of suspects in cases of grievous bodily harm, 15 % of suspects in cases of fatal violence and 12 % of suspects in cases of rape and sexual assault. Criminologists explain the disparity with this group disproportionately consisting of men aged between 16 and 29, and that young males are overrepresented as criminals in all parts of the world regardless of their ethnic origin. In addition, young male immigrants have high unemployment, low education and previous experiences of violence, all of which are factors that are associated with higher crime rates among all Germans. Left-leaning professor Thomas Feltes from the Ruhr University Bochum argues that culture does not play a role at all. The BKA report shows that there are significant differences among individuals from different countries of origin, with refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria being less represented than migrants from North African states like Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia along with sub-Saharan countries Gambia, Nigeria and Somalia. Criminologist Christian Pfeiffer attributes this to a North African "macho culture" that carries an increased readiness to use violence. Academic Christian Walburg from the University of Münster explains the overrepresentation with North Africans having nearly no possibility of being given an asylum and that they therefore have "less to lose".[ref]

Here's a quick copy-edit. Far from perfect, but the great thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can improve the text. --Pudeo (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You're free to try and improve the text. You haven't done it here because of your imperfect English, but I appreciate you are trying. What you don't seem to be considering is that it's not the role of a Wikipedia article to reproduce the views of a newspaper.Trying to include all the "nuances" of which A Thousand Words speaks is giving undue weight to an individual article. The version I created used the newspaper's own summary at the beginning of the article (not just half of it, as the previous contributor chose to do), and this is why it was a better version. Deb (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no policy-based reason for omitting "imperfect English". You are also welcome to use your flawless linguistic skills to improve the text. WP:SOFIXIT. It seems, though, that you have misunderstood WP:RS in your comment: it's not the role of a Wikipedia article to reproduce the views of a newspaper. Wikipedia reflects views presented in reliable sources, and we're talking about a reliable source. --Pudeo (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE Deb (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It is due, the European migrant crisis is a major event in European history. The lead sentence hould perhaps better say ... "macho culture" which carries with it an increased .... Also the lead sentence could say the group of migrants who are asylum seekers, refugees and individuals with no residence permit in the first sentence and then use the word "the group" in the rest of the text to refer to them, rather than "refugees" or "immigrants". On the whole, the text represents the content of a WP:RS source well enough to go into the article. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Pudeo's contribution is excellent. Full agreement with Pudeo and with 1Kwords that the para is a worthy addition as is. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this statement just shows up your failure to recognise poor English and your failure to comprehend WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia articles are for reporting facts, not the opinions of individual journalists. Deb (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The analyses reported in the article are those of criminologists and professors, not journalists. SZ even went to the length of asking a number of academics, tbh I've seen public service journalists do worse. A Thousand Words (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A Thousand Words, you are still misunderstanding my point. The purpose of this article is not to set up individual analysts' arguments against one another but to record facts. Including all the "nuances", as you call them - others would call them "opinions" - of the whole newspaper story makes this particular report and analysis appear disproportionately important by comparison with other sources used in the article. In other words, you are giving it undue weight. Deb (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is titled Immigration and crime in Germany, the source does not say immigrants.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarification for "foreigner"

Is the clarification really needed? Cambridge dictionary states that "foreigner" means a person who comes from another country. The Tagesschau [14] is talking about ausländer, foreigners, and then mentions Syrians, Iraqis and Afghans. Is it not clear from the dictionary meaning of the word what is meant here? Let's not add unnecessary tags. --Pudeo (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely it is needed, as shown by the fact that you've selected a single definition from a single dictionary when there are many others out there. No statistician would carry out a survey or write a report without first defining what they mean by the terms used. So tell us, what do you mean by "comes from another country"? Deb (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

According to Duden, Ausländer (which Tagesschau uses) means "belonging to a foreign state, foreign citizen or stateless". A Thousand Words (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems clear that the various sources used in this article use various definitions of the word "immigrant". We need to be very careful to spell out what we mean rather than using a blanket term like "foreigner". Deb (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it is me but Foreigner and immigrant are not synonymous. So anything that talks about Foreigner may be talking about immigrants, or holiday makers.Slatersteven (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, one must go by context. Clearly the

ausländer crimes by Syrians, Iraqis and Afghans does not quite refer to crimes by tourists from these countries.

See what I did there? I am referring to crimes by ausländer Syrians, Irquis and Afghans in Germany, yet I did not include "in Germany". Why? Because evidently by context it should be clear to any reasonable reader that this article is about Germany. Likewise, in the context of immigration, the word ausländer is often used by reports regarding criminal activity by immigrants in Germany. For example, the very topic is called Ausländerkriminalität (i.e., criminality by foreigners). And yet no sane German person, when he reads the word Ausländerkriminalität thinks of Beverly Hills or 7th Arrondisement-originating tourists pickpocketing law-abiding German citizens in Unter den Linden Prachtstraße. Should we add a tag for clarification needed "oh! define in what country" each time crime statistics are cited in this article? Sad that people are stooping to kindergarten-level rethoric in order to disrupt this article! XavierItzm (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, you are assuming that every non-German reader understands German to your advanced level. Please try to remember that you are on the English-language Wikipedia. We don't even have "kindergartens" here. Deb (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI a number of English-speaking countries including the US do have kindergartens so that's more of a country thing than a language thing. 199.116.171.69 (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

We don't have them here - in the English-speaking country where I am.Deb (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is the edit says "An early 2019 BKA report stated that asylum seekers, refugees and individuals with no residence permit (German: Geduldete) are distinctively overrepresented as crime suspects in Germany.". So any text must reflect the source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

And, of course, "distinctively" is completely the wrong word. Deb (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Deb is right, the source says Aber keine andere Gruppe ist in der Kriminalstatistik so stark überrepräsentiert so rather than distinctly overrepresented, it would be more accurate to write strongly overrepresented. A Thousand Words (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit done as per 1Kwords. XavierItzm (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Even if the inclusion of "strongly" is agreed, the wording introduced by XavierItzm leaves just as clumsy and ungrammatical a sentence as previously. "The first quarter 2019 BKA report stated that as a group, asylum seekers, refugees and individuals with no residency but can't be deported (German: Geduldete) are strongly overrepresented as crime suspects vs. all other groups in Germany." I suggest rewording to say "The first quarter 2019 BKA report stated that as a group, asylum seekers, refugees and Geduldete (individuals with no residency but who cannot be deported) are strongly overrepresented." Deb (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)