Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany/Archive 1

Archive 1

Possible rename and inclusion of other European attacks

Perhaps we could generalize this article a bit further and have it encompass attacks across Europe known to be committed by asylum-seekers let in during the European migrant crisis? It is to my knowledge that some of the perpetrators in the November 2015 Paris attacks were asylum-seekers (or disguised themselves as asylum-seekers), so that article could be listed. Just a suggestion. Parsley Man (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I think there's enough on the topic for this article to be valid - Germany has by far the highest number of immigrants of all European countries. Immigration and crime in France and/or Immigration and crime in Europe should be created and include the info you mention. Many criminals pose as refugees or migrant workers. Jim Michael (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the name of the article itself is highly biased (among many other things). The article appears to be about crimes committed by immigrants, but the title assumes a correlation. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Split out by immigration group and cause

The article as of now only describes a possible link between immigration and crime, failing to mention that many of these fears are mainly associated with particular groups of immigrants, which can also be split out in economic migrants, refugees, seasonal workers, etc etc.

A recent report by Pew Research may be of interest for this.

Europeans Fear Wave of Refugees Will Mean More Terrorism, Fewer Jobs

Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

General scope - possible merge

Looking at Immigration and crime, it seems as though Germany is one of the only countries with an article focusing on the link between Immigration and crime. Almost every country has crime coming from immigrants - including the United States, which immigrant crime is focused in Immigration to the United States#Crime. Why not merge this article into Crime in Germany with a section titled Immigrant criminality (similar to Crime in Switzerland#Immigrant criminality), or merge this article into Immigration to Germany with a section titled Crime (similar to Immigration to Norway#Crime or Immigration to the United States#Crime)? When is the proper time to create a separate article focusing on the link of immigration and crime? —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The word "or" in your post shows the problem: It is related to both articles, but is a phenomenon that wouldn't only fit in one of the articles you named. Also there is by far enough material to justify a new article. It will probably just take some time to evaluate it.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I did say "or", because I don't seem to see any problem with the Crime section being placed in the Immigration to the United States article instead of the Crime in the United States article. A search for "immigrant" in the latter article produces zero results. What justifies that aspect? If there is enough material for a new article just talking about the connection between immigration and crime, I think the article should be renamed as "Immigration criminality in Germany" or "Immigrant crime in Germany" (similar to Crime in Switzerland#Immigrant criminality). The current title could be considered misleading. However, at the current state that the article is in right now, I think it's best to merge this article into Immigration to Germany OR Crime in Germany, depending on the consensus. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, as I wrote I wouldn't support this proposal, it would be much more constructive if we give the article some time and wait if it will grow.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed this could be expanded to wider geographic areas, as crimes, terrorist attacks, and terrorist style attacks by immigrants and children of recent immigrants such a Major Hassan and Anwar al Awlaki who have made international headlines, and some major crimes by persons of Muslim heritage such as the McDonalds munich shooter and the machete mass stabber who nevertheless have no direct links to religious belief, or membership in terrorist organizations as an obvious motive but otherwise are indistinguishable from major terrorist attacks. This is a good place to put such non-jihad attacks as there are always editors who routinely AFD major atrocities which receive international publicity as non-notable and delete them. An even wider topic are ethnic minorities or occupied territories such as Palestinians and Uyghurs who routinely make headlines with atrocity attacks in the name of nationalist justice. Sometimes nation states use ethnic immigrants or minorities to carry out clandestine warfare using personal quarrels and mental illness as cover stories to cover up what are actually terrorist attacks. It makes it difficult to note such attacks when so many editors bury mass atrocities and high profile murders as "routine" and erase them with AFDs Bachcell (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Immigration and Germany is a valid stand-along topic due to the level of discussion of the topic in Germany; the political impact of the topic; and the intense debate over whether the press ought ot cover crimes committed by immigrants. WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT are not valid reasons to merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge I think the topic of correlation of immigration with criminal behavior is significant and having per-country articles warrants such an article. Toddst1 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merkel responds

twitter Conflict News BREAKING: German Chancellor Angela Merkel says refugees carrying out attacks 'mock the country that took them in' - @AP Bachcell (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Gatestone Institute

Gatestone Institute:
During the first six months of 2016, migrants committed 142,500 crimes, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office. This is equivalent to 780 crimes committed by migrants every day, an increase of nearly 40% over 2015. The data includes only those crimes in which a suspect has been caught. --89.204.153.124 (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Added this, thank you.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That info is useless when the the number of additional "immigrants" is not also mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:5960:F4DC:179:25E7:E64E:2D2B (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think it is useless, but surely facts about the total number of immigrants in the recent time should be also added. I'm going to see what I can do.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Bad sources, biased article, should be brought in line with the german language equivalent of this article

German language equivalent: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fl%C3%BCchtlingskrise_in_Deutschland_ab_2015

Gatestone institute and Breitbart should not be used as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.50.131 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Surely this is not the "equivalent". I recommend to re-read the topic. Gatestone Institute refers among others to a Bundeskriminalamt source.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The equivalent to this article on the German Wikipedia is here.

And yes, this English article is extremely biased. Even though it states a supposed ambiguity on its matter in the first place it is only followed by doubtful third-party number games and a list of crimes to point fingers on immigrants as such. Based on which facts or analysis? Please do take a look at the references of this article, they're only taken out of newspapers, not even a link the official criminal statistics of the BKA, let alone a study about this subject.

The German Wikipedia entry, on the other hand, is quoting reliable sources and depicts more accurately the relationship between immigration and crime.

For those reasons I invoke the 'POV' and 'unreliable sources' templates.

~ Spielkalb (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This article exists since several month; discussions at its time of creation can be found above, and its topic was discussed back then, not only today when you discovered it. For these reasons, please refer to the previous discussions first. If you want to add sources, feel free to do so. The sources used are all compliant to WP:RS. No guideline says that an article needs to refer to certain statistics. You may add content if you like, but to come in as a new user and stick two templates on top of an article leads us nowhere. Above that, the German article equivalent was "Ausländerkriminalität in Deutschland". It doesn't exist. The equivalent to the German article "Ausländerkriminalität" is Immigration and crime, so you are definitely wrong. And no arguments for the alleged "biasing" were mentioned by you, just your personal opinion which one may share or not. For that I'm reverting your edit.--Gerry1214 (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

1) If an article exists over several month undisputed, that's not necessarily a qualification for its being good or bad. Maybe nobody who was willing or able to proof-read it stumbled upon it before.

2) I've seen and read the discussions above, but none of those answered my concerns.

3) Thanks for your invitation to add sources, but in my opinion the whole article has to be restructured and rewritten, simply adding sources won't help.

4) How old or new a user I am is irrelevant. I explained why I tagged your article with those templates here on this talk-page, following protocol.

5) Allright, the topics "Ausländerkriminalität in Deutschland" and "Ausländerkriminalität" are not the same. "Crime of foreigners in general" and "crime of foreigners in Germany". To some it might comes as an surprise, but, indeed, in the article Ausländerkriminalität within the German Wiki the topic "crime of foreigners in Germany" is well researched.

6) Yes, your sources are all compliant to WP:RS because mainstream media are allowed to quote. On the other hand I doubt that was meant for you to write an article based on mainstreaam media only.

~ Spielkalb (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, this is a highly POV article. I've restored the tags. Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh you did? And I reverted it because no factual argument was given by you.--Gerry1214 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You've got a clear consensus here that it's biased. That's enough, you should revert. Toddst1 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, name a single argument before sticking templates.--Gerry1214 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

While discussion of potential POV issues are taking place the tag should remain on the article in order to bring attention to the possible policy deficiencies. If no specific issues are identified, or if the discussion comes to a conclusion through consensus, then the tag should be removed. There are multiple editors here who have expressed a concern, this is not a drive-by tagging.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

In fact it gives me the impression to be kind of an ambush, including an IP and a brandnew account. Not very convincing.--Gerry1214 (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has to convince you of anything. At the end of the day, you need to let the consensus govern the edits. Just because numerous people disagree with you, you're assuming a conspiracy which is a hallmark of WP:TENDENTIOUS. Toddst1 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Any more guidelines that you know? Meh.--Gerry1214 (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There are highly biased statements throughout the article. For example,

. 46% of all immigrants who came from the Maghreb states went on to commit crimes in the state.[9]

The use of the word "all" paints the entire group. Gerry is clearly an outlier with a POV here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you understand the statement? It refers to the "Lagebericht Asyl und Kriminalitätsentwicklung Zuwanderer", and official report published by the Interior Minister of the state of Saxony and can be found in the sources [9] and [10]. You may check it if you want.--Gerry1214 (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

And what is the result of your check now? If you don't specify any problem with that report then I'm going to remove the weird template above the section.--Gerry1214 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed the template; user seems to have lost interest in this article very quickly. If someone doesn't understand something, please don't hesitate to ask.--Gerry1214 (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the POV template if substantious arguments for it are not given by tomorrow.--Gerry1214 (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the statement. I still disagree with you and you are edit warring. Please revert. Arguments have been given. Deadlines are not appropriate, nor is your continued ownership. Toddst1 (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ownership

This is truly a mess and appears to be WP:OWNed by one editor to the point that he is preventing anyone from even questioning whether the article is biased by adding tags when there is a clear consensus for such above. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not own any article. But an experienced user as you should know that it's recommended to use the talk page before sticking templates, as many aspects were often discussed before. But some users, especially some brandnew accounts, seem to have accidentally discovered the philosopher's stone here today. There are users that work here longer, so it's a question of respect and style how to join them.--Gerry1214 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no question of respect and how to join in editing an article. You have no more rights on this article that anyone. Perhaps you should try giving that respect and WP:AGF. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you do that too. Then you would change your tone and behaviour.--Gerry1214 (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Gerry1214 has displayed problematic behaviour in multiple articles related to immigration, and has now been blocked several times for such behaviour. He has made it very clear that he is a supporter of a German far-right party and that he is here on a mission, and he shows a very lacking understanding of how things work on Wikipedia, notably by totally disregarding discussion on talk pages and views of other editors who don't agree with him. --Tataral (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

interesting edits here and here though 'contacted' editors have not responded here. Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

List of crimes

The individual crimes section serves no point other than to sensationalize these individual events and synthesize a pattern. I have removed it to try to give this article a less biased tone. I'd like to hear other editors perspectives on this WP:BOLD move. Toddst1 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion

For the record, 78.54.107.82 (talk · contribs) appears to be a loud quacking and obvious sock of Gerry1214 (talk · contribs), evading his block and the IPs edits here have been reverted. Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Both 78.54.107.82 (talk · contribs) and 2003:86:ab04:eefd:d101:4499:326f:3c1 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as block-evading socks of Gerry1214 (talk · contribs) and their contributions here have been reverted in accordance with WP:EVADE. Toddst1 (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources: Daily Express, Breitbart News

According to the Wikipedia page, Daily Express has been run "purely for the purpose of making propaganda and with no other motive". The statement is supported by a seemingly reliable source, 'Your Britain: Media and the Making of the Labour Party' and does not appear to be in doubt. In that context, I cannot imagine any scenario where this publication is considered a WP:RS and I have tagged the reference as such. We should get a much better source (or two per WP:EXCEPTIONAL) for the claims in the paragraph supported by the Daily Express or remove the claims. Toddst1 (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, Breitbart, has been discussed quite a few times on WP:RSN:

1. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Breitbart_as_News_RS
2. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_122#Breitbart.com

...

and the consensus is that the only thing Breitbart is reliable for is reporting that they published something. Given that the article has a primary source supporting the statement, I've removed the Breitbart reference. Toddst1 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It isn't as simple as NOT being a RS, British tabloids pretty much all have a reputation for reporting in a contentious manner, therefore the usual logic is that a better source will probably exist for matters of fact and that matters of opinion should be attributed, if seen as important enough to include. Pincrete (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The worst of the sources used in the article are actually the right wing Gatestone Institute and this obscure XY Einzelfall political campaign webpage. it is actually really interesting to see the political (mis)use of statistics in use. Most of the "statistics" described in the article describe plain numbers of crimes without giving the necessary context or compare numbers which are not actually comparable (i.e. percentage of crimes commited by foreigners vs. percentage of foreigneers living in Hamburg). This article needs a serious rewrite (see below). LucLeTruc (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source

Someone keeps adding some stuff sourced to something entitled "MERKEL'S SHAME: Map reveals shocking extent of migrant sex attacks on women and children". I can't provide the link, cause the user uses a dead link in his additions. (If you're gonna edit war, at least use the right link?)

I did a google search for this headline. The top results were all unreliable sources.VR _talk 05:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC) The article is structured in a deceptive manner that fails to make relevant distinctions among foreigners residing in Germany. It is likely that immigrants as a whole do not raise or diminish the crime rate, but certain well defined subsets of immigrants certainly DO raise the crime rata, and those immigrants are clearly mostly from Muslim countries, while the worst offenders are from North Africa and Afghanistan. See the ranking in "Immigrant Crime Trends in Germany" on http://islamophiliawatch.blogspot.com

Source: an article in the Unz Review

Revision needed

The first paragraph in "Criminal activity by immigrants" has a "Politifact" source. The website itself isn't a source, only a secondary source. Please anyone could revise the thought and add primary sources. Thank you. Seagullimperial (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Graph

The graph on supposed sexual assaults is original research based on a users analysis of primary sources. Find a reliable secondary source which contains a graph like that if you want to include. Reminder: consensus is required for inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

A lot of graphs in Wikipedia have been made by users entering data from RS to Excel or other grap, there is absolutely no rule against that. The data holds true according to the BKA source, page 16 [1]. Don't remove something just because it doesn't fit your political narrative. Reverted. --Pudeo (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYN much? WP:OSE is no reason for inclusion. Toddst1 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

If this was non-controversial or if this same data was presented in this way by a secondary source it'd be fine. But this isn't the case here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Directly pasting data from Federal German Police data on immigrants and rape to an article about "Immigration and crime in Germany" isn't SYNTH either. Also what's controversial about it? We need to hide this information because the far-right might use these talking points, or something like that? --Pudeo (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that BKA is a primary source since the statisticians of BKA are presumably neither victims of crime nor perpetrators of crime. We may use the data if presented in a balanced manner, so how should it be presented? AadaamS (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), Pudeo (talk · contribs) and Toddst1 (talk · contribs), here is a secondary source: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/mehr-sexualdelikte-durch-fluechtlinge-14993901.html. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is a respected daily nationwide newspaper. The source does not say this is "controversial" either, simply "bad news". So I ask again, how should the data be presented? Basler Zeitung has also mentioned this, but afaik is likely a local newspaper. AadaamS (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

state of the article

Thanks, @Toddst1: for cleaning up a bit. In my eyes, this article is a real mess, based partly on really questionable sources (Gatestone and this obscure XY Einzelfall webpage reported only in a tabloid) which are given undue weight and based on really basic (and partly misleading) "statistics" quoted from superficial news articles and totally not NPOV. I am no particular expert in the field so one quick solution to get an at least reasonably good and balanced article on such a delicate topic would be to translate the Germany specific aspects from the articles about Ausländerkriminalität in the German wikipedia. This would mean, however, to rewrite most of the stuff here from scratch. In my eyes this really is neccesary to get a goof basis and not such a collection of loseley related pieces as the article is at the moment. What do you guys think? LucLeTruc (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject either but I agree that it's a mess and a rewrite is pretty much in order. I took that laundry list of crimes out as a first step. Toddst1 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank's for your work. I originally requested this article to be brought in line with the German one. Would it be appropriate if I just did a complete translation of the German article? Sources cited would be only in German than. Don't know if that's okay.91.64.50.131 (talk)

The language of the sources does not matter, as long as they support what is written in the article. just be careful to check how balanced and neutral the German article is. Maybe it is a similar POV battleground as here, but I did not have this impression while reading over it and such POVs are usually spotted earlier in the German wikipedia. Do you want to do this translation?LucLeTruc (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)