Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger

Article's name

Hi, I think the name should be more discrete and say "Murder of Maria L." to protect the family. This wasn't a public figure and that's the way it needs to be done. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't censor surnames on English Wikipedia. They're routinely stated - look at the many other articles about murders. Jim Michael (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

We can do the decent thing however and exercise some editorial judgement. Agree with H-s' move.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Aside from the fact that it is a common standard to mention full names in the English WP, the family of Maria Ladenburger published her full name in Frankfurter Allgemeine, one of the leading German nationwide newspapers. So obiously they don't want to conceal it and we should respect that.--Gerry1214 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The family published an obituary in Frankfurter Allgemeine not mentioning in any means that their daughter had been murdered. The burial was in Brussels, so they could not know this would be connected to the murder case, and this was weeks before the murderer was found. Only then an article in Frankfurter Allgemeine mentioned the position of her father as an high EU official. The idea they don't mind seeing their full name published is entirely speculative and in my opinion contrary to normal psychology, especially as some social media talk expresses "Schadenfreude" seeing the daughter of an EU official victim of such a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.195.96 (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. Parsley Man (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean the policy that doesn't say anything about how we must throw away common decency when making editorial changes? Or do you mean the policy that is one of the most abused policies on wikipedia because people tend to misunderstand it in some sophomoric way? I have read it. What's your point? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

We should not let our personal emotions get in the way of editing on this encyclopedia. If an RS covers it, we must report it. Parsley Man (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

And we do. That's why this article exists. What does that have to do with anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If an RS covers the surname, then we shouldn't make an exception for excluding it. Parsley Man (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So which RS does mention the name? I only see some British tabloids. The obituary that Gerry1214 mentions does not for itself draw any connection to the crime. Drawing the conclusion that the family wants the name of her daughter to be known in connection to the crime is rather speculative. LucLeTruc (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times. Unless you think the LAT is a British newspaper. And of course there is nothing wrong with British media, anyway. XavierItzm (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

If an RS covers the surname, then we shouldn't make an exception for excluding it? To me this melody sounds like orthodox communism oder like catholic inquisition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.172.150 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I've struck through comments by an identified sock. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

How did you find this out? Do you have some sort of tool showing confirmed socks? So it was this sock who introduced the famous and overly abundand "an RS covers it, we have to include it" line of argumentation here. LucLeTruc (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I remembered the user name and recalled that the user had been disruptive elsewhere, so I checked their user page. Sure enough, s/he has been identified as a sock. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Jim Michael that «We don't censor surnames on English Wikipedia. They're routinely stated». XavierItzm (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Burqa "ban"

The mentioning of Merkel banning Burqas in Germany as a reaction to this event here is wrong. First, she did not propose to ban the Burqa completely as it is phrased here (only in certain places), second the tabloid you use as a source here does not qualify as a reliable source and third even the sun does not connect the two things. The article only mentions the rape to describe the current political climate in Germany. Just ask yourself, what sense would it make to ban Burqas because some criminal raped a woman? How can these things be related? LucLeTruc (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The source itself makes the connection. The source is cited. What you request would require WP:OR and that goes against WP policies. XavierItzm (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The source does not make this connection.LucLeTruc (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The source reads, with regard to the burka ban by Merkel: "It comes as the country reacts with horror at the murder of 19-year-old Maria Ladenburger - the daughter of a senior EU official." XavierItzm (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

So where is the causal connection which justifies this beeing included as a reaction to the crime? The burqa debate has been going on for quite a while now independently of this rape case. LucLeTruc (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

WP goes by published sources. The sources publish facts, one cites the facts. One does not engage in WP:OR to try and determine if there has been a debate, how long the debate has been going on, etc. XavierItzm (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I have added another part of the source - though this argumentation is an abuse of Wikipedia principles. I could quote another newspaper as a new source, ans probably I would not quote the sun. Arguing only with published sources without any other arguments like this would cause endless edit wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.195.96 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I deleted this. Not because it is not covered by a RS, but because, also according to the sources, this was not a reaction to the crime.LucLeTruc (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Since the source reads, with regard to the burka ban by Merkel: "It comes as the country reacts with horror at the murder of 19-year-old Maria Ladenburger - the daughter of a senior EU official," I will proceed to revert. Once consensus is reached, then the WP:RS can either stay or be removed, as per consensus. Please do not vandalize until consensus is reached. XavierItzm (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I deleted this because it is misleading and wrong (in contrast to the other stuff we are argueing about here which is not wrong but just not relevant). I know what the source reads. The source clearly does not state that the proposal to ban the burqa is a reaction of Merkel to the crime itself. By listing this as a reaction, however, you explicitely claim this (Which is WP:OR by the way). So how do we reach consensus then if you just keep repeating your argument without explaining how the rape and the burqa are related and what makes the burqa relevant for this article? LucLeTruc (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The deletion was unjustified as you have not achieved consensus to delete. Besides, you are wrong. The Los Angeles Times, for example, indicatest Merkel moved forward to reduce "anger in the country" caused by the rape of Maria Ladenburger, the Cologne sex attacks, and the Munich terrorism.

Well, if you reread this thread, you will notice that I was argueing that the tabloid "The irish sun" which you used at that time to source your claim dos not write about a connection and I still stand by that claim. Which source are you referring to now? You link another article of the sun which still does not directly link the two things (it just lists the rape as a source of anger in Germany which it undoubtedly is) but mention the Los Angeles Times which I do not see linked anywhere in the article.LucLeTruc ([[User talk:.|talk]]) 23:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Answer to Pincretes question below: Well, I tried to find quality German newspapers reporting the burqa thing on the party conference in connection with the crime here but failed. What she claimed there, however, is not really different to what she argued for before the crime happened: To ban the burqa under very specific circumstances (see here). So if she just repeated her earlier argumentation, how can this be related to the crime here, XavierItzm? LucLeTruc (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

References

LucLeTruc Thankyou for clarification of what Merkel said in link above. Even in 'he Irish Sun' the connection between the ban and the crime is very very thin (all symptoms of tension between foreigners and Germans at best). I agree with you, placing this in 'reactions' is synth, there appears to be no connection between the possible limited ban and this crime. That the crime fuelled tensions in germany is very probable, but surely a better source could be found for that the The Irish Sun? Pincrete (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the New York Times is the one that on its article about the Maria Ladenburger case made the point that the burqa ban came immediately (the day after) Merkel's interview on ARD about the Ladenburger case. The NYT used the words "fierce debate" (about what the NYT calls "rapefugees") and "political balancing act she is now undertaking" (the day after the ARD interview) and the NYT further cited "prominent episodes, including widespread sexual harassment blamed on migrants in Cologne last New Year’s Eve and terrorist attacks this summer". The tile of the quoted NYT article is "Refugee’s Arrest Turns a Crime Into National News (and Debate) in Germany". XavierItzm (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Same as before: The NYT describes a mere temporal correlation, no causal connection between the rape and Merkels Burka remarks. Describing this as a reaction is WP:SYNTH. LucLeTruc (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I will remove this sentence now as the discussion closed with identical arguments here: Talk:Burqa#GermanyLucLeTruc (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure that other page's TP apply here. Better reach consensus on this here page. XavierItzm (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, then please do so. You need to reach consensus for this sentence so that it stays in the article (not the other way round: WP:ONUS). There are at least 3 editors on this talk page who argue against it. The argument on the Talk:burqa page for changing a similar sentence was that the burqa remarks are not related to the murder. This exact argument weights much stronger here in this article to remove this altogether. LucLeTruc (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but WP:NOTDEMOCRACY applies. You need to work on WP:CONACHIEVE. For the time being, we have WP:RS such as the NYT that clearly tie both issues..... XavierItzm (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Which 5 editors (@Yvarta, Pincrete, Eperoton, and Slatersteven: and me) have said here and elsewhere is not the case. No, this is not a democracy but your argument (that the source makes the connection) is simply not true. LucLeTruc (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

LucLeTruc, please do not engage in WP:VOTESTACK. It is a pretty serious policy violation contained within WP:CANVASS. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I pinged everybody who has ever participated in that particular discussion, also to make sure that I do not misrepresent their opinions. WP:VOTESTACKing in my eyes is something different. LucLeTruc (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like everyone you pinged does not see a link on the burqa ban/Maria Ladenburger rape-murder even though the NYT article (and quite a few others) were able to spot it. Icy territory, if you ask me! XavierItzm (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we stop this discussion and leave this stuff out of article ?LucLeTruc (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No, per the NYT and other sources, it is quite pertaining. XavierItzm (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

End of discussion for me here. LucLeTruc (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. So now we can recover the material from the New York Times that has been removed from the article. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No. First you need to achieve conensus here with all these editors clearly arguing against it. Ideally with arguments other than the ones you have already repeated here numerous times ("the RS covers it" or "NYT sees a connection"). LucLeTruc (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Carolin G

Folks, wikipedia is no tabloid. Please do not link the murder of Maria L and Carolin G as long as there is no proof of a connection of the two. Police investigated possible links but at the moment largely rule out a connection. Adding a whole paragraph here is not appropriate. You can add a possible link as soon as investigators find any. LucLeTruc (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The same as below. Sources tied it, the nationwide German TV show Aktenzeichen XY mentioned the possible link. Therefore, it is related.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, there is a difference between a crime TV show and an enzyclopedia like Wikipedia. Wikipedia only writes about well reported and well sourced facts and no speculations. And there just simply (currently) is no known fact that links the two cases. Police actually largely rule out a connection. LucLeTruc (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Aktenzeichen XY … ungelöst is a very reputable TV programme, to my knowledge the oldest of this kind. The article does not say that the cases are linked in a criminological way; it mentions what happened: that more than 400 people called in to give information to the police in both cases, and that no link was found up to now. And this is important, as many speculations can be found in the internet. There are various press articles who tied both cases as "Frauenmorde von Freiburg", not only because of the fact that many people in the region, especially women are simply scared, but also because they were "strikingly resemblant".[1]--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding this in one sentence would be enough and would not draw the attention away from the case which is the focus of this article. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There should be enough space on the servers of Wikimedia foundation and we should leave the decision, what he wants to give attention to, to the reader himself. ;)--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the art of writing good articles is also the art of writing focussed articles that stick to the relevant aspects of the subject. In my eyes this is not too relevant. But lets leave it as is, other aspects on this page are more important in this regard.LucLeTruc (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Family of Maria L

How is the mentioning of the family of the victim important for an enzyclopedian article? I would remove all info about her father and the obituary as this does not add any useful information. LucLeTruc (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The sources tie this information to the case (FAZ mentioned the profession of her father for example); the family itself released an obituary. And it is also important for the political dimension of the case. It's not important what some people consider as "not useful". Others will find it useful, and so do I.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So in what way is the name and profession of the father related to the case? Or to the political dimension of it?LucLeTruc (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that makes any difference, as we cover both.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:BLPNAME. There is no relevance of the fathers name, nor of his profession for the crime. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

But as I said it's relevant for the political dimension of this. To conceal it would mean to conceal a decisive element of the tragic events.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, even though I asked you did not say why this could be relevant to the political dimension. I doubt that there is a relation between the father of the victim and the crime and the political dimension of it. LucLeTruc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do me a favor, write to Frankfurter Allgemeine and ask them why he mentioned him?! Maybe because he is a high official of the EU and has a public website at Saarland University. Would be reason enough.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You still did not answer my question. Just because somebody else mentions these irrelevant aspects does not mean that we have to mention them. And by the way, they explicitly do not mention his full name. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

But numerous other sources do.[2][3][4].--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This discussion gets tiring. Again, please explain the relevance of the name and profession of the father for the crime.LucLeTruc (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Again you ask for WP:OR. We, the editors, must not engage in WP:OR. We simply cite the WP:RS, which have mentioned the Ladenburger's profession and occupation. It would be improper to censor out that which multiple WP:RS cite. XavierItzm (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstand WP:OR which does not relate to what I am suggesting. Just because some tabloids report something, this does not mean that this has to be mentioned in an article in an encyclopedia. LucLeTruc (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

LucLeTruc asked: "please explain the relevance of the name and profession of the father for the crime" at 20:48, 8 December. The WP:RS mention this multiple times; for example, [5][6][7]. We go by WP:RS, and there is no need for editors to do WP:OR to justify the WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said in other threads, we are running in circles. Just the fact that a bunch of tabloids (and you guys by linking personal job-webpages of the father or personal obituaries of the family) dig out personal details about the victim of a crime case and her family which are not related in a causal way to the crime itself does not make any of these things relevant for the crime itself and hence not relevant for the article here. I asked multiple times where this causal connection is which would make these details worthy of beeing included in an encyclopedia and the only answer I got was: "Because the yellow press reported it". Lets see what other people are thinking, I doubt that we will reach a conclusion here. LucLeTruc (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia, what is considered relevant is generally that which the sources considered relevant to report. In this case, the sources mention certain facts regarding the antecedents of the crime, and naturally these facts are included in the Wikipedia entry. XavierItzm (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What is considered relevant is generally that which the sources considered relevant to report? That will end up in one side looking for sources backing up their opinion an the other side in the same way - Someone picks up sources describing croatian warcrimes against serbs and another one sources describing serb warcrimes. This is no fiction but for example reality in german wikipedia, only that more or less only the serb side is promoted, probably caused by russia-linked activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.195.96 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is just plain wrong, XavierItzm. Have a look at WP:ONUS and my comment here.LucLeTruc (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Several reputable media outlets decided that this information is an important part of the background of this case; that should be enough.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You already said this. As I said, we are running in circles and will probably not reach a consensus here. Lets try this RFC feature. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The full name and specific occupation of the victims father was sourced with a primary source (his university webpage) which is a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. I deleted this. Despite this I still argue for not mentioning all these family details at all but we will see how the rfc turns out. LucLeTruc (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The deletion was unnecessary, because it was mentioned here twice that there are WP:RS covering this. The Telegraph even entitles its article "Afghan asylum seeker arrested over murder of German medical student who was daughter of senior EU official". So it is obviously important.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The deletion was necessary as only the primary source was used (at that time). Thanks for adding some sources. One major disagreement between our perspectives, however, seems to be what we consider as RS. I would not use most of the magazines that you guys use here as sources and stick to more "quality" papers like the guardian, bbc, NYT etc or FAZ and ZEIT. We will, however, most probably not reach an agreement here. LucLeTruc (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Lets close this discussion. All outside voices in the RFC argued for more restraint and less details with regards to the personal family background. I strongly argue for a removal of the father (WP:BLPNAME) and the obituary stuff. LucLeTruc (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It is in the WP:RS. There should be no attempt at censoring out the WP:RS based on personal preferences of editors. XavierItzm (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

have a look at WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:BIO. Thy are pretty clear with regards to removing not related info about info on living people. LucLeTruc (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, no consensus for removing. XavierItzm (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually read the policies that I linked for you? Apparently not.LucLeTruc (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Speculated refugee activities of the victim

Please do not use the tabloid Bild as a source. What they claim (that the family pleaded for donations for refugees) is just wrong. Here is a statement of the affected organisation regarding these misleading press reports [8]LucLeTruc (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The organisation is clearly active in refugee relief which they don't tell us in their statement for whatever reason, but it can be found on their homepage [[9]], so Bild is right from this perspective and the donations for the organisation are partially for refugees. But you're right it should be said precisely in the article that she herself was engaged not directly in refugee relief, but in a project for Ghana.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The subject could be important, because it is not finally clear, if Maria met the murderer before, maybe at the association's office or the university.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Weltblick clearly states that the donations will not be used for refugee relief. However, she may still have been active in some sort of refugee activism outside of this organisation. Several newspapers say so but it is unclear whether this is correct or as badly researched as the Bild stuff. Well, the conflict is the same as in all these other articles we are arguing about: This "could" be important, but it does not have to be (if the perpetrator did not know his victim). Please wait until the investigation is over and include this until then rather speculative stuff only afterwards. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The article does not say anymore that the donations are for refugee relief, it says they are for Maria's association. It tells the facts and don't leaves that to dubious websites that spread rumors. That's what Wikipedia all about.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not only about mere facts it is also about relevant facts. Such relevant facts are the crime, the perpetrator, the circumstances of the crime and the political debate triggered by it. All the tragic details of the family of the victim etc. are the realm of tabloids but not an encyclopedia. Just because something is true, it does not neccesarily have to be included in this wikipedia article. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And I wrote above why it is relevant. It is even more relevant, because the Weitblick association now published an "open letter" and participated in the public debate with this.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you do not say why a call for donations in an obituary is relevant for a rape case.LucLeTruc (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I did.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss in a constructive way. This ping pong is tiring. I do not see a convincing explanation. You state that the victim may have met the perpetrator in this association which is highly speculative and should hence not be in the article (until confirmed). Still this does not make this plea for donations relevant. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The sources mention, even provide graphic evidence, that the family requested donations for Weltblick. Weltblick engages in country-of-origin aid projects and also engages in refugee-sponsoring projects in Germany. The article is quite clear in explaining this, and all statements are well-sourced. Since the WP:RS themselves provide the information, there is no basis to attempt to censor out the sources. XavierItzm (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

We are running in circles here. All this does not in any way explain the relevance of this donation plea for the subject of this article. In fact, most of the information about the victim of the crime is, as of the current status of the investigation, totally irrelevant to the rape case. Just because some yellow press newspapers like to dig out stories about the personal background of people involved in crime cases and report this stuff, does not make any of this relevant to an article in an encyclopedia. LucLeTruc (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Multiple WP:RS cite these facts. If you disagree with the reportage done by the WP:RS, you could contact their editors and challenge their reporting directly. XavierItzm (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not care what the British or German yellow press is reporting or not, I care about what is reported on the wikipdia and what is not. The criteria for information to be included in the two totally different kind of media are substantially different.LucLeTruc (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is considered yellow press (by you). Maybe you should edit the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wikipedia page to indicate you consider it to be yellow press, if you have WP:RS to support this. XavierItzm (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

In this case we are speaking of a local correspondent of the online page of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which is becoming more and more yellow press like; it publishes partly the same articles as in the paper version and some others too; anyway like other online media it has the habit of drawing attention to its articles AND the discussion site by sensational themes and details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.195.96 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

XavierItzm, you clearly misinterpret and/or abuse the wikipedia policies. WP:RS defines what constitutes a possible reliable source, it does in no way state that we have to report everything what a RS reports, it still has to be relevant. Just have a look at WP:ONUS. None of you guys has demonstrated yet the relevance of either the details of the family of the victim or this donation for the crime.LucLeTruc (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any guideline that says we should leave out facts that are given by reliable sources. I only see a user that seems to be interested in doing so, but fails to demonstrate why we should do this.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You just fail to understand the "users" argumentation (by the way: it is two users). WP:ONUS and WP:TOPIC are the relevant pages in case you really need a guideline. LucLeTruc (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Your problem is that you think the material is WP:OFFTOPIC, but in fact it is quite relevant, as multiple WP:RS agree on citing it. XavierItzm (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how this could be a problem of mine .... As I and the ip user have mentioned, mere mentioning of something in any WP:RS does not guarantee relevance for the article (WP:ONUS). Even if you keep repeating this over and over again. Please explain how the name and job of the father of a rape victim and the families obituary for example could be relevant for a rape?LucLeTruc (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you insist in asking others to engage in WP:OR. The WP:RSs cite the facts, and we cite the WP:RS. If you do not like what the WP:RSs cite, I suggest you contact the WP:RSs. XavierItzm (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As you seem unwilling to read the stuff I linked yourself, here as a service for you the relevant paragraph from WP:ONUS:"While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."LucLeTruc (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

But you seem to be only one interested in removing the WP:RS you do not like! XavierItzm (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of the WP:OR stuff that was in this article earlier I never argued for removing a WP:RS. I argued for removing content of the article while arguing with the specific content. LucLeTruc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Let's keep it, then, per the WP:RS. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Obviously no consensus for having it in the article. LucLeTruc (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Place of birth

Is there any evidence that Maria was born in Brussels as mentioned in the box on the top right? At least the obituary in FAZ does not mention her place of birth. 80.187.100.142 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This has no relevance for the crime.LucLeTruc (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This was unsourced, maybe someone misread it.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible link to case of Carolin G.

It seems to me there is no evidence for the sentence saying the suspect was investigated in the other murder case. Obvoiously you would think he is a natural suspect there, but anyway - why not stick to the rules here too and name a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.172.150 (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC about the relevance of several aspects mentioned in the article about this crime

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as no consensus for inclusion of any of the points listed.(non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Should this article about a recent rape crime in Germany include the following aspects disputed above:

1. biographical aspects of the victim like her social engagement for Weltblick and rumours about work in refugee relief (which is, as of the current state of the investigation not directly linked to the crime) or place of birth
2. biographical aspects of the victims father (name and profession)
3. information about an obituary published by the victims family
4. a possible connection to a rape that ocoured close by where the police currently largely rule out a connection
5. a statement of chancellor Merkel to possibly ban the burqa which happened shortly afterwards

Please give opinions about the different aspects individually (i.e. include 1 - 3 but exclude the rest or similar). See the several open threads above for the detailed discussion. Thanks a lot. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• 5-Burqa ban- No. After considerable research today, I cannot find any substantive connection between the proposed limited burqa ban and this case, even in the poor source used, (Irish Sun), no connection is made, yet placing it in 'reactions' implies a causal relationship between this case and the ban. 4-Other murder- No The present text is simply not supported by the sources used and is synth and probably a BLP violation. Quote: The suspect was also seen as a possible suspect for the rape and murder of 27-year-old female jogger Carolin G … … but the police declared there was probably no link between the two crimes. If such a link was CLEARLY made between the two cases, sufficient to describe accused as 'a possible suspect' in another murder, let's hear WHO voiced the suspicion and attribute it. In the absence of an unequivocal accusation having being made, it should go. 1-3 I am neutral about including the other personal info, beyond saying that we should err on the side of caution and sensitivity when including non-pertinent biog info about the victim and her family, the mere fact that it has been reported by SOME sources, does not make it pertinent, a source is a necessary, not a sufficient reason to include this info. Pincrete (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comment. Can you be more precise on how exactly you would err on the side caution regarding the family and victim background? Are you fine with the current version of the text or would you remove or change certain aspects? This question gets down to the core of the current debate here.LucLeTruc (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless the student association is WIDELY reported as relevant to the case, I see no relevance and it is borderline 'pointy' to report it. Family info, I would personally see as unnecessarily intrusive, but would follow whatever are the norms on crime articles, which others may know better than me. Pincrete (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• YES, include - Actually, the New York Times is the one that on its article dedicated to the Maria Ladenburger case made the point that the burqa ban came the day after Merkel's interview on ARD about the Ladenburger case. The NYT used the words "fierce debate" (about what the NYT calls "rapefugees") and "political balancing act [Merkel] is now undertaking" (the day after the ARD interview) and the NYT further cited "prominent episodes, including widespread sexual harassment blamed on migrants in Cologne last New Year’s Eve and terrorist attacks this summer". The tile of the quoted NYT article is "Refugee’s Arrest Turns a Crime Into National News (and Debate) in Germany". In addition, there is a second WP:RS which raises the same points as the NYT in a more succinct manner. Two WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

see my answer in the corresponding thread above. LucLeTruc (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

With respect, the NYT article is about how Germany and German media have reacted to this case and tensions within Germany due to the presence of refugees, rather than this case. The article nowhere says, or even implies that the ban is in any sense a 'response' to this case. Two events happening close together, which are both connected to 'foreigners', does not constitute a causal relation between the ban and this case. Putting this info in 'responses' is synth since it implies that the proposed partial ban was a direct response to this or other cases. No source comes close to stating that . Pincrete (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Pincrete. The NYT is primarily about the Ladenburger murder. It's in the title! The NYT article is entitled: "Refugee’s Arrest Turns a Crime Into National News (and Debate) in Germany". The article then discusses the political response, i.e., Merkel's "balancing act" ... the article says one day Merkel goes on TV to say that the national origin of any criminal must be mentioned, including Hussein K., and the next day she bans the burka. Balancing act, indeed! XavierItzm (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Point me to the sentence in NYT that says Merkel's actions were a 'response' to the crime, rather than both being aspects of current 'foreign'-German tensions. These are not the subject of this article, except tensions/reactions directly related to this case. Even if such a sentence exists, this should be phrased as NYT's interpretation of the link between the events, not as 'fact'. It would indeed be very odd for a govt to respond to a male crime by outlawing a female style of attire. Pincrete (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If you do not like the formula "in response," you are welcome to edit and use "in the context of", always respecting the WP:RS which is the NYT. XavierItzm (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No link between the two events is established, except that the 'ban burka' speech happened the day after the naming of the suspect, that is the only connection claimed by NYT. There is not therefore any reason to suppose that Merkel's speech was a 'response' to the case, which is what the whole section is supposedly about. Pincrete (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The article does not say "in response". I think the article already says what you want it to say, which is that «the 'ban burka' speech happened the day after the naming of the suspect», and which is what the NYT and The Sun of Ireland already state. XavierItzm (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

By (a) mentioning this nearly non related thing in the article and (b) listing it in the paragraph "responses" you imply that Merkel said this as a response. Again, she had nearly the same opinion before the crime ever happened. Hence, these sentence should be removed completely.LucLeTruc (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As Germany reacted with shock at the crime, the next day Merkel called for the burqa to be banned in Germany, implies a causal link, and if Merkel's speech was not a response, why is it in 'responses', or indeed in the article at all? If Germans thought the burqa ban was a response to (anger and fears about?) rape, they would probably want to explain a little basic biology to Angela! Pincrete (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, can't do WP:OR into the reasons why the WP:RS, including the New York Times, decided it was important to mention Merkel's "political balancing act" among "anger" in the German population that made her ban the burka the day after. All I know is the WP:RS cite the facts, and we go by WP:RS around here. XavierItzm (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

See my answer on the talk:burqa page. LucLeTruc (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Umm, sorry that I mention this. I find it a little strange that an account who has only few discussion contributions or harshly reverted some political stuff [10] now tries to push this article/discussion in a certain direction, using very good knowledge about Wikipedia mechanisms. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't help smelling at least one used sock here.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I can only smell a blunt attempt by you to spread rather unsubstantiated rumours to most probably divert my attempts to follow wikipedia etiquette and to establish some sort of consensus here by gathering unbiased opinions of other editors. Do us a favour and stick to a content and consensus focussed discussion.LucLeTruc (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

So "unbiased" as yours? ;) Some more productive work in articles wouldn't harm your "kind" attempts anyway, but who am I to give you any advice. So sorry. ;) --Gerry1214 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Gerry1214, no-one here has cast any aspersions on you, and it would be polite to apply AGF to LucLeTruc and others. :/ If you do suspect socks and have evidence, there are places for that issue specifically, where they handle it in a way that wouldn't smear the suspect's reputation unduly or cause them undue stress. Yvarta (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment I may respond above when I have time, however I would point out that DNA evidence from the crime scene conclusively identified him as the perpetrator in the lead is ludicrously POV. The whole point about a trial is that evidence is tested, neither police nor news sources, even less WP editors decide what is "conclusive proof", even the source used refers to 'suspect' (I don't have time and my German is not good enough to check what the source actually says, however we should not use this description even if 'Die Welt' does). The sentence should be rewritten as a claimed link between the accused and the crime. The sources don't seem to draw any connection between Merkel's 'burqa' comments and this case. The inclusion of unnecessary/irrelevant biog info about the victim and her family seems tasteless, intrusive and pointless, though I would drfer to whatever are norms on crime articles. Pincrete (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Question, does 'social engagement' refer to the sentence beginning "She was, as many Freiburg students, socially active, namely in the Weitblick"?Pincrete (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As for the "social engagement": Yes, I am referring to the victims engagement for Weltblick and rather unsbustiantiated rumours of several newspapers that she was active in refugee relief itself (I have added that above). For the crime this would only be of relevance if the victim and the suspect knew each other through such activity which the police is currently investigating but for which they have no indication (yet). Facebook and webpages like Pi-news are full of people ridiculng and criticising the victim and its family for such suspected connections but, as long as there is no connection to the crime, Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of information.LucLeTruc (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the place for this information, as highly reputable sources report it. If dubious news pages make jokes about it, this is disgusting. But they could "ridicule" about any other fact. Why would you want to conceal that one? Is it because of the tragic dimension that makes the case very similiar to the killing of Alexandra Mezher, that not anyone was murdered; but a person who was definitely known for her social activities, and which came from an refugee friendly family! This was clearly her background and nearly everyone who knows about this case mentions it, because it characterizes it. And so do highly reputable sources, and Wikipedia has to follow them.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia has to follow nobody and especially not newspapers (see, again, WP:ONUS). If at all, WP has to follow scientific literature. I agree that the background of the family might add a tragic human dimension to the case but reporting this is the realm of newspapers and books, not an encyclopedia. Especially if living people are involved.LucLeTruc (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia only displays what reputable sources write, especially essential facts. Above that, Clemens Ladenburger is notable himself as an author of several books [11] and in his position as a top EU official, lawyer and university lecturer with his own webpage, he is a public figure. So we rightfully mention him. Anyone could start an article about him.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Lets stop this here, I doubt that we will convince each other. I stand by my point to only mention aspects relevant for the rape in an article about a crime case but lets see what others are saying.LucLeTruc (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The substantial difference to the Mezher case is that Mezhers work was the reason why she met her murderer. In Ladenburgers case her speculated (!) engagement for refugees and the fact that the suspect is a refugee is just a mere coincidence. LucLeTruc (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Just an initial reply: The way you start the discussion ("ludicrously", "tasteless") is clearly not very much on topic and reveals your on POV (which I know for some time). To me, rape and murder is "tasteless" in the first place. The extent and some circumstances of the case are very similar to the Killing of Alexandra Mezher. And that is in my view only one reason why this is important background information, except from the political dimension and the fact that very reputable sources report it. "Die Welt" source reads: "Eine DNA-Probe wurde im Landeskriminalamt untersucht und der Tatverdächtige damit identifiziert." (A DNA sample was investigated at the State Criminal Office and the suspect was identified by it.) So if the suspect is "identified", he is obviously the perpetrator. (But maybe it was an alien from outerspace, so indeed we should be very, very careful;).--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The only "similarity" between this case and the murder of A. Mezher as of the current state of the investigation is that both victims are dead and that the perpetrator is a refugee. Other than that the cases are substantially different. Other than that neither you nor XavierItzm has answered my repeated questions why exactly all this biographical information is relevant for the case other than repeating that WP:RS reported it.

Regarding the DNA: In principle you are right, Pincrete, we should only use the word perpetrator after he has been sentenced for the crime. The DNA evidence, however, pretty convincingly links the suspect to the crime (i.e the rape) so that even police here in Germany mostly speak of the perpetrator (instead of suspect). It would not hurt, however, to reformulate the article and use the word suspect and just describe that the DNA evidence is pretty convincing or just change the word "conclusively". Maybe some nativeEenglish speaker could help here? I just guess that neither me, XavierItzm nor Gerry1214 is one ;-) (correct me if I am wrong)LucLeTruc (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

See my answer to the Mezher case above.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It is false to state that "neither you nor XavierItzm has answered my repeated questions." All topics on this page have been answered. XavierItzm (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Cite the whole sentence. You always answered that it is relevant because the RS reported it which neither in my eyes, nor in the eyes of the IP user participating in the discussion does guarantee any relevance for the article here.LucLeTruc (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This is because Wikipedia works on the basis of WP:RS. It does not matter if "you" Luc think something is relevant. If the WP:RS consider it relevant, this is a very strong indication that the material merits inclusion. XavierItzm (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is two people now who consider this family background to be irrelevant and the burqa thing to be misleading. But lets see what others are saying, the thread here is about a request for comments from others and not about an endless repetition of the arguments we three have exchanged here already. LucLeTruc (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a connection between 'burqa' and this case, the US source merely mentions both in the same article about German attitudes to the burqa and to refugees, that is a very weak connection IMO and alone would not warrant inclusion in this article. Co-incidence of events is not a causal, or even relevant connection without a great deal of SYNTH. If the german sources are more explicit, that would change the situation.Pincrete (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

See my comment in the burqa thread above. LucLeTruc (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Gerry1214, "A DNA sample was investigated at the State Criminal Office and the suspect was identified by it" is a statement of fact, it could be written as "The State Criminal Office claimed that DNA analysis positively identified the suspect". However "DNA evidence from the crime scene conclusively identified him as the perpetrator" is ludicrously POV and SYNTH. Have you never heard of forensic evidence being discredited? It's fairly rare perhaps, but that is precisely why police and newspapers and WP editors don't decide who is guilty or innocent in any civilised society or in WP. That is why even sources refer to 'suspect' or 'accused' until a trial, after which he becomes 'convicted' or otherwise. Pincrete (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, coming from the United States where forensic analysis is often shoddy and rape kits go unchecked for decades (see Illinois for example, very ugh), I can assure you that DNA evidence can easily be disproven or thrown out in court proceedings. So I agree with Pincrete on this one, saying "guilt was proven" based on a DNA sample in my mind would be SYNTH. Stating "the court deemed him guilty, citing DNA evidence," would however be fine. Just a wording and framing issue. Yvarta (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Yvarta: for your comments. Regarding the actual wording in the article regarding suspect to be a "suspect" or a "perpetrator" i think that nobody here would oppose any changes. Could you perhaps change some of the formulations in the article as most of the users here in the discussion are (i guess) no native English speakers. LucLeTruc (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Point of clarification, the DNA evidence which has been made public, as I understand it, is a hair of the accused found clos-ish to the crime scene about 10 days after the murder, not, as far as I know his DNA on the victim's body. However, even if the police claimed his DNA was on her body and vice versa and there were photos of the crime occurring (!), it would not be our business to decide who was the guilty party (indeed it would be a contempt of court in many countries to do so). There are reasons why newspapers and WP editors don't decide who is/ is not guilty. BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. Pincrete (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There was also DNA found on the victims body, thats how the strain of hair was linked to the rape in the first place. Maybe it would be good to add this to the article. I would say the evidence (at least for the rape, how the victim died is rather unclear yet) is pretty strong. The investigation however is still ongoing and the suspect has made no confession yet so it would be good to stay on the safe side and call the suspect a suspect and not a perpetrator. LucLeTruc (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Any evidence that is definitely in the public sphere would be OK for inclusion (as a police claim), but police usually keep their 'best stuff' till the court. BUT, he is still the accused not the perpetrator EVEN if he confesses and even if we all see a video of him doing it! There are reasons why papers and WP editors don't decide the likelihood of guilt EVER. In the UK there have been notorious cases of alleged confessions (often in relation to terrorism), or faulty forensic evidence, that is unlikely here but the rule still applies. Pincrete (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I think much of the argument above (if I can intrude without stepping on any toes) can be solved by referring to WP:Undue weight and WP:Attribution. Even if the burqa banning and the rape case are connected, only one article bothers making that connection at all (and that connection is vaguely laid out within), so to give that connection much space on the page would be taking a tiny minority outlook (a single NYT writer and the NYT editorial staff) and blowing it up into basically a massive cause/effect situation. How do we know Merkel wasn't about to push that ban for entirely different reasons? We don't, so it is entirely supposition and rumor, which can be worth mentioning at times, yes, but hardly worth giving much space to. So, perhaps at most, "an article in the NYT shortly after the event published an article positing a connection between the rape case and Merkel's political actions." But beyond that? No way. Also, I disagree with including any tangential family names, unless those family members are public figures. WIkipedia guidelines recommend leaving out personal information (including names) about anyone except public figures and the central figures in the page. I need to look for that guideline, will try and bring back when my internet speeds up some. Yvarta (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is WP:BLPNAME.LucLeTruc (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Aktenzeichen_XY_…_ungelöst

This case was only mentioned in a sub-clause and shortly in the beginning of the show, see here a link to the show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W24V-Gk8ZQA&t=2127 Subject in the show was the case in Endingen. The actual reference is just not true, it states "Die beiden Fälle wurden vor Kurzem in der ZDF-Sendung „Aktenzeichen XY … ungelöst“ aufgerollt. ", that is for sure not the case. --Engie (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You are right, claiming that the show covered the murder here is wrong. It merely mentioned it in one or two sentences. I would remove this. LucLeTruc (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Further proceeding, level of details

Folks, pending the current rfc, the relevance of this crime is mainly the political debate that followed from it and we should concentrate on this and not bloat the article with unnecessary details about the investigation about all the possible directions the police investigated. I corrected the investigation part from factual errors and made it more concise focussing on the aspects that eventually lead to the suspects identifcation. @Túrelio: thanks for your additions to the article, but mentioning this reaction from the greek victims father does not add relevant information to an article in an encyclopedia. I strongly vote for deleting it.LucLeTruc (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You post your opinion here, which you are fully entitled to, and just 8 minutes later you perform the deletion. That's not collaborative work. --Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Since the WP:RS included these facts as part of their reporting, it would be incorrect to simple excise the content, especially without proper discussion here in the TP. XavierItzm (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I actually waited several days (and not 8 minutes) before deleting the sentence after no answers appeared here after I started the thread and pinged you Turelio. So, what would be your rationale for including this sentence? In my eyes it adds no real information to the topic and keeps the whole article on a boulevard or tabloid gossip like style. The inmportant aspects of the case are the political discussions around it and we should focus on covering them without bloating the article with too many irrelevant aspects. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid newspaper.LucLeTruc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

In the eyes of LucLeTruc it may add no real information; in the eyes of the WP:RS it must have, for otherwise the WP:RS would not have included it. Here on Wikipedia we go by what the sources say. XavierItzm (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You are repeating this argument over and over again, XavierItzm, on this Talk page and others. Numerous editors have told you that a RS simply reporting something does not per se guarantee any relevance for a wikipedia article. So please, Torelio, lets try to get to a consensus here. Why is this outburst of the victims father important for an article in an encyclopedia?LucLeTruc (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

In this life nothing is "guaranteed," however, if the WP:RS consider it important, we should go by what the WP:RS deem worthy of reporting. XavierItzm (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

But that's the whole point, the RS don't make any causal connection between the two events nor say that one was a reaction to the other, (show me the paragraphs that make such connections). Besides, an extraordinary claim needs very solid sourcing, not a couple of very poor tenuous sources. The sources might support that the murder provoked anger in Germany and some anti-migrant feeling, but there are stronger sources for that and a more nuanced picture. … … ps, it is neither vote stacking nor canvassing to ping previous participants, but I'm actually here because I often 'nip back' after responding to an RfC. Pincrete (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your repeated input, Pincrete. Lets try to get to a good solution here. Open issues in my eyes are still:

• the info about Maria Ls social activities
• the outburst of the greeks victims father
• the link to the Carolin G murder case

In my eyes none of these things are related to the rape case and should stay out of the article. In case 1 they are borderlin violations of WP:BIO (she is not alive though anymore, here family however is), the rest is just not relevant and bloats the article (or misleads the reader in case of the Carolin G speculations). Boiling the Carolin G Case down to 1-2 sentences would also be fine for me. Any opinions?LucLeTruc (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the entire Carolin G. section per WP:NOTNEWS. Tabloid style journalist reports making op-ed links between cases are precisely that: journalists making their own news just barely within the bounds of being litigious because it's their bread and butter. If there are no reliable sources reporting that the police investigation is looking into parallels, such content is absolutely out of bounds. I'm still pondering the issue of her social activities, and the issue of the Greek victim's father. The article is badly written (i.e., grammatically poor in English), and the huge push on the supposed 'irony' issue is about as subtle as a sledgehammer. It reads as yellow press journalism, and the fact of her 'activity' in refugee causes has not been demonstrated to be any greater than her interest and activity in a canoeing club, or dozens of other interests. It's an angle that's being pitched.

Incidentally, that tiny paragraph on the Greek victim's father qualifies his statement being to a Greek tabloid, meaning that the quotation marks are inappropriate for Wikipedia's purposes. The original statement was made in Greek, therefore Faz's German translation is their own, and we don't know how accurate it is. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Faz is a WP:RS. The argument that its translations are not to be relied upon is as spurious as can be. By this standard, any quotes the BBC publishes from anyone whose native tongue is not English should all be obliterated from the Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: Who told you that Faz is an RS in a BLP? No, the calibre of the articles being used are less than reliable for a double-whammy BLP: both the recently deceased Ms. Ladenburger and Khavari. Points are being brought up as a WP:COATRACK for the politicisation of the murder, and it is not up to Wikipedia to tackle such WP:RECENTISM. There's also an abundance of English language articles (from equally yellow press sources), and English language sources take precedence where exactly the same information can be accessed in the English language: i.e., this is not German Wikipedia. As for the comparison between Faz and the BBC, please be serious. Deutsche Welle is a reliable source: faz is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Iryna. I have to correct you in a way that the FAZ is in fact one of the 4-5 German wide high quality newspapers so in general it qualifies as a WP:RS. Its online version, however, seems to lean over into tabloid style journalism. I agree with the quotation marks thing. I have found quiet a bunch of these quotes in quotation marks with sometimes the Wikipedia editor making the translation. Is there a guideline for translated quotes? Irynas remark, however was no argument for obliterating it, XavierItzm (just or obliterating the quotation marks).

The argument for removing this sentence altogether, however, are different: This has absolutely no relevance here and is horrible tabloid style (even if the FAZ is not a tabloid). It adds no understanding to the rape case at all and just scandalises the Greek case (which is not the focus here). LucLeTruc (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I totally agree with the speculated "refugee activities" of the victim. This has been a huge thing in the social media, tabloids, right populistic German politicians and right wing propaganda webpages in Germany. According to all available WP:RS, however, Ladenburger has not been active in refugee relief (there are only rumours of facebook screenshots of her beeing a member in a refugee help facebook group) and there was no call for donations for refugees from the family just a call for an organisation that very tangentially does some work on the broader topic of refugees (Ladenburger however, was active elsewhere). And this call was made before any connection between the murder and refugees came out. Theoretically it would make sense to put this scandalisation and mocking of the family in general in the article (there are WP:RS covering this) but in my eyes in no way we should participate here in this scandalisation of the purposed irony. LucLeTruc (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually issues of translation (inc. BBC) do come up quite often. After the 2016 Nice attack, the BBC translated literally a statement from the prosecutor, which was Fr legal-speak. I forget the exact phrase, but recall that Fr law refers to "an organisation engaging in a terrorist act", in Eng "terrorist organisation" would only normally be used of known groups (IRA, ETA, Al-Qaeda etc.). In Fr law, the meaning is 'group of people organising together', to commit an act (ie what in Eng would normally be called 'terrorist-conspiracy', or 'terrorist-gang'). Therefore the BBC put its translation in quotes to indicate the literal nature of the translation.

Gr to De to Eng is a bit Chinese whispers, but I agree with others, that the main reason for excluding is not uncertainty about translation, nor uncertainty about the quality of the original Gr source, but rather that it adds little of value. What else would such a father say if asked if he was surprised? Pincrete (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This is an issue with most of the quotes in the article (there are more from politicians etc). They have been translated from the German media by (in my impression) someone either not fluent in English or in German. I have already changed some translations but would personally prefer to paraphrase this without the direct quotes. What is the best way to handle this?LucLeTruc (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least we are all in agreement that FAZ is a WP:RS and that @Iryna Harpy: couldn't be any more wrong about it. The good news is, here on Wikipedia one does not have to be familiar with German issues and media in order to blank out and blank out large material sections about German issues! Now, since the WP:RS brought about the issue about the Greek lawyer, this should go back into the article. XavierItzm (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? This stuff still is in the article. Nobody blanked out anything because of (as you put it) a lack of understanding of German media. The argument against this sentence (as multiple editors have put it) is that it adds no information to the Lemma itself and is borderline tabloid style of reporting. _{And by the way, we are not talking about any lawyer.}

After KBs of discussion, I have not read any argumemt here for including it (other than your default argument (the RS covers it)), neither from you, nor from Torelio who reverted my deletion. So, as we all by now know, it is your WP:ONUS to achive a consensus for putting it in the article. I do not see this consensus. _{To not get distracted from my main point here, I will open a seperate thread regarding the victim family below.} LucLeTruc (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: we are all in agreement that FAZ is a RS? … A) No source is RS under ALL circumstances, equally, few sources are RS under NO circumstances. … B) We are obliged to use the best sources available … C) A source is s necessary, but not a sufficient reason for inclusion, if it were, we would simply be copying EVERYTHING written by ALL sources into an article … D} Even if material is included, if it is only reported by a small number of sources, it must be attributed to those sources, not put in WP voice as a fact … E) If the claim is extraordinary (and any claim about a European head of state is necessarily extraordinary, likewise any claim about the possibility of someone having committed a second murder), it needs extraordinarily good sourcing … F) Content must be relevant, having been printed somewhere does not guarantee relevance … … … … ZZZZZ} The sources don't support any link between the murder case and Merkel's actions, EXCEPT having occurred shortly after the naming of the accused. The Winter Solstice happened a few hours after the Berlin Xmas market attack. Does that mean that the solstice was a response to the attack and am I entitled to claim the two events are linked if I find a source that says both happened within hours of each other? Ditto no serious RS covers any link with any other attack in Germany, and police exclude such a possibility. Pincrete (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

In essence, whether or not Faz is considered to be an RS or not is outside of the bounds of this discussion. We have thousands of articles where RS have op-ed and tabloid content (or even valid content) that simply isn't used as it is WP:UNDUE. At the core of the problems with this article is WP:RECENTISM. As far as I can see, the event does not meet with WP:N broadly construed. If, at some time, it becomes the lynch-pin of new laws, parliamentary debates, etc., it may meet with 'notability' in the context of other events, and would be contingent on whether the case merits its own article or should be a section within that article. Such a scenario is, however, speculative per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is clear on the policy of WP:NOTNEWS, and I shouldn't have to keep repeating this: we are not ambulance chasers for the tabloid press who are welcome to write about anything because it is getting media coverage, because we are not.

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of 'criminal' infobox

Incidentally, even as a stand alone article, the inclusion of the second bio box on Khavari is entirely redundant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC) … … … (Noved from above sub-section for clarity)

Actually, the Khavari box is a Wikipedia template for criminals. It is made for that specific purpose. XavierItzm (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No, read template:Infobox criminal. This would be used on a bio about him, not here. The primary misuse is that he has not been convicted, but is the suspect and "alleged" killer. Using it here is a WP:BLPVIO. Whether it appeals to you or not, as with most of the developed world a person is innocent until proven to be guilty. There's a huge disparity between the two! WP:UNDUE! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

We must be on different planes of reality here. Khavari is a convicted felon, condemned to 10 years of jail (!). How anyone can argue "he has not been convicted" is pretty outrageous. XavierItzm (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

he has not been convicted of the crime which this article is about. Good to see you haven't lost your sense of humour! Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Lets summarize our debate so far: There seems to be no consensus for mentioning the opinion of the greek victims father here, rather 3 editors arguing against it. Hence, I will be bold and remove this now. We can easily include it again if there are more voices here that argue for an inclusion with other arguments than "it was covered in a RS" (which never really was denied). Lets move to the info about the suspect. The crime in Greece is central to the debate about data exchange between Greece and Germany so should be mentioned. I personally am rather neutral about this infobox but do not consider it to be necessary as the focus of this Article is not about Hussein K but about the rape itself. With regards to WP:BLPVIO we should remove it. How about naming the suspect? I do not see any added info in that and, as said, in the rape case h is only a suspect and not convicted yet. LucLeTruc (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Compare other articles on murder such as the Murder of Carol Wardell, and the Murder of Stephen Lawrence. In any of these, infoboxes are not used (yes, they're deemed to be redundant for good reason) but, where used it is brief and pertains to the event, not people who have been arrested, not where the person was interred, plus other sundry details. In fact, it is usually only high profile cases such as the Murder of James Bulger that are obviously historically significant that are covered in encyclopaedic resources. This article is not a bio about either Ms. Ladenburg or the suspect. Currently, no only is this article flashing around the name of the suspect (is this article tabloid journalism/trial by media?), but has an infobox on the suspect for readers who want to read the article like the bolded print in a tabloid newspaper so that they don't miss the name and prior convictions of a minor. Editors are asked to use WP:COMMONSENSE because it does trump any policies or guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Another reason for removing this is that all info in the boxes is highly uncertain. The only source of the info is the suspect himself and he contradicts himself with the different info he gave to different authorities. Because of this, I will move the box to this talk page to keep it for reference. In case there is any consensus for including such a box later it can be added to the article as soon as reliable information is published.LucLeTruc (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hussein Khavari
Born	(1996-01-01) January 1, 1996 or (1999-11-12) November 12, 1999 Afghanistan
Status	Unaccompanied Minor Refugee
Nationality	Afghani
Conviction(s)	robbery and attempted murder
Criminal penalty	10 years in a Greek prison

What about the infobox of the victim? LucLeTruc (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Gotta love the goalpost moving going on here in an effort to remove data and WP:RS.

• 1. First, the infobox on the rapist is argued to be "redundant"
• 2. When confronted with the fact that it is a Wikipedia infobox made specifically for criminals, it is said that the criminal is not a criminal (!)
• 3. When confronted with the fact the rapist is a convicted criminal, he is argued to be a minor (!!)
• 4. It is then argued that "the information is uncertain" just because the criminal provided misleading info to different authorities at different times.

If it all weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. XavierItzm (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

He is pobably not a minor. However, this is not proven yet so we should go with what he told authorities. So, there are several arguments against inlcuding it. In my eyes, the most important one is that the info about his birthday and nationality is unreliable. LucLeTruc (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, that there is uncertainty about his age is RS'd, but the proper place to put the dispute is in the text. Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Maybe someone could polish this sentence: "...and was given to the care of a foster family" I could not figure out something that would not sound strange to me. In my eyes everything relevant to the crime about the suspect is in the article now and we can safely wait for any confirmed information or court sentences. Lets move to the info about the victim in this thread: #Speculated_refugee_activities_of_the_victim. I find this much more relevant. LucLeTruc (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, "placed with" is normal phrase for 'foster parents',Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

References

details about the victims family

(copied from the thread above) But lets not get distracted from the (in my eyes) most important aspect: What to do with all the details about the victim and her family? In my eyes, the only things relevant for the article and the political discussion (which only make this case worthy being included in an encyclopedia) are her age and that she was a student in Freiburg cycling home from a party. In my eyes, not even the name is of relevance here as she is only known for beeing a victim of this horrible crime but I might be used to the rather strict handling of privacy issues in Germany compared to anglo-saxon countries in this aspect. LucLeTruc (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be strange to not follow 'anglo-saxon' custom in terms of name, however I see no good reason for family info, details of funeral, nor (highly disputed) connection with refugee charities/student association, which is poorly sourced and all irrelevant to the crime and even the 'political fallout'. Pincrete (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Multiple WP:RS mention the name of the father. I don't see a reason to censor out the WP:RS in this regard. XavierItzm (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the reason to include ANY personal information about the family? What bearing does it have on the incident and how does it add to a readers understanding? Are we obliged to include details of his salary if a RS prints it? How about her sex life? Sourcing is a necessary, but not a sufficient reason for inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

XavierItzm, seriously, you are waisting our time by contionously repeating the same argument, over and over again. I would have to count but it is at least 20 times here on this talk page. Several different editors have told you now what Pincrete just repeated for you. A RS reporting something does not mean that it has to be in the article. And with all these different aspects we are discussing here, there are reasons for not including them. So, one last time. It is your WP:ONUS to achieve a consensus here with us on the talk page. Without this consensus, all these disputed aspect will not stay in the article. And trust me, you will not reach this consensus by repeating your "a RS reported it so we go with the RS" argument again. Sorry for beeing so bold but this discussion is not getting anywhere if we just keep throwing identical arguments at each other. LucLeTruc (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:BDP says this: "Such extensions [of the WP:BIO restrictions] would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." This clearly relates to all this info about the victims Weltblick activities and the plea for donations. Especially as this was ridiculed in such a horrible way in social media. And, acccording to WP:AVOIDVICTIM "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems – even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions." Quite obviously, the victims private life is not "on topic". This stuff seriously has to be removed from the article. LucLeTruc (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM is about live victims. The victim here is Maria Ladenburger. Maria Ladenburger is dead. I think using WP:AVOIDVICTIM to censor out WP:RS is an abuse of Wikipedia policies. XavierItzm (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering in order to avoid the spirit of policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

And you are wrong, AVOIDVICTIM is NOT ONLY about live victims, it says "This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization". Is the difference between 'only' and 'particular(ly)' clear? Or shall I explain it? Pincrete (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The text is clear: WP:AVOIDVICTIM is about victims who survived; i.e., it is of particular importance to avoid victimizing surviving victims by prolonging the victimization. Plain as day! Reading comprehension issues, much? XavierItzm (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Separately, I'd like to address the issue of wikilawyering. It is not I who inappropriately brought up WP:AVOIDVICTIM, which is, in fact, wikilawyering by the user who brought it out of nowhere. As I assume good faith, I merely remarked that the user who brought up WP:AVOIDVICTIM is simply, plainly wrong. Bottom line, the accusation of wikilawyering directed at me is quite funny and, obviously, erroneous. XavierItzm (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, Pincrete has qualified the AVOIDVICTIM clause more than adequately. I don't feel predisposed to lengthy responses to you because you're stuck in a rut of WP:BLUDGEONing in order to WP:WIN. As for 'erroneous', no: the problem is that you're WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I'm pleased to note that you are still maintaining your irrepressible sense of humour. Would you like some more wikilawyering to go with that? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice that we all have retained our sense of humour after this rather lengthy discussion. I was already starting to contemplate about the deeper meaning of this mysterious "nowhere" where my Wikipedia guidlines apparently came from and the deeper meaning it would have if all our rules here come from this far away place. And I will put this WP:BLUDGEON essay with these two civil engineers in my personal toolbox just to draw if i get overwhelmed by repetitions of the same argument the next time .... ;-) .... So, seriously, the most important argument against the info about Ladenburgers private life is that it is off topic and I have not seen a single convincing argument here in this ocean of comments that would have convinced me of the opposite. I am fine with the current state of the article. It still contains some unneccesary stuff like the lengthy sentence about the suspecst silence and the call for a eye witness and does not cover all aspects of the political debate but we can easily add this at a later point when it is easier to judge what actually came out of this. So, shall we close this discussion and the corresponding RfC? I doubt that any newcomer will be willing to jump in now and go through all this discussion mileage first. LucLeTruc (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Technical point, but none of us can close an RfC with which we are involved, other than by (you) withdrawing it. So, it doesn't hurt to leave open. (normal time is minimum of 30 days). Pincrete (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, would withdrawing it make sense? It would probably not harm to leave the RfC open but if we all agree that the current state of the article is some sort of a good consensus, closing the RfC would free editors to comment on other stuff. And we could, for example, focus on closing these issues on the EURODAC and Dublin Regulation pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucLeTruc (talk • contribs) 16:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that no consensus has been reached on this thread. Other than a bunch of wiki lawyering, no substantive reasons for omitting very well sourced WP:RS seem to have been brought about. XavierItzm (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There comes the next hit with the bludgeon. I doubt that we are going to reach consensus here. You do not behave like someone one could really convince if you do not see the arguments above that speak against including this and especially as you keep swinging the bludgeon even though 4 editors (in the burqa case) or 3 editors (in the Weltblick case) are arguing against your inclusions. And, as I explained to you, it is very unlikely you are going to convince anybody here with your "one fits all argument": "a RS covered it". So lets summarize the discussion in this way then: There is no consensus on including the burqa and the private life of the victim but quiet some voices against including them. Hence, the contestet stuff stays out of the article. LucLeTruc (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

A big "ditto" from me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that there is no consensus at this time! XavierItzm (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Editorializing

I live in the USA and never heard of this story. I do not know the facts surrounding it so will not address that aspect. My observation is that this is more of a political editorial than objective reporting of a horrific event. The tone of the entire piece is one that seems to be agenda driven, serving as propaganda for the likes of right-wing nationalists. These types of sensational reports have become quite common in the USA under the current political regime, with the so-called alt-right efforts to close the borders to "them", others not like them. I became aware of this article by someone posting a link to it in a chatroom, along with a link to another hateful youtube video. I have no issue with reporting facts but this should be in a balanced way. I do not feel this article does that but has been authored to serve as an agenda-driven political propaganda. I am not sure as such it meets wikipedia standards, but not being a frequent contributor am not at all versed in those matters either. 67.149.35.146 (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You believe the article has problems but you described the issues you encountered in such vague, substance-free terms that if I figured out what you were talking about, it would be because I've read the article and come to the same conclusions independently. You might as well not have said anything at all. Look at your message: you don't like the "tone of the entire piece," you are "not sure as such it meets wikipedia [sic] standards," you think this is "agenda-driven political propaganda," and so on. All this frantic prose and you didn't list one single specific complaint about anything. What's frustrating is that you could be right but there's no way of knowing since you didn't say "this sentence here is unfair because..." or "this unlikely claim is sourced to a partisan outlet" or anything like that. And even worse, you chose to come here to demand someone fix these undefined problems for you. Why not just do the work yourself? CityOfSilver 03:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. There seems to be quite a bunch of editors with a particular interest in creating lengthy articles about crimes commited by ( mostly muslim) immigrants. You can only speculate about their motives but the ones you mention may be some of them. This particular crime however recieved considerable news coverage in Germany so depending on your viewpoint this may merit a wikipedia article. Your criticism, however, is very broad. In my personal POV there may still be stuff in this article which could be improved but i just got tired of this after several kilometers of talk page mileage and stopped after discussing and improving the most important aspects (see above). Feel welcome to be more specific in your critizism and to participate in editing (and in the ensuing discussion) yourself. LucLeTruc (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm still struggling with seeing this as meeting with WP:GNG given that it was a loaded media shark feeding frenzy with an hysterical anti-Muslim agenda. I can only find a couple of tabloid regurgitations of the same information covered in the initial reports including the fact that there was agitation for the death penalty for the perpetrator (who isn't going on trial until this month), despite the fact that there is no death penalty in Germany here and here. Anything else is ridiculous flights of ritualistic frenzy on blogs and forums. This isn't an article for Wikipedia, but a WP:COATRACK for sensationalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

In principle I agree with you, Iryna, that an encyclopedia is not the place for info about individual murder cases. If you use the amount of coverage as a criterium for inclusion, however, this would merit an article about this case. Every German newspaper (not only tabloids) covered it and major politicians commented on the case. LucLeTruc (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A request for an External Link to be added

Requesting an external link to this article entitled "Violence committed against women by Asian migrants in Europe", as such a category would more accurately define one of the categories of preventable crimes that occur as a result of current EU policy that allows rapid, unqualified and massed immigration of Asian migrants into Europe. 71.112.240.217 (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

8-year perspective

No consensus could be reached on the inclusion or no inclusion of material about "a recent rape crime in Germany." Insofar as we are coming up on the 8th anniversary, we should move forward and wikify the article; i.e., rely on whatever the WP:RS report about it. XavierItzm (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

By 'No consensus could be reached' you mean almost everybody disagreed with including off-topic matter and personal info of little relevance to the murder. What specifically has changed in 8 years? What content should be added in your opinion? What new coverage has emerged? Pincrete (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)