Talk:2018 Ellwangen police raid

Note to contributors

When editing articles such as this, please take care to confine yourself to the facts and avoid synthesis and non-neutral comments. Deb (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

page tag

Requesting that User:Simonm223 specify his complaint. It can't be fixed if editors cannot tell what you are complaining about.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned at WP:NPOV/N the article is rife with WP:WEASEL words designed to support the POV that this resistance was a breakdown in the rule of law. Simonm223 (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You will have to be more specific - which words, where in the article. Please also provide RS supporting that this was "resistance".Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Like Simon223, I believe this article is not currently written in neutral language. Some of the editors involved will ensure that it never is, because they don't understand the NPOV rule. Therefore the tag stays. Deb (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Please refrain form attacking fellow editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

We need specifics. Vague statements about what editors subjectively perceive are useless.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

No specifics are required because the page is in constant upheaval thanks to the activities of a few POV-pushing editors - like the ones you recently attacked. Deb (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, we do need you to specify what it is that you see as problematic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I see the page's mere existence as political "stirring". You may not believe that the fact that the incident has not been considered notable enough for anyone to create a page on German wikipedia is relevant; I do. I accept that you have made improvements to the wording, to make it more neutral than the creator intended, but take a sentence like "Bernhard Weber, a police spokesman, said they acted because of concerns that a "lawless area with organised structures" was developing at the shelter." I might argue that this is one person's opinion, not a statement of fact, that it is worded in such a way as to suggest that immigrants are by nature criminals, and that it's been given undue weight. There are many articles with neutrality tags, throughout the project; they reflect the fact that what one person sees as unbiased reporting, others see as selective and controversial. Some topics are by their very nature doomed to be perpetually tagged. Deb (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing page tag. Page was KEPT unanimously at AfD. We do cite police spokesmen on Wikipedia. We do not keep tags on pages when those supporiting the tag refuse to specify their objections here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The page tag has nothing to do with whether the article was kept at AfD - as you well know. Do not remove it again - this action simply underlines the need for the tag. Deb (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Support User:E.M.Gregory. Tagging is in no way justified and has to be removed. The only point which was mentioned is now resolved with an additional ref and info by User:AadaamS. And this statement is not a "personal opinion", but an assessment by an official concerned with the case. It is worded to cite the statement and not to suggest anything. No more, no less. And is absolutly no argument that other articles have neutrality tags, too, to tag this one.--Greywin (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

My approach to the tag was indeed to attempt to address the attribution which was mentioned above while leaving it in place to see if it would subsequently be removed. Editors are assumed to WP:AGF assume good faith so that's what I did. It's just a tag and enWP is a work in progress WP:WIP so additional concerns will be addressed in turn and there's no harm in giving some time to deliberate (per AGF) if the tag is added again. My recommendation would be to 1) check that info in article matches that in the sources and 2) keep looking for additional sources. There is WP:NOHURRY to remove the tag. AadaamS (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Complaint has been addressed by adding details of police source, we do cite police sources in crime articles. removing page tag since no other specific complaints have been specified an disliking topic is not a valid reason for tagging the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Although I didn't add the tag, there is no hurry to remove the tag, there is no WP:DEADLINE. Let's leave it in place for a while (although as this is written the tag is gone), assume good faith wait and see if speficic additional concerns show up. Finding more sources & editing the article will improve the article in a collaborative approach which I think is more important than debating a tag. AadaamS (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would just reiterate that repeated removal of a tag without addressing the overall issue of balance could result in a block. Deb (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• When adding (or reverting) a tag, one should per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#Adding a tag to a page - "If you add this template to an article in which there is no relevant discussion underway, you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution. If you believe that material or a particular viewpoint is missing, then you should try to give examples of published, independent, reliable sources that contain this missing material or point of view. In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time." - to date, editors supporting the tag have only offered vague and general comments (some of which seem to be on "selection bias" in that articles on notable crimes of one sort are created more often than notable crimes of another sort) - without addressing specific issues in the article (including sources that support the assertions made) - the tag should be removed - however specifics on what is objectionable would be welcome (and would allow retaining the tag, as well as actually fixing/discussing the perceived problem). Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Don't start wikilawyering. The balance of the article is disputed by more than one person. Deb (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Without specifying what should be fixed - I got here from the NPOV/n post - with no firm opinion either way - and would be happy to assist in cleaning up (or discussing) issues - as opposed to discussing whether a tag for unspecified issues should remain or not. Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, let's start with this one. The article says "On 11 May, there was a demonstration by the inhabitants of the migrant shelter in Ellwangen to stop deportations, supported by the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany." The source says (assuming Google's translation is correct): "Those who are moving through town with "pace" flags and drums do not look like felons. Also, no left-wing rioters mingle with the crowd. Only a few graying activists of the Marxist-Leninist Party (MLPD) agree "High international solidarity!"." Deb (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agree - that fails V, let alone NPOV. The source seems to mention the very few MLPD activists mainly to show how the German radical left was absent and that it was mainly residents of the shelter.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The low attendance can be clarified in the article, but the fact that the MLPD supported the demonstration can't be denied. But this is much to tenuous to use that for article tagging.--Greywin (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the low attendance by MLPD should be clarified, as the attendance is supported by WP:RS. The absence of left-wing rioters should also be noted. AadaamS (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

But why mention this at all? If they were for the most part not there, this reads like "it is confirmed that Mr. Smith did not beat his wife" - creating a false impression that there is some credibility to the notion he did. This talk page (and article) would do better with more discussion of issues to be resolved for NPOV - as opposed to debate over whether a tag should or should not be in. Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Examples of imbalance

• "Winfried Kretschmann (Greens), Minister President of Baden-Württemberg, thanked the police, adding: "We do not tolerate any legal vacuum, and this attack on police officers must be punished". As a consequence of the events, Irene Mihalic of the Green Party critizised plans of the Federal government, especially the Interior Ministry, to establish "anchor centres" (Ankerzentren) for migrants, which are planned by the government to organize faster deportations." The fact that (according to the reference) Mihalic also said that the centres create "a dynamic and a potential for violence" is not mentioned, nor is the fact that the police have made the same criticisms. This gives the impression that the Greens fully support police intervention in such cases when in fact the reference makes it clear that they would have preferred the police not to have been involved at all.
• The Deutsche Welle reference is used as a citation for the statement that "27 asylum seekers offered resistance, while some were injured, when they jumped out of the windows", which as far as I can see is not mentioned in that article although it is in some of the other references. But the source is used somewhat selectively throughout, without any mention of the contribution that conditions in the hostel may have made to the outbreak of violence, which features prominently in the source.
• These are just two examples, and I'm not surprised to find them here. The fact is that you can keep fixing these individual issues, but they can recur at any time. If you want to get rid of the tag permanently, article protection may be necessary. Deb (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Point 1: This doesn't give the impression that the Greens fully support police intervention. It clarifies, that Kretschmann (as Minister President) emphasizes other arguments than Mihalic, which is absolutely true. You can't quote dozens of lines, statements have to be reduced. But if you miss something, why don't you add it instead of tagging the article? Obviously you just started searching for something, days after the article was already tagged. By the way, Kretschmann has made similar controversial statements in the recent days in connection with the Freiburg gang rape, partly supporting the position of Boris Palmer. [1] The Greens are not a closed front, there are different political positions within the party.--Greywin (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Point 2: The outbreak of violence happened only as the police intervened to detain the suspect. So does the source saay. Even the spokesman of the refugee council says: "...but I don't know to what extent that can explain the events in the last few days." If he doesn't dare to make a clear statement, we shouldn't either.

The POV reading of the sources that you show here, does not justify page tagging.--Greywin (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly the response I expected. You ask for examples, you are given them, and now you are in denial. Deb (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Fine, glad to hear that you expected my apt arguments. But nothing in response than a personal attack? That's tenuous again. Tagging can and should be removed.--Greywin (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep removing it and I will protect the page. Deb (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

On point - point2 seems like possibly poor citation use - DW needs to be dropped from the sentence. As for point1 - if we have sources tying the violence to poor living conditions in the centers - then this should certainly he in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

An admin that threatens page protection - after being out of arguments - to implement his/her POV into the article by force? This would be clearly a misuse of the expanded rights. Alarming. @Icewhiz. IF there are sources, it can be in the article. Currently there are none, and it would twist the fact that the violence broke out in reaction to the police intervention, and nothing else. And there is no poor citation use, as the citations correctly describe the different positions within the Green Party as shown above. Additions are possible, as I said.--Greywin (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the DW source, it reads: "Twenty-seven asylum-seekers offered resistance during Thursday's police action, which involved hundreds of armed officers. Some asylum-seekers were injured jumping out of windows." I really don't see what's the problem here. You should read more closely and stop making stuff up. Everything is properly sourced there. [2]--Greywin (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of Bild as a source

Bild is clearly not a reliable source. It's the equivalent of the UK tabloid, The Sun, which we would never use as a source in this encyclopedia. Please find an alternative. Deb (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Not as bad as The Sun - but yes, I agree - shouldn't be used. Where is it presently used as a reference (no "bild" - text or hyperlink is presently in the article per my possibly faulty search)? Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong article. I was getting confused with 2018 Chemnitz protests. I'll repeat this comment elsewhere.Deb (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of quality sources to use. AadaamS (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)