Talk:Leipzig University internship controversy

article has multiple issues

@Amortias: Hi, can you clarify where you have problems with the article ? The aim being to resolve the issues that are raised. The topic being an ongoing event, it is difficult to be perfect at the first shot and is why the article is improved as it moves ahead. For NPOV, please feel free to recompile. 81.240.171.55 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: University's counter claim is already present in the article. Infact, it is cited exactly as in the press release. WEIGHT of the article is balanced with Die Welt article, German Ambassador and University of Leipzig's view-points which are not only mentioned but also quoted exactly & extensively to put forth the German perspective with full force. 81.240.171.55 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Kindly note that all info is more than adequately referenced with sources. Also, the comments of German Ambassador and University of Leipzig are referenced and quoted. If still UNDUE, please either do it or say where so that it can be rectified. In the mean time I'll remove UNDUE and MULTIPLE.

81.240.171.55 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

81.240.171.55 (talk · contribs) & Amortias (as an apparently interested party) I'm having trouble seeing where this articles faults have been addressed. The first paragraph under the rather POV heading "First disclosure: Rejection of an internship candidate in 2015" in the body text has 9 references, nine. Which source applies to what information? The references have a URL, title, work and some have a date, but they have no author/s, publisher, or access date. This is IMHO not good enough for a controversial piece like this. (No bare URLs at least!)

I didn't hear of this 'event' when it the story 'broke' but I have never seen something like this on WP being spread across five different pages, including a BLP (created by a wp:SPA) for Annette Beck-Sickinger that is almost wholly negative, as it makes almost no mention of anything but this E-mail controversy. 1.5 lines about her being a professor, 5 lines about the e-mail! Her BLP is now under discussion for deletion. The only edits by that 'SPA' editor are related to this event. That hardly seems WP:NPOV.

• I have added some tags, a citation style & NPOV to this page, (and her BLP) . I may try to 'clean it up a bit' myself.

• For the record, I am neither German nor Indian, nor an academic, nor attended Leipzig University. 220 of ^Borg 12:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi 220, i tagged the article for some of the issues that were around at its creation, unfortunately i dont have much time to edit the issues out but when i have a decent space of time I'll give it another look. Its possible the articles issues still remain however. Amortias (T)(C) 12:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: Thanks mate. I feel it has lots of issues!. I think it is just amazing that this is being 'blown' up like it is by new accounts, like one SPA account, and several IPs that are very likely another single person. The SPA even added a section on it to Vigilante. They are coming across as really having it in for her. It appears from my reading of a BBC report that the 'E-mail' that apparently appeared on twitter had been faked, that is, made up of several E-mails, and then "put together from individual segments taken from different mails" to, presumably, give the worst possible appearance. 220 of ^Borg 12:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: If you have outstanding claims about POV (even after the latest round of mods done to address your concerns) then please explicitly list the issues point-by-point so that they can be attended to and/or discussed so that a way is found to improve the article. kindly avoid packing the article with dispute tags and caution notices because it is disruptive. Hope that you can cooperate so that we can calmly work this out.~Thanks in advance. Merci.

91.182.193.128 (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Coverage and location

Hi. I'm not sure how I feel about a standalone article here. I think something like this would typically be a section in the main article (i.e., Leipzig University). That being said, putting this content in a separate article probably allows the main article to have better balance and more easily avoid undue weight. Perhaps... I'm still thinking.

I've removed the "2015" from the page title as I felt it unnecessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: This 'controversy' has spread, thanks especially to one SPA account, to 5 pages. This specific WP page, the new Annette Beck-Sickinger BLP (created by the new account that has only edited on this issue), Vigilante (which I have reverted), Leipzig University and at Germany–India relations (the one page the SPA missed, but where about 30 of the 45 references on the page are now about this issue wp:UNDUE!)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annette Beck-Sickinger may be of interest. I think that BLP should be redirected to this page. Just IMHO. --220 of ^Borg 08:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC

IMHO the Annette Beck-Sickinger wikipedia article page might be a candidate for deletion. Can it be reviewed against the BLP rules of wikipedia ? 91.182.193.128 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 91.182.193.128 (talk · contribs) if you go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annette Beck-Sickinger you can even comment on whether it should be deleted! − 220 of ^Borg 15:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Note to bystanders and an appeal for constructive critics to invest time & editorial effort on the article

Hi Wikipedian contributors,
This article page just as any other wikipedia article is always the reflection of a 'perspective' and it can only be improved through understanding & action taken on the feed-back received. By being 'bold' in creating a Wikipedia article, there are risks. However, in view of the time and effort that goes into reading, sorting, compiling, publishing the text that goes into each article page it is necessary to prioritize on some things more than others (and returning to the article later to improve/correct/append the text). This is IMHO what I have tried to do.
On the subject of NEUTRALITY, can we have more specific fedback on the exact concerns ? This so that the concerns can be prioritized for action in order to get the neutrality dispute out of the way ? If there is no specific list of concerns, then I intend to delete the neutrality dispute tag. So, please cite your concerns and propose suggestions on a way forward.
Hopefully others can weigh-in with active involvement in compiling/contributing text to improve the article to backup their positive criticisms as opposed to standing on the sidelines and launching into obstructions. Spending a few minutes to destroy hours work of text contribution done in good faith is unhelpful. Simply packing the article with 'disputed' tags is unfair if it is not explained in detail on the talk page and there is no effort to provide of list of points that exactly highlight the concerns.
Hope that this request, which is not a rant, will be taken positively.

91.182.193.128 (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article has heavy neutrality issues. It just takes the claim of institutionalized discrimination as a matter of fact, a claim that is backed by no source at all (the cnn article cited doesn't actually say anything about institutionalized discrimination). Of course, from that point of view, everything else is refusal and denying. The section "Authenticity of the e-mail exchange" is a big problem. First, considering it is at the core of the debate, it is way too short, compared with the rest of the article. Second, it suggests Beck-Sickinger had admitted that the whole e-mail was authentic, which is not the case. She didn't give an interview to Blick newspaper (a questionable source anyway), either, they probably just quote the University's press release. Her claims (that the main reason for not accepting the Indian student was that her laboratory already was fully occupied; that there actually are interns from India in the laboratory, thought there's no information on their gender) are not mentioned at all. What is also missing is the broader picture, i.e. the general situation of Indian students at German universities and that particular one. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(1) "takes the claim of institutionalized discrimination as a matter of fact" = Incorrect. Refer to ACADEMIC sub-section. It is backed up by 2 quoted references which are academic is just a plain fact. Unless you are implying that the academics (who by the way are German & Belgian) are wrong. Please re-check.

(1 bis) Please refer to institutional bias as researched in an academic paper "Turkish culture of migration: Flows between Turkey and Germany, socio-economic development and conflict" by Ibrahim Sirkeci, Jeffrey H Cohen, Pinar Yazgan (which is not related to this incident but which amply highlights German institutional discrimination against minorities). If you need more research papers, kindly search the internet and you will find other research papers which discuss this topic in detail. FOr starters here are a selection :

(1 ter) Please also familiarize yourself with these reports which highlight discrimination in Germany : [1] [2] [3] [4] [http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1595&context=gjicl and media articles [5] [6] [7] just to show that a real problem of discrimination against minorities exists in Germany. 91.182.119.107 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(2) "Authenticity of the e-mail exchange" is a big problem = The very fact that it is clearly mentioned that the President of Leipzig University considers the e-mail exchange FAKE and the reason also why she says it is fake (mash-up) is clearly mentioned. Care has been taken to directly quote the president of Leipzig university where she used the word "faked" and also to say that the published excerpts are a 'mash-up'. This leaves no room for doubt in the mind of the casual reader.

(3) "BLICK" Swiss newspaper is a questionable source ? Says who ? Your personal impression or is it the result of academic research or a general sense in the European media ? Can you provide your source for this claim ?

(4) "the general situation of Indian students at German universities and that particular one." = Incorrect. Refer to ACADEMIC sub-section. To provide a balanced view in that section, there is the quote from a university professor who opined that this incident appeared to be a one-off case.

If you can make your case (based on facts and not perceived impressions) on neutrality more precisely then it is possible to debate/discuss the validity of your claims based on actual facts. But, as you can see your claim that the article is biased is lacking in facts to back-up your claims. If you still have any problems, kindly list your claims point-by-point after reading the article thoroughly and checking all the references. It will be easier to address your concerns either one way or the other. Thank you.

91.182.119.107 (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Since Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) is unwilling to discuss the points that have been answzered in an attempt to settle his allegations/concerns on neutrality (which are not substantiated), it is maybe necessary to open this article to a wider audience and/or proceed to arbitration. Continuation of reverts is not helpful if there is no dialog here on the talk page and therefore it is not possible to understand why the neutrality is being disputed despite his concerns being replied to point-by-point.

91.182.119.107 (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Unwilling? Who says so? You're the one trying to call it quits. Are you unable to wait for a few minutes (or even hours and days)? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You are just reverting without even providing reasons/feedback on why you 'still' think that the article has neutrality issues despite answers being provided to each of your claims. Your perception of bias can only be a 'perception' so long as you do not provide facts to back-up your claims. Drive-by tagging the article is not useful.

Anycase, please write your objection (with facts) at the earliest.

91.182.119.107 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed some of the most obvious POV language in this article. Negative characterizations like "collective punishment", "embargo", "vigilante", and so forth are not appropriate without a reliable source using that specific description, as these phrases do not appear in the released messages.

The use of sources in this article badly needs reexamination. At present there are stacks of footnotes linking to news reports that are all substantially the same. Little attention seems to have been paid to whether each individual source supports the specific claim it's attached to; for example, I removed this claim that was not discussed in the reference. On Blick in particular, I don't see anything in the linked article that isn't a quote from the press release, though it seems like they've phrased it as if it was their own interview. I rewrote the authenticity section to reflect the actual statements that have been released.

Additionally, the last two subsections (antidiscrimination legislation, country rating poll) are essentially WP:SYNTH without explicit discussion in sources of how these topics relate to the incident. (I'd imagine the German media might have some relevant commentary.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Thanks for your help in adressing this concern. Hope that others can weigh-in as well. 91.182.119.107 (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so after the dust has set a bit, let me answer the points above:

(1) First, as has Opabinia regalis already explained, the article sets an implicit accusational tone from the beginning. It's not enough to later counterbalance this lopsidedness. Second, the mere statement that a civil servant has certain responsibilities concerning the country's representation can hardly be taken as a confirmation of institutionalized discrimination. Third, the discrimination of minorities by the German educational (mainly school) system (which certainly exists, and is a much discussed topic in Germany I don't have to "familiarize myself" with) has nothing to do with interns at universities. Anyways, this article is about one particular incident, and nothing would justify prejudgement here.

(2) That e-mail is the only source the accusations are based on. The authenticity question should at least briefly be addressed at the beginning.

(3) Again, Opabinia regalis has already explained, it was Blick who interpreted the confirmation as an admission. You could have referred to the official statement instead.

(4) What is generally missing here are facts. The whole article is basically a collage of random statements by people not involved in the actual incident.

Some of these issues have already been solved, but the leading section's current situation is still reason enough to keep the neutrality template in the article for now. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I cleaned this up a bit more, removing some redundant, low-quality, or misplaced sources, rewriting the lead, and removing the "boycott" section (apparently I missed some of these yesterday). I think someone who is more familiar than I am with media in India or Germany will be needed to work more on the sources, in particular the "social media" subsection and on connecting those last two sections to the main topic. The collection of random people's commentary in the academic section doesn't seem necessary either. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see that some work has been put into the article instead of random drive-by tagging without any explanations (as it was initially the case).

With reference to comment by Opabinia regalis regarding "collection of random people's commentary in the academic section doesn't seem necessary". My perception is that the opinon of 2 European academics who are India 'watchers' (see their past publications) and who have pointedly commented on the event is relevant to the article.

@Axolotl Nr.733: I am not familiar with Wikipedia tools to insert references and so did them how I could (or assumed they worked) till I figured out how to add cites. So, if you see in the article's references, the Leipzig University statement was already referenced at the point where the quote of the President of the University appears. I did not know how to 're-hook' that reference again. So, rest assured that the original press-releases (the 2 of them) were already in the article.

Final word about the video links containing visuals of the debates (links to YouTube). How does one reference these ? Kindly refer me to any easy manner to do this. I have no idea and so had inserted them as they were. But, you can listen/watch the videos to see that they reference the text which is adjacent to the links.

17:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

On the academics: if these people are noted experts on the subject, that should be clearer in the text (and the de Roover quote could use a trim). I'm not familiar with Niti Central and whether they'd be expected to have editorial judgment about the expertise of their contributors.

On the references: have a look at WP:CITE and Help:Referencing for beginners for more on how to format citations. To reuse a citation multiple times, just give the ref tag a name: <ref name="whatever">{{cite template}}</ref> - and reuse with the syntax <ref name ="whatever" /> WP:REFILL and WP:REFLINKS are tools that help fill in citation data for bare URLs.

On YouTube: we generally avoid linking to YouTube. I didn't check these, but youtube videos are often copyright violations; there's a chronic dead-link problem; linking directly to video is in a sense a "primary" source best avoided. (Plus the comments are usually cesspools.) Youtube videos that are produced and uploaded by legitimate news organizations usually have an accompanying article that can be cited, and it'd be fine to note in the citation that there's a relevant video linked in the article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. It appears that the issue is the tagging of the article with a neutrality tag. The issue should not be the tag. We want to improve articles to where they are tag-free. Since there do appear to be different points of view as to neutrality of the article, I think that the tag should be left in place for now, and that additional editors should be asked to comment on and improve the article. One possibility would be to post a notice at the neutral point of view noticeboard. Another possibility would be a Request for Comments, but, since those are usually actually in question form, it would be appropriate to post a neutrally worded question about language to add to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

In either case, since IP addresses sometimes change, I would suggest that the unregistered editor create an account in order to better pursue dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The unregistered editor, whose IP address does change, wrote: "it is maybe necessary to open this article to a wider audience and/or proceed to arbitration." I would suggest reading about dispute resolution procedures in general before referring to arbitration. There is nothing on this talk page that suggests that arbitration is in order. Arbitration is the last step in the resolution of conduct disputes (e.g., edit-warring, personal attacks) that cannot be solved by lesser means, and whose purposes include sanctions (such as bans) against editors whose conduct has interfered with solving a content dispute. This is a content dispute. Please re-read the dispute resolution policy. I see no need to refer to arbitration. The neutral point of view noticeboard might be the next step. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

To address the point about authenticity, note that in "http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-professor-rejects-indian-student-due-to-the-countrys-rape-problem-10095607.html" and "http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2015/03/09/leipzig-university-apolog_n_6829270.html" the professor in question is said to have confirmed that the mail is NOT a hoax. Only after the controversy has erupted has the university attempted to call it to question the authenticity of the mail. There is no absolutely no denial of the fact that she does said what was quoted in the mail (essentially that she does not accept indian male students for internships, doctoral studies or post-docs and that other also follow it), the claim is only that "the statement was taken out of context" or perhaps that she was "provoked" into saying this by other e-mails not disclosed, and that the posted e-mail is a merger of two separate mails. Furthermore there have been two independent allegations, the second of which has not been addressed at all (The official university response to the second alleged e-mail (if I understand it correctly) is only that the professor deleted the conversation, not an outright denial or unequivocal claim that the second allegation is a hoax.) Do correct me if I am wrong, but I think this article is important to keep and is overall as neutral as a typical Wikipedia article. (About me: I am an Indian new to this discussion.) Guestwriter11 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit-Warring

Stop edit warring. You are both likely to be blocked if you revert each other's edits any further. Discuss on the talk page or at a noticeboard rather than edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Why Anti-discrimination legislation section?

Why do we need a separate section for this? The content of this section doesn't relate to the incidence. Haccom  ✉ Talk to me 17:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't. I was cleaning this article up last week, didn't see a response to my last post, and then forgot about it. Removed, along with the 'country poll' section which is also only peripherally relevant, and borderline WP:SYNTH to include here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leipzig University internship controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150910212106/http://www.zv.uni-leipzig.de/en/service/press-office/press-releases.html?ifab_modus=detail&ifab_uid=11d867796d20150309125530&ifab_id=5954 to http://www.zv.uni-leipzig.de/en/service/press-office/press-releases.html?ifab_modus=detail&ifab_uid=11d867796d20150309125530&ifab_id=5954
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150313141816/http://www.niticentral.com/2015/03/11/indias-daughter-and-bbc-belgian-professor-speaks-out-306333.html to http://www.niticentral.com/2015/03/11/indias-daughter-and-bbc-belgian-professor-speaks-out-306333.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leipzig University internship controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150428215234/http://m.dw.de/english/mobile.A-18305964-9097.html to http://m.dw.de/english/mobile.A-18305964-9097.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150722054302/http://www.niticentral.com/2015/03/09/german-racism-meets-german-sanctimony-over-indias-daughter-306032.html to http://www.niticentral.com/2015/03/09/german-racism-meets-german-sanctimony-over-indias-daughter-306032.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)