Talk:2015–16 New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany/Archive 2

Asylum seekers now explicitly suspected of sexual assault...
I know that in a couple of the sections above, PanchoS and others had raised the question of whether or not we had a reliable source explicitly reporting that refugees/asylum-seekers were official suspects not just of robbery, but also of sexual assaults. So I just wanted to let everyone know that we do have that now:

"The German federal police said that out of 32 people identified as sexual abuse suspects so far, 22 were in the process of seeking asylum in Germany." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cologne-attacks-police-use-water-cannon-and-pepper-spray-on-anti-immigration-pegida-protesters-a6803996.html

I hope this is helpful and can at least put to rest this one area of disagreement :-)  -109.40.141.1 (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that gives the impression that 32 people were identified as sexual abuse suspects (and as a result that apparent fact has now been added to the lead of this Wikipedia article), but Reuters reporting of the exact same figures from the same federal police paints a quite different story. Reuters say the 32 people were suspected "of playing a role in the violence", which sounds different to being sexual abuse suspects. They then break down the figures in the investigation: "of 76 criminal acts, most them involving some form of theft, and seven linked to sexual molestation". So we have gone from 32 sexual abuse suspects to 7 acts of sexual molestation. That is their reporting of what the federal police said, which is what the Independent source you quoted from is also reporting from. At the same time ITV  and others report German interior ministry spokesman Tobias Plate saying the "vast majority" of the criminal acts were linked to theft and bodily injury, but only some sexual assaults also reported. Reuters  then reports him as only saying 3 were related to sexual assaults. What that means is open to interpretation: out of the 32 suspects mentioned, either all of them are suspects of sexual abuse, or 7 of them are or 3 of them are, or some combination therein. As with a lot of reporting of this incident, different reliable news outlets reporting from the same sources report different things. Year Zero is a concept (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Year Zero - There are a couple issues with your citations above:

1. The sources you cite are older, and therefore less likely to contain the most up to date information.

2. Your interpretation of many of the quotes strike me as rather misleading. For example, in your first Reuters link, the actual quote was: "The federal police documented 76 criminal acts, most them involving some form of theft, and seven linked to sexual molestation." But you cut it in such a way as to leave out the word "documented." There were certainly many more acts, with many more women already having come forward, but those are just the ones which they consider to be more thoroughly "documented" (though the standard of "documentation" is not clear. It's also worth noting that with at least most of the sexual assaults, there were multiple men who simultaneously perpetrated them.  So even if there were only seven (which there wasn't - that's off by a couple orders of magnitude! - but even if there were...) there could certainly be 32 men suspected of those seven.

Similarly, with your second Reuters citation, you cut the quote in such a way that it left out important information. Here's the full quote, in context, with the relevant info included: "Plate said the vast majority of the 32 criminal acts documented by federal police *on the night* were tied to theft and bodily injury. Three were related to sexual assaults, although police had no names tied to these acts."

So those were just what the police documented the night of the attacks themselves - at a time when almost everyone agrees that the police response was woefully inadequate, and still a few days before the coverup of these attacks was broken and the police leadership began to take the investigation seriously! -2.200.38.88 (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. The Independent source and the first Reuters source are talking about the same thing: German federal police saying they identified 32 people, 22 of whom are assylum seekers. The Independent is just reporting it slightly later (22 hours ago) as a background point at the bottom of their more recent story about the anti-immigration Pegida protest. Here is CNBC 7 hrs ago explicitly stating that the German federal police saying they identified 32 people, 22 of whom are assylum seekers, is from earlier in the week. And RT  stating that it's from Friday.


 * 2. You're adopting a bad faith approach, looking for some kind of nefarious subterfuge that you can imply I'm trying to employ in order to mislead. Don't bother, I don't have an axe to grind, or a side to be on, and I don't really care about the politics and sensibilities of the incident. My interest is in how accurately Wikipedia can report the wide variety of reliable sources and also how contradictory and unclear all the various reliable sources are, especially when it comes to numbers and specifically what those numbers are actually referring to. Your point that I was replying to was entirely about having a reliable source explicitly reporting that refugees/asylum-seekers were official police suspects and made no mention of the numerous eye witness and victim reports. Because my point was in direct response to your point it addressed your point about official police suspects rather than some other point you didn't make about the numerous eye witness and victim reports. In other words, the reason I didn't mention the eye witness and victim reports is because you didn't mention them; you were talking about a reliable source that addresses official police suspects, not other sources that report numerous eye witness and victim reports. Similarly with whatever it is you're trying to imply about the lack of the word "documenting"; because you're talking about official police suspects and I'm responding to your point about official police suspects it's an obvious given that official police suspects are documented, officially, in documents, by the police, as officially documented suspects. They can't be official police suspects without documentation having been done, so there's no need to include the word - especially seeing as you're going to read the word in the links I provided anyway, along with lots of other words I didn't include because they're already in the links and are obvious.


 * You need to focus on considering the point being made and whether it can benefit the quality of the article, not on trying to find ways to imply misdirection and omission by the other person. Year Zero is a concept (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

To further illustrate the point about how the numbers are confusing; contradictory; potentially referring to slightly different entities, types of things and reports; and are reported differently depending on which publication you read, The Guardian reports on Sunday 10th at approx 6pm GMT that "So far, of 31 suspects detained by police for questioning, 18 were asylum seekers [...] and none of them were accused specifically of committing sexual assaults". So on the one hand we have the Independent with 32 sexual abuse suspects (22 asylum seekers) that Reuters refers to as playing a role in the violence rather than sexual abuse suspects, and on the other hand the Guardian stating that the current state of play right now is 31 detained suspects (18 asylum seekers), none of whom were accused specifically of committing sexual assaults! They have to be referring to different things (32/22 and 31/18 are different figures for a start, but are consistently reported. Also one publication is talking of people suspected of something whereas the other is talking of people detained and accused of something). It doesn't end there either: if you read all the available mainstream sources there were an initial large group of either 1500, 1000 or several hundred people (which number is it though?). It is clear that smaller groups broke off from them and perpetrated acts including theft and sexual crimes but it's not absolutely clear that the initial large group were all perpetrators (and of what?). Different sources say different things about the numbers. Year Zero is a concept (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whats funny to me is how we fight a war of numbers here on wikipedia which quite frankly is pointless. The accuracy and precision of this article is bad only because the sources we depend on is heavily inaccurate and unprecise. One thing I do know, there's no almost 2 weeks passed. and progress on the story to be brought out in public isn't really fast. But we can all safely say: 31 (or 32) detainees, is not the same as 31 (or 32) official suspects. also there's 18 asylum seekers, or 22. Police did state that out of the 31 (or 32) the names and nationality of these people was known. And I believe they also reported that all were suspected of theft and infliction of bodily harm paired with threats. german news outlets report "Körperverletzung" which stands for victims receiving damage from physical violence. The statement about how 'körperverletzung' is treated by german law rules sexual assault outside of this specific act of crime. Meaning that the crime of sexual harassment is already the 4th committed crime during that night (theft, treatening and physical voilence being 1, 2 and 3 mentioned in my post). And there's been mentions of varying numbers of people who were reported to have fallen victim to this crime, not how many were accused of it. And thats where we stand now I think. Or should I say, that's where we know we stand, because investigation is still ongoing and news isn'r updated as readily. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

lack of neutrality, possibly biased news article
I don't see any reference to statistics on rapes in the various cities, comparing the number of rapes on this new year's eve and previous new year's eves. It simply states that there were rapes in several cities. Knowing that rapes occur frequently every new years eve, this news article is not informative and instead seems very much based on emotion rather than rationality. I know a lot of people are afraid, but don't use wikipedia as an outlet of your emotions.
 * You're not the first person who finds this article biased or non-neutral. Please, see the many sections above and learn from the discussions. Best, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 15:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Was there international coverage and political debate on the previous years' events? We can't write articles on stuff we don't know about. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I searched Google News Archive and found no reporting of sexual assaults by mobs in previous New Years. There were just cases of one or more persons raping one female. Not like this public mob assault on a hundred females. Edison (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ^Exactly. I've seen over social networks a concerted effort to paint this as something run-of-the-mill, quotidian and what Germans would sit back and watch with popcorn apart from when darker-skinned people do it &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I know now after reading the detailed description that grouped rapes occurred. This is far from obvious when reading the heading and should be made more obvious. Kai robert (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Article not showing up on Google?
I'm just curious, but is anyone else having the problem of not being able to find this article through Google? No matter how specific I make my search this article refuses to show up, even when I limit my search to within the Wikipedia domain. Even the French Wikipedia version of this article shows up, but not this one. I have to locate this page by searching within Wikipedia anytime I try to access it. Curious. --Philpill691 (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have the same problem. I sent a message to Google using the "feedback" link. Suggest every other with this problem should also do so.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I was thinking is it because it is a new article, but if the French one works, why not here? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I just tried to find the article through Google using the title "New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany" in quotation marks, but there was no result, that leads to this article here. Is this some kind of censorship? -Metron (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is it that I wouldn't be surprised? ;) Maybe this should be broached by the Wikipedia/Wikimedia officials?--Gerry1214 (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is strange, it's the first result for Bing and DuckDuckGo but not for Google. -- Boreas74  You'll catch more flies with honey 13:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can imagine there might be some kind of filter for rather new Wikipedia articles containing the word "sex", aiming to keep the porn business from exploiting Wikipedia as a link farm. Raising the article's QA assessment may help (or not). In any case, we should cooperate more closely with Google on these issues, helping them to better assess an article's quality. --PanchoS (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Don't shout too loud when being raped by a refugee for the good of the European Union." Censorship, simply as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernio48 (talk • contribs) 8. Jan. 2016, 18:21:55‎
 * Sorry for the rude word, but this is bullshit. Much more resentful commentary on this topic is freely available on Google. Just do a simple Google search to see the supposed cover-up conspiracy simply doesn't exist. --PanchoS (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * First 8 results for me (in Australia) are all related to this page. All, except the first result(!), are from WP. 220  of  Borg 17:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Slate from August 2015, there has been a dramatic decrease in traffic from Google to Wikipedia, apparently because Google changed their search/display coding to emphasize commercial sites over Wikipedia, for business reasons. See . Google has censored this article from their search results, but they did link to a "scraper" site which used this article's title to lure the unwary to a spam site without providing the text of the article. But maybe it is the "sexual" which degrades its prominence in Google, since the random new article, already nominated for speedy deletion Cora braitberg shows up in Google search results at the top. Edison (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Funnily I agree with some of the previous statements. I'm not realy surprised that you're fed commercial crap. How we must love internet sometimes (sigh) 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It does not show for me either, on 11 JAN, see the saved results here. Zezen (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: it starts to show up as of 12 JAN 2016, see here. Zezen (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Notice it shows up under the redirect name "Rape of Cologne"... seriously, Google, WTF?Crumpled Fire (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Swedish scandal coming out
Financial Times

It's not made clear in this link whether the Cologne issue led to this issue coming out of the woodwork, or if it is a mere coincidence. Does anyone from Sweden know if there's a connection? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * More coverage here from a non-paywall site: -Helvetica (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't have paywall, maybe because I'm in the UK. Some people oppose Sputnik because they believe it to to have too much influence from government in Russia, here are other sources NYT Guardian &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made a new article on the We Are Sthlm scandal. If anyone has some sources in Swedish to expand the article (or wants to move the title 300 times), please help &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of victims: Update 2016-01-13
total number of victims : 901 in only a few hours

Cologne : 650 victims, number still rising daily

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/koeln-mehr-als-650-anzeigen-wegen-uebergriffen-zu-silvester-a-1071692.html

Hamburg: 153 criminal complaints

http://www.shz.de/hamburg/silvester-in-hamburg-zahl-der-anzeigen-steigt-auf-153-id12421366.html

Stuttgart: 31

http://www.swr.de/landesschau-aktuell/bw/uebergriffe-an-silvester-stuttgarter-polizei-bestaetigt-31-anzeigen/-/id=1622/did=16774720/nid=1622/bb4oax/

Frankfurt: 22

http://www.fr-online.de/frankfurt/uebegriffe-an-silvester-weitere-anzeigen-nach-silvesternacht,1472798,33498886.html

Düsseldorf: 41

http://www.wz.de/lokales/duesseldorf/silvester-41-anzeigen-wegen-noetigung-1.2095301

Dortmund: 2 (no actual data available)

http://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/staedte/dortmund/44137-Dortmund~/Polizei-sucht-weitere-Opfer-Silvester-Sexuelle-Belaestigungen-auch-in-Dortmund;art930,2914251

Bielefeld: 500 offender (official numer of victims unknown)

http://www.nw.de/lokal/bielefeld/mitte/mitte/20674877_Boulevard-Erschreckender-Bericht-eines-Tuerstehers-zu-den-Silvestervorgaengen.html

Freiburg: 2 (no actual data available)

--87.156.119.18 (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyediting template
Whoever left the copyediting template, please list the specific issues as you see them. Looking over the article, it does not seem to require this template. Jehochman Talk 16:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please 1) actually read the talk page and 2) when you instruct others to "discuss on talk" 2a) check whether they already have discussed it on talk and 2b) actually deign to discuss the issue yourself. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * .Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I see that some improvements have been made. However, there is still a good bit of stuff in the "Cologne" section that properly belongs in the "Police response" section and vice versa. And that's just after a quick look.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, the specific copyedit problems you highlighted 3 days ago above in the still serious problems with prose section seem to have disappeared by themselves because the article has changed so much and those areas have been rewritten and changed by quite a few people. Also, I don't understand what you mean, and therefore what we can do to fix it, when you say a good bit of stuff in the Cologne section belongs in Police Response section - basically because your description of the problem is too vague or broad and not specific enough for me to know what needs doing to fix it. Also, hinting that there must be other copyedit problems because you've only had a quick look so far doesn't really help anyone to know what you think those problems might be, so it leaves us in the tricky situation of trying to fix a problem that you haven't really defined. Other editors have tried to remove the copyediting template, for example above in Orange maintenance tags, and you are continually insisting that it be put back whilst berating them for trying to remove it, which is leading to a problem whereby there is a largish volume of berating but not much of a volume of specifics on what you think needs fixing, copyedit-wise. I think it would be really helpful if you could produce a bullet point list of current specific things you think are wrong with the article, in terms of copyediting. From what I've seen it's quite normal for people to periodically request a listing of what the current specific issues are from the people that think there are problems and are refusing to allow a tag to be removed as a result. Year Zero is a concept (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please provide specifics or remove the tag. Jehochman Talk 07:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to repeat that the specifics have actually already been provided (above)? Look, if you can't be bothered to actually read the talk page, it's not my problem
 * Having said that, I do agree with User:Year Zero is a concept that most of the problems have been fixed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think part of the issue is that we have native German speakers, in part, working on the article and that when writing in English, a bit of German grammar shows. This article will need ongoing prose polishing.  But I'm watching, as are others. Jehochman Talk 13:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Title
Shouldn't it have the year in it?


 * Probably. I mean hopefully this will never happen again, but that's probably overly optimistic. The current title also seems to imply that this is some sort of routine annual event, which it isn't. And given that there were similar events elsewhere in Europe, the focus on Germany in the title may need to change. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It should say 2015/2016 like the German Wikipedia article, "Sexuelle Übergriffe in der Silvesternacht 2015/16," since the events started before midnight and continued well past midnight. By the way, "Sylvester Night??") Edison (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The title should probably also reflect the fact that, according to the latest information, these seem to be mostly robberies where sexual harassment has been mainly used to confuse and intimidate the victims. 2001:14BA:21E6:4000:95A5:724D:1825:BFB8 (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't followed up on the news since january 8th, so I'm nt sure about what is linked where and what is true and false precisely, but there were also accounts of rape, and these I think are hardly "to cover up theft". Also, what I find strange about the entire incident, why is it believed the sexual harrassment was to cover it up? it makes no sence. why would they cover it up? its not like anyone could stop them otherwise. And also, where is the source that would confirm this claim? its just a bold statement and interpretation or even speculation, unless an offender has actually confessed it. Fact remains though: large scale sexual intimidation was claimed that day all acros the country(ies).


 * The "rapes" might have been the separate Friedlingen incident where boys allegedly locked up two girls and then raped them. They boys were held in Weil am Rhein. Some articles connect these two events with the Cologne attacks, see here while some others state that they are unrelated  "German privacy laws prevent the police from naming the suspects but it has confirmed they are not asylum-seekers." UltimateLiberty (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @ Edison: Sylvester nacht, as its called in German, its named after a serving pope called Silvester, who coincidentally died on dec 31. Sylvesternacht is directly translated to: New years eve. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

New Der Spiegel article
Good article in the English online version of Der Spiegel about this:. It says that Cologne has for years had gangs of North Africans (not part of last years's wave of migrants), and "The perpetrators dance up to their victims in a pretend celebratory mood, rub up against them and rob them. Those who try to defend themselves are insulted, threatened or even hurt." It says that 11,000 robberies of this sort have taken place over the last 3 years in Cologne. It did not say it was ever on the scale of 200 to 1000 attackers in one place at one time. The article has much more info than the little set of factoids which all the other articles are repeating, including accounts from local and federal police.. Edison (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So either Edison did not bother to read through the article or is citing it very selectively indeed to cherrypick just the parts supporting his version. It's ironic that after a scandal involving extensive whitewashing, we see the very same whitewashing attempts here at Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree Edison that the Spiegel article brings some background aspects into the discussion, that are missing. But there are also aspects that I doubt. There were no 11.000 robberies "of the sort" of New Year's Eve in the years before. "Der Antanztrick" (the "dance up trick") is used to rob someone, not to sexually exploit him. In Cologne on New Year's Eve it was, as the police officers cited in the WP article said, "exactly the opposite": the "sexual amusement" was the priority. The robbery was the nice addition for the perpetrators. So Cologne here indeed has a "completly new quality". But it can be compared to incidents in the Tahrir Square in Egypt some time ago. The German WP already has that in the article. This is indeed missing here and should be added.--Gerry1214 (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Jeppiz should refrain from personal attacks, per WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." I reject his claim that I did not read the article and that,somehow, without reading it,  I selectively cherrypicked, and whitewashed. I provide a link for all to access the article. Edison (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we have brought enough WP:RS to the table confirming that several of the people arrested were either asylum seekers or recent immigrants. As the number of suspects is estimated to be around a thousand, it's highly possible other non-refugees/immigrants who were simply of Arabian or African ancestry participated, but that doesn't mean the European migrant crisis had nothing to do with the incident. Best, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not making any personal attacks Edison, I'm merely pointing out that your selected quotes from the article are not representative and, if you did read it, you also know it. The article makes it very clear that recent asylum seekers were involved in the incidents, such as he report mentions deliberate attempts to provoke the police. One example is of someone who "tore up a residency permit with a smile on his face, saying: 'You can't touch me. I'll just go back tomorrow and get a new one.'" Another example mentioned in the report was an unidentified man saying: "I'm a Syrian! You have to treat me kindly! Ms. Merkel invited me." As Jonas Vinther points out, both this article and several others explicitly state recent asylum seekers were involved, so the efforts to deny that is not based in any WP policy. Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not planning on making lots of further edits to this article, but as this documents a recent event, I'd suggest waiting a few more days or weeks before establishing consensuses on heated topics such as this. Peace! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 23:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Jeppiz, see if anything in the post I complained about was at all "collegial." If you see no attack in your post, then you have a different standard from mine. If I seemed to be denying that asylum seekers were present. I did not do so. I noted that persons of the same ethnicity had frequently done group assaults surrounding, rubbing up against and physically attacking victims, in the same city, thousands of times over three years. Asylum seekers may have joined the ranks of local gang members in doing a similar trick with a higher element of sexual assault. When they say there were two rapes, could that be groping extended to digital penetration as opposed to copulation, in the terms used by German law enforcement? Several victims said they were grabbed between the legs. So far we have a couple of anecdotes about things said..BTW,  When the two made the statements quoted, were they speaking English? That question came up on he German talk page.Edison (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The two "rapes" might have been the separate Friedlingen incident where boys allegedly locked up two girls and then raped them. They boys were held in Weil am Rhein. Some articles connect these two events with the Cologne attacks, see here while some others state that they are unrelated  "German privacy laws prevent the police from naming the suspects but it has confirmed they are not asylum-seekers." UltimateLiberty (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Article contents problems

 * The introduction talks about 5 cities, except Cologne the article does not describe what happened (e.g. how many victims) and what the reactions were on a per-city basis.
 * The article is contradicting itself and incorrect even on basic facts.
 * 8 asylum seekers detained and five men from ages 18 to 24 were arrested are not exactly matching.
 * Police confirmed that eight arrested suspects were all asylum seekers, who were known to authorities because of a history of pickpocketing. is pretty much the opposite of what the police is saying - latest information is that there were no arrests so far, and the police has not made any statements on whether suspects are asylum seekers.
 * Media reactions and how they are discussed are an important part of the whole topic. This section is short and focuses on a fringe theory regarding the influence TV tax on public media - voiced by a private media opinion column (not an RS). The role of private media is not even mentioned.
 * The article also fails to explain why this happened. According to the police the sexual assaults were largely to distract people and use the resulting confusion for thievery.

LoveToLondon (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * and you're doing all this research and not directly helping out the article because...? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No research (just a brain) is required for seeing that the article contradicts itself.
 * No research (just following the media) is required for seeing that the article contradicts the latest information.
 * It would be incredibly hard to fix and continuously update an article where many things that were reported in so-called "reliable sources" turn out to be incorrect 2 days later, where other editors make many claims based on misreading sources (Wikipedia is the only place I've seen so far that claims that there were more than one thousand perpretratores), and where basic facts like the number of perpetrators are completely unclear (based on the police and mayor statements, up to 1000 perpetrators in Cologne might as well turn out to be 20 - they say they don't know, and everyone else only repeats their numbers).
 * Part of the problem are editors doing things like using a British newspaper quoting a Cologne tabloid as local news site - this is clearly very questionable contents and not an RS that should be presented unquestioned in the article.
 * There is a lot of ongoing discussions regarding topics like media reporting. A NPOV overview (instead of just picking some random biased opinions) would be a lot of work.
 * The current article is a complete mess, and the subject is a moving target. Bringing it at this point in time anywhere near to correct and NPOV is a huge task, and nothing I would do voluntarily. LoveToLondon (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Merits of editing the article or not aside, lets revisit the actual issues you've brought forth. Given recent edits to the article, what has been solved so far and what still needs to be fixed? Concerns about the constant need for updating are irrelevant as that's the case for any current event. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Problems that currently exist:
 * What should be of this article and what should be excluded? There is a normal level of crimes of all kind when millions of people drink and party. Some amount of rapes is normal, some amount of robberies is normal - neither is newsworthy. The large-scale "sexual assault for robbery" is the novel thing here.
 * It would really help to have an overview of the different cities the article claims were part. What happened where, how many victims. And is it actually part of the story.
 * Like someone recently added the completely unrelated Weil am Rhein story (to double the number of rapes?).
 * Some source from Poland for claiming Similar attacks on NYE have been reported outside of Germany by 7th January in Austria, Finland and Switzerland. is also pretty bad. As an example, more reliable sources say Police received three reports of assualts, two of which led to criminal complaints for Finland. It doesn't even say whether these are sexual assaults, and in any case that's not a noteworthy number and no connection to Cologne has been proven so far.
 * A proper discussion of the role of the media is still missing, which is hard to do. A very difficult part is that you can spin the whole article in very different directions depending on which media you cite. Like anonymous police officers as basis for the newspaper sources for Primarily the most Arab perpetrators seeked to commit sexual offenses or in their words "sexual amusement". Whether a newspaper is for or against refugees has resulted in a quite different reporting (or non-reporting) here, and noone can verify the statements of an anonymous police officer. At the core is a highly political thing, the most controversial topic in German politics in recent months: Angela Merkel allowed more than 1 million refugees into Germany in 2015 (imagine an US President allowing 5 million refugees into the US in one year - that's the same by population), and the friction this causes inside her government coalition is the only thing that could potentially endanger her chancellorship this year.
 * LoveToLondon (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think a lot of English coverage has come from "Chinese Whispers" of inaccurate original reports (have to start somewhere). I believe that we need German speakers on this article, in order to have the finger on the pulse of the mainstream and first-hand reports, as Love To London is suggesting. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am from Germany and agree with The Almightey Drill regarding the number of detainees. There were conflicting reports. Latest numbers are to my knowledge 2 in custody which were detained on Sunday, but it is checked, if they were even involved in the events. So this can and should be left open right now. I disagree that the article is a complete mess. It reflects the partly contradictory information that is given by the authorities up to now. I don't see why a neutrality warning is needed. If there are other views and political positions, just put them in the article with a good source. Last I read is, that the number of complaints in Cologne raised to 121 today.--Gerry1214 (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One important addition from my side: I heavily doubt that the large number of severe sexual assaults happened just to rob the victims. Who rapes someone just to get a cell phone? This is nonsense and I just need my brain to get that.--Gerry1214 (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just added a new striking source for this last point.--Gerry1214 (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @ ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC), you wrote: What should be of this article and what should be excluded? There is a normal level of crimes of all kind when millions of people drink and party. Some amount of rapes is normal, some amount of robberies is normal - neither is newsworthy. The large-scale "sexual assault for robbery" is the novel thing here. (among others).
 * If you seriously believe this is the core-point of these events and this article than I believe you are insane. please combine these few small-word pieces. "large groups of predominatntly foreign men", "Large amount of sexual assaults and even cases of rape across 6 states" , "fireworks being tossed in the crowd by said large groups" and "large amount of theft". Also outlets state that such large scale event has NEVER taken place on new years eve prior. And you seriously almost want to dismiss this as 'REGULAR and NOT NEWSWORTHY' 195.109.63.17 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The two "rapes" might have been the separate Friedlingen incident where boys allegedly locked up two girls and then raped them. They boys were held in Weil am Rhein. Some articles connect these two events with the Cologne attacks, see here while some others state that they are unrelated  "German privacy laws prevent the police from naming the suspects but it has confirmed they are not asylum-seekers." UltimateLiberty (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

In addition to containing contradictory information, the article - particularly the "Incidents" section - suffers from badly written prose so that it's even hard to tell if the article is self-contradictory or not because some of the sentences are simply impossible to understand. I'd help to fix it but 1) I'm having trouble understanding what the text is trying to say and 2) my German's not good enough to figure out exactly how the text matches up with the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible "censorship" by the media
This event was "censored" by the most German medias for almost four days! And there is unfortunately no indication in this article that there has been a rape in cologne. Please add this information. --88.77.216.57 (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks not much like censorship, but some strange kind of failing primarily by police with a somewhat strange, new kind of criminal situation. --Itu (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There hasn't been much word from RSes about censoring this, so I would hesitate adding it. But there is talk about reddit mods censoring this on r/worldnews and r/europe so I wouldn't be surprised if something came out of this. For now, though, it looks like there isn't much to add in terms of this getting censored. Sethyre (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not follow the events and subsequent media coverage till yesterday, but the first article that I could find was from 2 January 2016. EXPRESS (german) I agree that this is still a quite local newspaper, but it wasn't completely ignored. Also I think that the delay in country wide media coverage resulted from the slow unraveling of the dimensions of this event. --Soulblydd (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion about this in Germany too. Former German interior secretary Hans-Peter Friedrich (CSU) accused the public media of forming a "cartel of silence" in this and other cases of criminal acts by migrants. --Gerry1214 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yet reading more horrible witness-reports, its seems more impossible that police didnt realize what was going on that night. I see many questions rising about cologne police performance. --Itu (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Possible "censorship" by German-speaking Wikipedia: The German version of this article was deleted from the Main Page. According to some users (see talk page), the article is not relevant and badly written. This perfectly reflects the situation of the German media (some kind of voluntary Gleichschaltung). German Wikipedia has turned into a blog for the radical left, at least regarding political topics. JeremyThomasParker (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Saddly enough this also happened here now. From what I've read here on wiki, it has to do with a goal combined with some ruling as to why it is removed. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This might have been the separate Friedlingen incident where boys allegedly locked up two girls and then raped them. They boys were held in Weil am Rhein. Some articles connect these two events with the Cologne attacks, see here while some others state that they are unrelated  "German privacy laws prevent the police from naming the suspects but it has confirmed they are not asylum-seekers." UltimateLiberty (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Now, some days later, many mediareports seems to proof that there was pro-immigrant (self-)censorship by newsmedia to an unbelievable extent all across europe. --Itu (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD Template?
Should the article have a AfD template if it's on a specific section in the article? -- Captain Sweden 10:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the template and closed the discussion. The AfD was likely put together at the same time someone else merged and redirected the page in question (Rapefugees not welcome). Any discussion on the content itself can be had on this talk page rather if need be. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 10:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 January 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW close with unanimous consensus against the proposed move. Disclaimer that I'm an involved party in this discussion, but it's beyond clear to anyone at this point that this is not going to fly so I feel comfortable closing the discussion. Proposed title violates WP:NPOV and does not meet the criteria for WP:COMMONNAME (and by extension WP:CONCISE). If my closing is contested due to my involvement, feel free to re-open the discussion and ping me accordingly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany → Rape of Cologne – WP:CONCISE. – Article editor (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This has recently been subjected to a series of moves, so I don't think any move could be considered uncontroversial, especially one to "Rape of Cologne". Pinging Article editor. Jenks24 (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Jenks24 (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is not the common name of the event, which would be the only reason to have it at such a title. I have no objection to moving the article to any title which can be established as the common name in English, regardless of "neutrality" concerns - but there's no evidence here for any such title. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – Definitely not a common name, only appears to be used in forums and select right-wing media rather than the public at large. WP:CONCISE doesn't necessarily apply either due to significantly differing connotations of what the rape of a city means (see Rape of Nanking, though this is not the article's title). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment can you provide reliable sources to establish your proposed name as concise? Tiggerjay (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose – First and foremost, Cologne is one of several cities where these crimes have been committed so excluding those would be a grave mistake. Secondly: out of the alleged crimes, rape was only a small part of the events (from what I know from sources). Note here that rape and sexual assault are not the same thing. Rape is always a sexual assault, but sexual assault is not always rape. Thirdly: If the name was supposed to come from women being raped during new yaers eve, then the title should at the very, very, very least have been RapeS of Cologne (to stress the multitude.) 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Shouldn't this invalid request (and just to be clear, I don't mean trying to change the name is invalid, or trying to change it to Rape of Cologne is invalid, I mean deliberately trying to get it quickly changed without discussion via the use of a specific Wikipedia technical process designed for uncontroversial name changes is, especially when you're using it for every single one of close to 100 name change requests you ever do) have just been rejected and the editor asked to submit it themselves by the correct process instead? They have a history of trying to unilaterally create controversial article namespaces without discussion (their first block) and abusing this particular process they've tried to use here (quick article name change without discussion via "Requested moves - Uncontroversial technical requests"), so it's inconceivable that they don't know the difference between a normal name change request (and all the ensuing discussion that requires) and this attempt to get a name quickly changed without discussion through "Requested moves - Uncontroversial technical requests" , which specifically tells you not to use it if here has been any past debate about the best title for the page or if someone could reasonably disagree with the move. In the past when they have tried this they have often just been rejected and asked to submit it via the proper process (see their talk page), which they then don't do, for obvious reasons. I don't even know why they have tried this when it couldn't possibly have worked, except that perhaps experience has shown them that it actually has worked in the past so there's a very slight chance it could again. Oppose of course, because the editor's context shows it's not a serious request and that it's an obvious attempt at abuse of process. Year Zero is a concept (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, but without prejudice. In spite of what some of the commenters above wrote, there is some historical precedent for using the wording "rape of..." to describe events which involved multiple rapes, other sexual assaults, and other crimes, for example the Rape of Nanking.  The word "rape" can be used more broadly to express a sense of gross abuse and violation of a city and its citizens.  That said, there are still a couple issues here.  One - the article as it's written now includes not just Cologne, but incidents in Hamburg and other cities in Germany and other countries.  So the Cologne portion would have to first be split into a separate article of its own, which might happen at some point, but not yet.  Also, there would have to be some indication that this phrase, or similar phases, or a German equivalent of this phrase, had become more widely established.  So again, maybe in the future, but not yet.  At this point it's probably best to wait on any page moves.  -Helvetica (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is neither WP:COMMONNAME nor WP:NPOV nor particularly descriptive of what happened in a number of German cities. Propose speedy closing this as an obviously non-serious request and per WP:SNOWBALL --PanchoS (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. If, however, the event later becomes known or remember as the "Mass rape of Cologne" or "New Year's Eve rape of Cologne" or something similar, I would support a title change, but this is impossible at the moment. Helvetica makes a very good point. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 14:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NPOV. It is not remotely comparable to Rape of Nanking (yet). OTOH, I would name it 2015 New Year's Eve sexual assaults in GermanyZezen (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose while I simply commented above, based on additional research and the discussion above, I also formally oppose this move based on current evidence or lack thereof. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nominator should refrain from such disruptive actions as requesting a move to a title which only appears in a Google News search at 4 sites, two of which are Breitbart News, one is The Libertarian Times, and one opinion piece at an Israeli news service allied with the settler movement. This is unacceptable POV pushing. Edison (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. Oppose In 100 years time, if this name becomes as universal as the "Rape of Nanking", maybe. I'm surprised a debate this unipolar hasn't been snow closed yet &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose What happened, according to reliable sources, was mostly sexual assaults. The rape of cologne would make it sound like there has been a mass raping. --Remote Helper (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment There are no articles detailing the two alleged "rapes". The two "rapes" might have instead been the separate Friedlingen incident where boys allegedly locked up two girls and then raped them. They boys were held in Weil am Rhein. Some articles connect these two events with the Cologne attacks, see here while some others state that they are unrelated  "German privacy laws prevent the police from naming the suspects but it has confirmed they are not asylum-seekers." UltimateLiberty (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment it seems like WP:SNOW applies here. Although as an involved editor, I'm no inclined to close it myself. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Rape in the context of a city or region or country usually refers to atrocities that result from a military assault (which itself may include sexual violence as weapon) such as Rape of Nanking or Rape of Ethiopia or Rape of Malaya. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gender imbalance as a possible contributing factor...
ABC News (Australia) published a story discussing gender imbalance as a possible contributing factor to the attacks. From what I understand, among the migrants who have arrived over the last year or so, there are *a lot more* single men (and male teenagers) than there are single women (and female teenagers). So it would be logical to think that this may have been part of what caused the sexual assaults. I'm not sure where to include it in the article, but posting a couple excerpts below:

"Professor Valerie Hudson, a Texas A&M University professor, said gender imbalances could cause serious problems in the community.

She said societies where men outnumbered women were more susceptible to higher levels of violence, insurgence and mistreatment of women."

""Nevertheless, from the reports that we have it does look like the overwhelmingly male nature of the migration wave, coupled with marginalisation among those migrants, may have been a contributing factor."

Professor Hudson said it was staggering that European nations were so caught up in debating the impact of refugees' religion, but did not seem to consider maintaining a balanced gender ratio in the community." -Helvetica (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Call me crazy, but even if you were one out of a million men all trying to get with the last woman on earth, in NO POSSIBLE WAY WHATSOEVER is that an excuse to go a sexually assault the woman. And I'm very sorry if that is the state of condition humankind is in that results in such acts. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@195.109.63.17 - I think you misunderstood what I wrote above, and also what Ms. Hudson said in the article. She and I are in no way trying to say that what happened was excusable, or by any means justified, rather we're trying to come to a better understanding of the factors which *caused* this to happen. To make an analogy, understanding the *motive* (and other factors) that caused someone to commit a murder does not mean that we're saying the murder was in any way justified.

A large population came to Europe where the men and male teenagers outnumbered their female counterparts by a very large margin. And most of these male migrants came from much more conservative cultures and were now seeing large numbers of attractive young women in plain view for the first time, but, due to the demographic imbalances (among other factors), most of them had little chance of actually having a sexual relationship any time soon. Therefore we have a probable source of the pent up sexual frustration and anger which ultimately caused some of these young men to behave the way they did.

Finally, I hope that your use of the word "you" in the first sentence of your comment above was meant in the more general sense of "one" or "a person," and not referring to me in particular. -Helvetica (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Read victim blaming. This rationalization has no place in the article. It is just pure speculation by some non experts. Jehochman Talk 13:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @Jehochman - You're of course entitled to your opinion but, as I outlined above, seeking to understand the motives and factors which led to these sorts of crimes is no more "victim blaming" than it would be in a murder case. As to your contention that this was "pure speculation by some non experts," professor Valerie Hudson is an expert in public policy, and her commentary was cited by a major reputable news source in that expert capacity.  Like I said, you're welcome to disagree with her view, but that does not mean that it isn't noteworthy or deserving of inclusion.  A major debate surrounding the New Year's Eve sexual assaults relates to public policy, so certainly relevant.  When I have the time I may start a new section of the article discussion the background and possible causes in more depth...That is if someone doesn't beat me to it.  -Helvetica (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Professor Valerie Hudson is not an expert on criminology, is she?  Once her opinion is used to explain something outside her area of expertise, it should not carry weight.  I think this article could be used as a source about the immigration crisis as an expert opinion that governments should be careful to maintain natural gender balance because failing to do so can lead to more crime.  The logical fallacy is to jump from that general advice to implying that the gender imbalance contributed to this particular set of crimes.  Maybe it did, or maybe it didn't.  There might be other factors at work that haven't been fully investigated and explained.  Jehochman Talk 14:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, Wikipedia policy is to give talking heads as much weight/credibility as reliable sources give them (though I agree that "reliable sources" often get it wrong). As long as this is presented as a possible/partial explanation (not an excuse), then it seems reasonable to add it in, along with other causes (as hypothesised in reliable sources). Is there precedent in other articles on crimes/atrocities about the "causes"? We could use those as a starting point. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Helvetica: First, I didn't mean you or any person with the word "you" in the first sentence. I meant, if 1 man, from a set of multiple men.... etcetcetc. Making the word used in hypothetical, non-personal way. :)
 * Secondly, I understood your point perfectly and I tried to counter it by saying that regardless of what factor is supposed to 'cause' it. it plain simply shouldn't as per human rights and personal safety. That was exactly why I did say, even if men would GREATLY outnumber women (like a million to one) it shouldn't be a cause for sexual assault. Yes, I realize that's naieve, but that's besides the point. For the article however, I think the main point of why this is so heavily covered by media is exactly because of that. Its basic infringement of personal safety and in particular: women rights. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am unsure how the point about "one out of a million men all trying to get with the last woman on earth" can be used to improve the article. Regardless of that I will point out that, if we accept Darwinism as driving the evolution of the species, then it is entirely possible that the existence of a gene that gives a male a tendency to commit rape would have enough advantage over other genes to prevail - also in situations with a significant gender imbalance. This _may_ explain (but not excuse) certain behavior among humans (and other species). This is not actually a comment on the actual assaults, just a reaction to the quoted point. Lklundin (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All this hypotheticizing belongs in other articles, not this one. If somebody wants to learn about sociological, biological, and genetic theories of rape, they can go to the article and read.  We don't need to repeat all this theorizing here.  If a world leader or somebody more notable than a professor steps forward with a reaction, "We think this is why it happened", we can report that.  For now, a non-notable expert opining on a TV show isn't enough significance to be mentioned. Jehochman Talk 17:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I will stop the hypotesizing after this one statement....@ LKlundin: "I am unsure how the point about "one out of a million men all trying to get with the last woman on earth" can be used to improve the article." It wasn't, I was just saying that regardless of tendencies, there's also the 10 first commandments which provide a solid foundation of how people also supposed to treat eachother. So ideally, one should be capable to refrain such tendencies and keep themselves in check. and now I finish this theoretic debate. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Let play with facts. Men were suspected, and maybe already acused of crimes on women, out of them there is evidence that asylum seekers were present and actively commiting these crimes. We're as of yet unsure who did what. And let us wait until the german police have finished their investigations. Because I quite frankly find it despicable that other countries' officials are making statements out name of germany..... I think germany can do so quite fine themselves. And now I end it. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree with Jehochman about the notability and validity of the article. Not only are we not beholden to wait until "world leaders" weigh in on why this could have happened, world leaders are actually much less qualified to comment on things like this than is a Professor of Political Science whose main work has been on the effects of disproportionately high numbers of males on society. The fact that her opinion is reported by reliable sources grants it further notability. Editor's personal opinions about whether or not she is correct should be set aside, because all that matters is if it is notable and reliable, and in this case it is absolutely both. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Background Section repeatedly deleted
Why is it not okay to provide background to these events? Surely it is relevant. I had written about the rise of mass rape allegations by Neo-Nazi, far-right and Islamaphobic groups in the fall of 2015 and the EU's highest body stating that it was concerned about this. Everything was referenced and it was still deleted. This is not the way to create a Neutral article. Here was my original text:

Background −	In 2015 the German government allowed hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers into the country as a response to the European migrant crisis. The government's decision was controversial and right-wing, Neo-Nazi, and Islamaphobic organizations began publishing reports of mass rapes carried out by Muslim refugees (e.g. Breitbart News Network, The Daily Stormer, Gates of Vienna, Asia Times ). 2015 saw a rise in racism in Germany (as well as across Europe more generally) and the Council of Europe expressed its concerns about the issue to the German Government in early October, 2015.


 * User:Monopoly31121993, the problem is that none of those sources discuss their subjects in connection with the article topic. You're drawing connections that aren't in those sources; thus the prose attempting to incorporate those sources into the article is, itself, unsourced analysis. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No Dontmakemetypepasswordagain, you are right. none of these blogs predicted the future. That's why they're in the section title "background"not predictions of the event. It is absolutley fine to have a background section in this article and it should be there so that readers understand that there was a rise in racism and "mass rape" allegation by neo-nazis and islamaphobic groups right before the alleged "mass sexual assault against white woman by Arabs" that you claim took place.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Those subjects are not background unless you have a source saying so. WP is not a source of original analysis.  Find sources for the commentary you want to include, or don't include it. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, sources should be easy to find regarding the connection between racism and the publicity these attacks have received. For example a commentary from Laurie Penny. We can find others. But you seem very keen to ignore German female protesters who scream variations on "Gegen Sexismus, Gegen Rassismus" and other such voices, in favour of you own male Ammurican conservative spin (thickly coated in Wiki-verbiage, but clear nonetheless). Gucci81.88.116.27 (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If there aren't any sources giving the spin you prefer, there's no need to make dumb or insulting comments. Just don't add the unsourced material and everything will be OK. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

What about other countries?
Sweden, Finland, Germany, Austria and Switzerland http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3390168/Migrant-rape-fears-spread-Europe-Women-told-not-night-assaults-carried-Sweden-Finland-Germany-Austria-Switzerland-amid-warnings-gangs-ordinating-attacks.html Xx236 (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As this article is about Germany, I wouldn't focus too much on other countries. Jeppiz (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Where are the other articles? New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Sweden - red. Category:Crimes committed by asylum seekers - nothing. Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)