Talk:2015–16 New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany/Archive 3

Missing article: Mob sexual violence
It strikes me that we are missing a major article, Mob sexual violence, to cover the general type, which would provide greater context on incidents of this kind documented in different parts of the world.--Pharos (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be a huge article, spanning war rapes. If the scope is somehow set to group sexual violence in peacetime - then it could be doable.81.88.116.27 (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * War rapes would be covered under Wartime sexual violence; to make clearer that the scope is peacetime sexual violence in a mob situation, I think perhaps a general article could be titled Sexual violence in crowd disturbances and riots.--Pharos (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Biased, selective and sensational title
The most common crime here was theft not sexual assault but this article is titled sexual assault. This was changed from a title which included robbery. This selective depiction and categorization of the events is sensational and promotes a certain POV of the events. It should be reverted.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's actually very true, but what do you do when an news story elicits a flood of sensationalist coverage? Our "reliable sources" are unanimous in portraying the event as " a mass rape of white women by Arabs" (and drawing appropriate conclusions about how Europe is under assault and so on). Xenophobic blogs are also feeding the narrative, using old and very incomplete data from Sweden to show that rape in Europe is an "Arab problem". This is then recycled back into the established news outlets via citogenesis. In this way racism becomes THE "neutral" view, and any attempt to counter it becomes "fringe". So what the hell do you do? Original research? Curious to hear how you'd tackle this nasty and dangerous narrative. 81.88.116.27 (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This was as you said, a mixed crime wave, but how do we sum that up as one title without a very vague "events" or "incidents"? I am open to a change as long as there is a better alternative &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My experience with Wikipedia is that some editors prefer and push for sensationalism in titles of articles. They may prefer to refer to a protest as a "riot" for example if one or two right-wing news outlets have done so already. This is especially troubling when it is done in connection to articles that have major discussions of minority communities/groups and in this case Muslims, Arabs, North Africans, refugees and immigrants. I don't have a solution to this problem other than to follow Wikipedia's rules which state that article's title must follow Wikipedia's 3 core policies of "Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.." In this case the title is not verifiable and contains original research because it makes a judgement as to whether the alleged attacks legally met the German legal code's definition of sexual assaults (which is significantly different from the definition in much of the English speaking world, and remember this is the English article version so direct translation is not always appropriate), and is certainly not a Neutral POV because it emphasizes only the sensational "SEX" element and ignores the theft element. I suggest the title be changed to "2015 New Year's Eve German Crime Wave" (removing all sensationalism from the title).
 * Agree with Crime Wave proposal. It would also lead the article right direction: a discussion of crime in Germany on New Years Eve, of which rapes were a very notable and troubling part. 81.88.116.27 (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a mass sex assault of white women by Arab/North African men. That's why it's being presented that way by RS's and this article.  The fact that some majority of the perpetrating sleazebags also committed numerous muggings/robberies that were made convenient by the circumstances (i.e. women imprisoned by large groups of groping men; prostrate authorities unprepared for such shocking attacks) doesn't really change anything.  Nor do I see any unfounded claims, bogus accusations, old data or other elements of "false narrative" in this article; but by all means if you can identify an actual problem, please do.  Otherwise NOTFORUM applies to all bytes expende wishing aloud that the English-speaking world should view this incident differently (for some reason).
 * Also, unsigned user's argument about the title being "unverifiable" makes no sense at all. We call things what reliable sources call them, we don't put on our Wiki-legal-expert hats on and appoint ourselves to second-guess whether the reliable sources are getting the German criminal code right, or whether we think they are putting the correct emphasis on the correct aspects of the topic.  Such a view can only be based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of WP content and sourcing policies.  Sources are to be followed, not led. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On the presence of Swedish statistics, I stand corrected. On the topic of the article - not so much. Was there no crime wave in Germany on New Years Eve? And what about the scoping of "sexual assaults"? You literally mean that all German women who were sexually attacked on that day were attacked by Arabs? That's ridiculous, yet that's precisely where the article leads: forget about the general problems of crime and rape, we are only interested in a certain (wink wink) type of crime, and we should also look outside of Germany for similar (wink wink) incidents to create the desired narrative If you want to be honest you might as well rename the article (which itself is pretty valuable) to "Mass sex attacks by Arab mobs in the case of Germany". That would at least make the scope of the article crystal clear. And sourcing will not be a problem, since that's a very popular narrative. In theory the title you defend may be ok - in practice it leads to editors going in a certain direction and picking up sources accordingly. In other words it sets the narrative. NOTFORUM does not apply because we are suggesting a concrete changes to the article. (BTW, my username is User:Guccisamsclub, i'm participating as ip, cause I've locked myself out with the javascript-blocker to spend less time on the wiki) (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your response is a tad ridiculous. No, of course I don't mean that no sex assault could have been committed by a non-Arab or non-north-African that night.  But there is no indication that any mass sex assault was perpetrated by some other demographic or group on the night in question, nor that "ordinary" sexual assaults that night were very substantial or numerous.  Nor is there very much in the way of commentary saying that property crimes were the primary offense, or the primary reason for the attacks.  You seem to be assuming—based on nothing at all—that the migrant sex assaults are somehow being blown out of proportion.  If you don't have a basis for an argument, you shouldn't make it.
 * Also, I'm just gonna come out and say, it's pretty obnoxious to suggest that racism is the reason why Germans might take offense at this incident. If they gave asylum to a million Swedes and then 2000 swedes formed a sex assault gang in the public square, there'd be much focusing-on-the-Swede-rapists, and it would have little to do with race and everything to do with a shocking and unusual crime being perpetrated by outsiders who were allowed into the country as an act of goodwill. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Racism is indeed A reason for the publicity these attacks have received, well outside of Germany. Overnight everyone from German fascists to Breitbart, Trump et al have become defenders of German womanhood. To deny this is ridiculous. Germany has had 7,000 - 8,000 reported rapes annually, though the trend is one of secular decline. There are no figures on sexual assaults that that I could find, but they are certainly in the tens of thousands. Now you have the Cologne case, which accounts for an infinitesimally small fraction of the total, and all the sudden it's Armageddon. None of this is to dismiss genuine concern of women over their safety or the protests against these horrible attacks, many of which have featured the slogan "Against Sexism, Against Racism".81.88.116.27 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're basing your faux indignation on the fact that you don't actually know the relevant statistics? Right, I'm sure hundreds of sex assaults in a single square in a single city in the stretch of a few hours—with large gangs of men imprisoning women for subsequent abuse, right in front of the cops—is commonplace and only racists would take alarm.  This thread is obnoxious and has no tendency to improve the article, it's just some NOTFORUM ranting about the West, my Muscovite brother. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "ranting against the West, my Muscovite brother"... that's some nice stereotyping (and hilariously off-base, if you know anything about the political and racial climate in Russia).Ok, bye for now.81.88.116.27 (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do know something about it. Anyway this discussion doesn't serve much if any valid purpose.  To the extent there is any RS commentary connecting public concern with these incidents with racist views or tendencies that is fit for inclusion subject to weighting, but personal editor views and observations on a topic aren't a basis to adjust tone or other aspects of presentations given in RS's. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dontmakemetypepasswordagain has been posted by me onto the NPOV/Noticeboard page for what appears to be POV pushing. I have also recommended that other editors more experienced with Sockpuppet investigations look into the actions of this account.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to continue this discussion now. There seems to be consensus between 81.88.116.27, &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; and myself to change the name to "2015 New Year's Eve German Crime Wave" Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reasonable arguments for the template claiming the title was biased. Most of the sources focus on the combination of sexual assaults with other crimes. If there would have been only a "wave" of "pickpocketing" or just unspecified "crime" these events wouldn't have developed such a political impact. So this (esp. "Taharrush gamea") is the central element. Some may not like that or it wouldn't fit into certain forms of ideology. But this can not be a reason to deny it.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Crime is crime. to focus only on the sensation aspect of sex crime (which was just part of it) is not appropriate given the actual event and what it says in the article. That title alone is not neutral.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Monopoly, if you look through the talk page history you'll see the question of how to characterize the crimes in the page title has already received much wider scrutiny, so at minimum you'd want to post an RFC/move request or whatever to get an appropriate volume of input, but anyways I don't think "crime wave" is going to get much support because it reflects a pretty substantial alteration of most of what we're hearing from the press. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am a user who started editing in German Wikipedia in 2012/13 and switched to en: in December. I did a large number of my edits in music issues. But right now I'm interested in this issue and read much about in German. So these personal offenses are factually inaccurate. And certain crimes have political/cultural impact and reasons, others don't. There is an article for "crime in Germany" (which tells about several other nationalities/ethnic groups) for all crimes without certain impact. And this one for this special type of crimes.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , as others have pointed out, the media focus has (rightly) been on the far more heinous sexual crimes, not on the robberies. Reliable sources are focusing on the sexual crimes, probably because they're (rightfully) considered to be far worse than robbery. Wikipedia must therefore do the same. If you would like to correct this, please feel free to lobby the sources that Wikipedia follows. Until then, the current title (or one to the same effect) is far more in line with Wikipedia policy and practice. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW ( at this point probably little) I've come around the same perspective. Sexual assaults are clearly more notable that other crimes on NYE. Furthermore switching the focus to crime on NYE is unlikely to change any racial and national biases in in the article's narrative. So we'd be still dealing with Arab-on-white crime, since other crime (just as other rapes) were not perceived as notable by the media. So yeah there is no point in changing the title - it would simply downgrade the notability of sexual assault and accomplish little else. Gucci81.88.116.27 (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you identify any "racial or national biases"? No?  Then there's nothing to discuss. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your contribution above goes beyond NOTFORMUM - it's the equivalent of baiting/trolling someone on youtube. Even when someone recognizes the validity of your argument, you keep bickering. 81.88.116.27 (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, since you won't stop questioning my motives, I'll say that you seem intent on constantly implying that there is rank racism or jingoism at work here, without any actual sourcing or article material. What you're essentially doing is repeatedly expressing your unsourced opinion, which apparently is not getting enough support from real people in the real world for your satisfaction, so you're spreading the message on WP talk pages.  Soap, meet box. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ramifications of the Incident (Media coverage,The Right, the Ultra-Right, Feminism, the Immigration Policy)
Some people appear allergic to mentions Far-Right politics and xenophobia. User Dontmakemetypepass scorns the addition of Laurie Penny as "not-notable". A more accurate description would be "idontlikeit". Still, since the section is controversial we should get make a head start here on the talk page, by establishing that the topic exists. To avoid pov-problems, we should include a range of opinions on the issue - including those of the Right. Laurie Penny's article is definitely a candidate for the proposed section. So are the manifestations by Neo-Nazis in Germany and racist attacks on migrants. We also have images to make it more palpable [here] and here. - to reiterate - we should also include and fairly represent arguments coming from the Center and the Right about the negative consequence of immigration and the problems of assimilation. Below is a box where people can stuff specific material to include in the proposed section. Use bullets. Guccisamsclub81.88.116.27 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 Proposed sources and ideas (we can begin to create the outline after assembling the source material):


 * Laurie Penny, a British feminist stated "......" [| link]
 * "January has seen a spate of angry anti-refugee protests and revenge attacks across Germany since the attacks in Cologne on New Year’s Eve.
 * "People are insisting on making this a political story, trying to shift the focus on pro- or anti-refugees. But in fact, no one is listening to what we have to say - the women who have been suffering from this violence in the streets on a daily basis long before refugees even came here" link. on a related note
 * Russian propaganda supports the immigrant-rapist myth and

  Proposed outline for the section:

-Should be noted that there is already a section about attacks on migrants, but it could be expanded (or a new section of the type I describe could be added, since the two do not strictly overlap) come on folks - anybody have anything or what? 81.88.116.27 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * User:81.88.116.27 / User:Guccisamsclub: You're not supposed to dwell on the alleged personalities of other editors, and you don't even know what the hell you are talking about. I didn't "scorn" Laurie Penny, I didn't say anything about Laurie Penny being non-notable.  But when you're talking about an obscure post, on an unknown blog, about somebody's 20-word tweet, that's well into the territory of non-notability—and even so, it was being given a shockingly biased presentation before I edited the material (in short, the blog authors thought her quote was idiotic, but whoever added this to the article simply included the quote without any of the criticism given).  I also haven't removed any sourced material connecting this incident to far-right elements, but I do note that the only images you propose to include are images of cops fighting with right-wing protesters who were angry about this incident.  Maybe you're the one suffering from "allergies" at the prospect of giving this topic a balanced presentation that is actually based on sources.
 * Yeah, I blindly took the material from the edit history - it was not what I intended it to be. Changed it to the the more appropriate source: Laurie Penny's article on the New Statesman's website. So yes - you were correct to remove the blog. (As for civility - go ahead and drop the issue. Your edit history shows enough such violations on your part, starting with accusing me of being a "Muscovite" polluting the talk page with "ranting against the West" - which is ludicrous misrepresentation of my views on just about everything and then some)81.88.116.27 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like I said, you had zero clue what you were talking about. P.S., I called you a "Muscovite" because your IP address geolocates to Moscow, and accused you of "ranting against the West" because you seemed intent on manufacturing an unsubstantiated and frankly fringe POV that the German reaction and focus of Western media were based on racism against the accused attackers, together with the equally ludicrous suggestion that this was somehow just a typical night of holiday sex assaults in Cologne.  So, anyway, sorry if I was mistaken about you living in Moscow. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "German reaction and focus of Western media were based on racism" - not entirely, but certainly in part. If you feel that everyday violence against women is trivial in comparison to Cologne etc - and that pointing to it is FRINGE - you can try to find an RS that backs your view - and put it into the box above. Ok let's stop this nonsense. 81.88.116.27 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is sourced commentary you wish to add, have at it. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks" and this article
One or more editors keep adding a SEE ALSO link to an article about some Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks. There is no sourced commentary in this article about any attacks at any parade, and there is no sourced material in the parade article about the incidents that are discussed in this article. Simply put, there does not appear to be any sourced connection whatever between the two topics. Thus we can't include the SEE ALSO link.

It's not enough to say that both articles are sourced; if there's no sourced link between them, we don't assert one on our own. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong.
 * Per WP:SEEALSO: "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."
 * When I initially posted the link, I included an addendum, clarifying the relevance between the two&mdash;that the attacks in the US in 2000 were similar and, thus, the reader might be interested in reading the article to note the similarities. Both attacks involved a mass group of men, during a celebratory event, committing the same types of crimes: sex assaults and robberies on unknown strangers. That absolutely satisfies the requirements of WP:SEEALSO. -- Veggies ( talk ) 16:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That does not mean you can include completely unsourced connections that are indirect or tangential. It just means that verifiable connections need not be direct or fundamental to the topic, in order to be included.  But the baseline rule remains: No source, no link. WP is not a source of original analysis, and in this case your contentious unsourced claim happens to have a disparaging effect on Puerto Rican people in NYC.  I request that you please self-revert. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I requested feedback on this question at the "No original research" noticeboard. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "That does not mean you can include completely unsourced connections that are indirect or tangential."
 * Define "completely unsourced". What am I supposed to find a source for? -- Veggies ( talk ) 17:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "But the baseline rule remains: No source, no link."
 * Wrong again. See 1740 Batavia massacre, Katyn massacre for examples of "See also" sections with tangential and  "unsourced" links. -- Veggies ( talk ) 17:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "your contentious unsourced claim happens to have a disparaging effect on Puerto Rican people in NYC."
 * Grow up. -- Veggies ( talk ) 17:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because other articles engage in this practice, does not mean this one should. I frequently delete tangential seealso's myself. The connection to P-R is highly tangential (far more so than a link to Rape in Germany would be), and the only way to make the case that it's not is to provide at least (!) several sources. Also who really cares? Aren't there bigger fish to fry in terms of improving the article - like noting the well-documented exploitation of the event by the Right? -Guccisamsclub 81.88.116.27 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Just because other articles engage in this practice, does not mean this one should."
 * That's not an argument, however. What the reasoning behind it? -- Veggies ( talk ) 23:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Also who really cares?"
 * Also not a valid argument. -- Veggies ( talk ) 23:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no valid argument for inclusion of this claim, which remains unsourced. Please note that you don't have any support for this material and including unsourced claims in WP articles generally violates policy. I'm removing it again, please don't restore it again until and unless you can demonstrate a consensus for conclusion that is rooted in content policy. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You have failed to answer any of my questions or address any of the points I made above. Failing to participate in a discussion is not grounds for determining "consensus". -- Veggies ( talk ) 13:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't state a basis for inclusion and you don't have any support for inclusion. Find a source that connects these two topics, otherwise you are just edit-warring to force improper material into the article.  Also, please note that there is no policy requiring us to include objectionable material so long as there is at least one user pushing bytes onto the talk page.  Please, it should be plain as day that all you need to do is come up with a source; I've tried and I don't see any sources connecting these two topics. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What source? A source for what? For who? You never answered that question above. I asked you days ago. -- Veggies ( talk ) 13:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. From the very beginning, I demanded a source drawing a connection between this incident the the Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks.  The statement you just replied to clearly states as much (as does THE VERY FIRST COMMENT IN THIS THREAD WHICH YOU ALSO REPLIED TO).  If you are actually listening, there it is: no need to "discuss" anything further, just go find a source that does anything at all to justify this link. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to make this any clearer: you do NOT need a source for "See Also" links. There is nothing in WP:SEEALSO about that. Show me the guideline that says so. -- Veggies ( talk ) 14:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I already told you that is plain BS as you can see by spending 5-10 seconds to read the policy on VERIFIABILITY: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately." Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So you can see that this material not only doesn't belong in the article, but it should actually be aggressively removed while this "discussion" is underway. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Read the guideline more carefully. A link to an article is not "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged". And even if you do challenge...something...about the Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks, the article itself has plenty of citations. What material are you trying to verify? -- Veggies ( talk ) 14:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no verifiable link between the two topics or the two articles—which was stated repeatedly, and which can only be refuted by providing a source. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We're not going to agree, here, then. There are pages and pages of featured articles with See Alsos without "sources" provided. We'll have to take this to WP:DR -- Veggies ( talk ) 16:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously, nobody's going to object to a non-contentious SEE ALSO link that isn't sourced, so the existence of non-contentious unsourced links doesn't do anything to help you. This link, on the other hand, is extremely contentious and is unsourced.  Extremely contentious unsourced claims don't belong on WP.
 * In any event, as the core policy clearly states Verifiability applies to all parts of an article. That's why policies dealing with individual parts of an article don't all contain reminders ("Remember, Verifiability applies here too!") -- because Verifiability applies everywhere.  As has been shown to you. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since we're disagreeing, shouldn't we be discussing this on the forum you chose at WP:NORN? Funny that you decided to abandon the discussion and unilaterally act as you had been, regardless. Is that "consensus" in your mind? -- Veggies ( talk ) 15:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * To answer one question by quoting policy: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." I suggest that it is reasonable to include a See also link without an RS that specifically makes the link and we have FA that do so. This link is contentious because Dontmakemetypepasswordagain says it is. I will refrain for the moment from commenting further. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I have and idea for a broader approach to this at .--Pharos (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't even have to write a new article here - though you might want to write such an article for other reasons. Just create a new category.81.88.116.27 (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started a new category here: Category:Sexual violence at riots and crowd disturbances.--Pharos (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * great work!81.88.116.27 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2016

Christoph Ehrhardt (15 January 2016). "Gewalt gegen Frauen in Ägypten: Wo sexuelle Belästigung Alltag ist".Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. provides an explicite reference between the Puerto Rica assaults and the Taharrush in Cologne. Hope that helps. I would prefer to have it included in the main part. Its a sort of nuisance of Eurabia pundits (see Breitbart and others) to claim that Europe is under siege since new years eve. Cologne is neither Poitiers nor Vienna under siege. Erhardt provides a similar view. Polentarion Talk 18:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the objections to including this as a 'see also'. There is no connection discussed in a reliable source, and the vague similarities make it a matter for a category and not a see also link. Gamaliel ( talk ) 18:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you see as being ambiguous?&mdash;Or to put it another way, what guidelines specifically address the required clarity/parity that must be in place for "See Also" links? -- Veggies ( talk ) 19:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not about the ambiguity, it's about the fact that you are singling out one single incident based on those vague similarities, over and above all other similar incidents. The similarities are not significant enough to justify this.    Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What is a "vague similarity"? Is it similar or is it not? If not, why not? What would be a "definite similarity"? And where is the "vague similarity" exclusionary rule in WP:SEEALSO?-- Veggies ( talk ) 19:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that something is not specifically prohibited in the subclause of a policy does not mean that it must be included. Everything is determined by discussion and consensus.  If you wish to convince others to include this link, this argument is not likely to be persuasive.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already made my arguments above (as well my retorts to the given counter-arguments). I noticed, however, that you didn't answer my questions. -- Veggies ( talk ) 22:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to hijack Gamaliel's line of discussion, but I'll go ahead and explain some reasons why I agree the similarities are "vague". For one thing the incidents that are the subject of this article appear to have involved something on the order of 20-30 times more participants, victims, and reported crimes than the Puerto Rican parade attacks—and they were spread across multiple cities in multiple countries, instead of being confined to single area of a single city surrounding a parade in that city.  Puerto Ricans are also thoroughly integrated natural-born citizens of the United States, whereas the alleged attackers here were economic migrants and refugees, taken in via extraordinary measures to avoid an impending humanitarian catastrophe, with many of them suspected of harboring terrorist ties, and many more suspected to have baseline views on women's rights (and appropriate treatment of women) that are fundamentally alien to the host countries that took the migrants in.  Thus there are major political and cultural issues surrounding in the former but not the latter.
 * The above represents about 120 seconds of me picking out major differences between the two. The comparison is highly debatable and contentious; if it weren't, the lack of sourcing wouldn't matter.
 * Note also that I don't think anybody's objecting that a SEE ALSO link actually needs to be directly footnoted—but if there is no sourced material whatsoever that directly supports the comparison, it violates WP:V. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The only "major differences" I see you've pointed out regard the scale of the assaults, and the sociopolitical make-up of the attackers. The former is a question of dimension, not a difference in characteristic. The latter objection is rather quizzical. Where did you hear that only Puerto Ricans were involved in the attacks in New York? Second, in looking at the few instances of mass, public sex assaults, I am quite unconvinced that the background of the rapists qua background is a "major difference" that creates a categorical and incomparable shift. Rape is rape&mdash;be it by a citizen, a resident, or a foreigner. What other categories of criminal acts should be cleft like this? -- Veggies ( talk ) 00:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I just provided the sources that explicitely refer to the link, seems its being ignored for whatever reason. Even without them, the familiarity is evident, allowing for a "see also". Polentarion Talk 01:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this is something that clearly calls for scrutiny by multiple editors, would you mind providing a translation of that German source so we can see what it says? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Article directly speaks about the developement of the deWP article. According Erhardts, its first version was based on mere recent press reports focusing on Marghrebian attackers and the BKA story. He describes how the extension used a larger base of studies and involved as well "similar events" as sometimes occuring mass rapes (and part of eve teasing) in India and the drunk and stoned Latino mob attack in New York Central Park in 2000. Polentarion Talk 21:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that if the analogy between Cologne and similar incidents (Oktoberfest, Puerto Rico etc.) can be sourced - it belong in the body of the article, in the same way that Taharrush gamea attacks in the Arab world belong in the body. If we leave them in SEEALSO, people will ask "are these incidents really comparable? How so? According to whom?". The problem with putting analogous incidents in SEEALSO is that there is no nuance and no sourcing. So by stuffing them in SEEALSO, we turn them into uncontestable and unverifiable facts. People won't be able to check the sources, or - potentially - insert new sources disputing the supposed analogies. The analogy will just fester in the SEEALSO section as a bald assertion, which is something that wikipedia should avoid like a plague. -Gucci-81.88.116.27 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So far as I can say, the See Also section can include material which on base of content is similar. If the Puerto Rican thing is indeed so similar in content than a See also could apply. regardless if its not directly connected (which I personally think would be really farfetched seeing there's 15 years in between. The See Also section doesn't exclude the use of similar "events" to have occurred elsewhere. If its desire to only have articles listed that have a confirmed connection, then WP rules should reflect this more clearly. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Refer to Rotherham Muslim child rape gangs?
Both the incidents have the same theme; Muslim foreign men raping and sexually assaulting local women and were reported in the same way. There should be a mention of this in the lede and a link in the related links section. Discuss.


 * No: The only similarity is the elite cover up (which lasted way longer in Rotherham) and the eventual discussion of foreign misogyny (Pakistan is not in the Middle East). In Rotherham, they were native born locals involved in organised crime, who befriended and manipulated children. In Cologne, it was robbery and assaults on strangers. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 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: No consensus after over 3 weeks. This close should not preclude expanding or reducing the scope of the article, in which case the move discussion should be revisited. Cúchullain t/ c 16:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany → New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Europe – Attacks also took place in Austria, Switzerland, and Finland. – Article editor (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This article has already been subject to several RMs and is on a controversial topic, clearly not renaming will be uncontroversial so please use the full RM process. Jenks24 (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Jenks24 (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to move it to New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Cologne. Thats the main site. Germany is way too generic. The events happened in dedicated urban places, Cologne the foremost, not in the countryside. All the others have been mentioned after Cologne got (in)famous. Polentarion Talk 16:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Polentarion. The evidence for links to other cities is Germany exists but is limited, a larger conspiracy in several European countries has afaik not been demonstrated at all.--Pharos (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * a bad idea. the topic of the article is notable on its own, and also more notable that the attacks elsewhere - the other attacks became notable after Cologne and were frequently covered through the prism of Cologne. Furthermore, it would mean losing focus and shifting from covering a specific event to covering a whole media narrative (i.e. the theory that its just not cologne, but the entire continent, that's under attack from migrant rapists). That's virtually a recipe for a pov-laden, sweepingly chauvinistic, coat-racking, tendentious and sensationalized article. I think even the move to from Cologne to Germany was slightly problematic - though not anywhere near as as bad as the proposed move from Germany to Europe.81.88.116.27 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Three points: 1) a massive attack on fortress Europe is partially a sort of story telling, in the US, with the likes of Trump'n'Steyn going amok on the Eurabia narrative. I experienced that partially in the Taharrush gamea article, some pundits are trying to sell a circle of hell and hundreds of men chasing innocent women through Cairo and Cologne. I stopped working there. 2) There is a strong will to exclude the Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade_attacks of 2000 from this article, I fear for similar reasons. As shown, groups (of young men) groping women is not confined to the Muslim world (Eve teasing is another example), even if the current version has been invented in Egypt, where police forces started to use sexual harrassment as a political tool. Susanne Schröter has provided some insights and feasible solutions in a recent interview. 3) Germany has large differences in police tactics depnding of the specific policies of municipalities and Länders. Cologne (and the state of NRW) has had a lackluster approach on rioters and hools, the now retired head of police in Cologne was among the organizers of the peace movement protests in the 1980ies, and he never got a real touch with police work. This is changing now in Cologne and it has been different already in other parts of Germany. So its not about fortress Europe, but toytown Cologne, that is under pressure. All in all, lets move the article back to New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Cologne. Polentarion Talk 02:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about moving the article to "Cologne" - but I'd encourage you to add any sourced critiques of the "fortress europe /rape of Germany" narratives to the box in the ramifications section here on the talkpage. Such critiques will help balance the existing article, I think. -gucci81.88.116.27 (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Lotta angloamerican tabloids are full with such gabberish, but the german side doesn't care much about it so far. But I will see what I can do. Polentarion Talk 17:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Some important questions are: To what extent is rape - including collective sexual assault - in Germany an "immigrant problem"? Among the reported offenses in the other German cities (outside Cologne), what percentage of the crimes committed were sexual crimes? Were the incidents in Cologne part of a bigger, country-wide "wave of sexual assault by immigrants"? I am sure that we can find some balanced and sober discussion of these issues in German-language sources.-Gucci-81.88.116.27 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the use of rape is quite different, Rape in Egypt translates in Sexual violence in Egypt in the deVersion, and thats appropriate. The scandal about Cologne is about the new treat of sexual harrassment by groups of strangers during festivals. The right of men and women to bear and wear beer in public festivals without being harrassed is our Second amendment, and we are going to defend that very German fortress;) Polentarion Talk 20:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your point is well-taken. If you have sources to back up your view that the main problem is "harassment" by "foreigners" "during festivals" that would be great. (I see the tongue in cheek, BTW). However the larger narrative - outside of Germany and perhaps in Germany too - is that immigrants pose a major threat to German and European society. And that's no joke - as I am sure you'll agree. -Gucci81.88.116.27 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really my point. Susanne Schröter was quite outspoken, that we have to train immigrants about gender relations here. And the municipalities have to get the funds for those trainings, and those which do not behave and integrate, will get in trouble. We have coped to integrate some millions of Silesians after WW II, in a country bombed back to stone age, we can do as well with motivated and ambitious refugees now. But the public expects the governent to act and regulate, not only to welcome. Merkel has not delivered on that. Another Berlin Wall is not in planning. Polentarion Talk 00:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that either Cologne or Europe should be in the focus of this article. Cologne in the lemma would exclude several hundred victims in Germany, Europe could lead to a chaos in the article/categories as it is right now mainly focused on Germany. I would support standalone articles for the other countries instead, if needed, or - just as it is right now - small paragraphs in this article with the facts, if they don't justify a standalone article. Most other WPs have the focus on Germany, and I think for good reasons. Just today a BKA report was cited in the German press, which states that incidents like Cologne happenend in 12 of the 16 German federal states. So I think more details from different parts of Germany will follow. E.g. the number of complaints from a city like Düsseldorf rose from 41 to 113 according to latest NRW police information. I will change that in the article asap.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be carefully investigated whether ALL documented assaults on NYE were perpetrated by immigrants - it may be broadly accurate, but it's dangerous to assume that. It's not as if such incidents are never perpetrated by the "native" population, as in the case of "Oktoberfest" a few years ago. It should be kept in mind Germany has 7-8 thousand reported rapes and about 45 thousand reported sexual assaults every year. Gucci81.88.116.27 (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right, no one said that ALL documented assaults on NYE were perpetrated by immigrants, so doesn't the article. But what we know right now is, according to police reports and all others sources including policemen and eye-witness reports, that the overwhelming majority of the assaults were. But that's not even the question for the lemma. I only stated that this specific kind of assaults involving mostly groups of men targeting mostly women happened all over Germany and in some other countries on New Year's Eve. So Cologne as a focus would be definitely to small, Europe would be to wide for this article, as it is long enough right now and focused on Germany (e.g regarding political impact).--Gerry1214 (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This seems like a bad idea. The article is already large enough as is, and broadening the scope would be problematic. On the other hand, restricting focus to Cologne would not be honest to the way the subject was reported in the media. It's better to leave this as-is. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Cologne is the start of the scandal, and gained the media focus, that went to others. September 11 is about targeting symbolic U.S. landmarks, not about Shanksville, Pennsylvania, right? Polentarion Talk 21:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not right, and I think that exactly illustrates the point. No one would want to move September 11 attacks to "WTC and Pentagon attacks". --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So it was about Shanksville then? Sorry, but an article on September 11 attacks on America would not work at all, but thats being insinuated here, base is a 'Europe under attack' narrative in the American public. 03:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The September 11 attacks were an actual conspiracy, organized by a few men, against the United States. For the recent sexual assaults, there is strong evidence of some kind of organization in Cologne, and weak evidence (which does not appear to be yet confirmed by police authorities or mainstream RS) of organization and coordination with other cities in Germany.  There is no evidence at all for inter-European coordination; although the Cologne events clearly had organized criminal assaults, this isn't proven for other European cities on such a scale, or that a European-wide conspiracy led to increased violence over previous new years' in these other localities.--Pharos (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not only not proven - it's preposterous. It's even more preposterous than the "protocols of the elders of zion". why is this even being discussed?81.88.116.27 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * According to all German authorities I have read of - NRW police/Minister of Interior Ralf Jäger, Hamburg police, Bundeskriminalamt - there is no evidence of coordination either in Cologne nor Germany. What was reported is, that some of the perpetrators used social media to make appointments for New Year's Eve celebrations - not to commit crimes. German Minister of Justice claimed few days after the attacks that in his view the attacks appeared to be coordinated - but all police authorities contradicted him in the following days.--Gerry1214 (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * IN some respects its fascinating how an idea spreads. There is no cabal, I agree as you say. It didnt have deliberate coordination, but it happened like that similarly on NYE in a lot of places. Zeitgeist maybe suits that that better. Polentarion Talk 10:17, 26 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.

Huge dependence on German Language Sources
This article appears to be relying on more and more German language articles. That's very unhelpful for editing and English language articles should always be used if they are available.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with your intentions, but German sources are more likely to not be outdated, and to not be based on second- or third-hand journalism. I know that Deutsche Welle have every article in English also, but for the most specific details in local cases sometimes it's only in German. I don't speak German so I just have to assume that the information has been presented in an accurate manner here &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am quite unfamiliar with working on Wikipedia articles, but I'd like to point out, that there has been at least one error in translating a headline, which unfortunately I seem to be unable to correct.
 * Reference 42 translates "Das Ganze scheint abgesprochen gewesen zu sein" as "The whole thing seems to have been denied", while it should be "The whole thing seems to have been arranged/organised". See definiton 1: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/absprechen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.67.144 (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Should there be a See Also to Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks?
Should a See Also link be included to Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks?

Please !vote in the Survey section with Yes or No. Keep threaded discussion in the Threaded Discussion section. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Neutral - I don't really see where there is a relationship between the two, but I don't think it would necessarily hurt the article either. Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No — this suggests a parallel between the two and attempts at a "comparative study" which should be avoided. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously no - The only source I saw given for the link during the discussion above at Talk:New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany, , references the Puerto Rico incident at one point to build an argument that a pattern exists; this is still WP:UNDUE for the 'see also' section (unless there are hundreds of see-also links :-). Controversial links that are challenged, like any other challenged content, need to be justified with appropriate sourcing. Veggies illogically pointed out that the extremely brief WP:SEEALSO section in the style guide doesn't specifically talk about sourcing and seemed to imply that it's therefore therefore exempt from policies like WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE; that argument is obvious nonsense. (Non-involved editor) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. There seems to be no obvious link apart from the mass random unprovoked sexual assault thing. If there were several similar events, perhaps a category for would link events of a similar nature, but these two seem quite unrelated, apart from some common element deep in the male psyche. --Pete (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This is racist propaganda presented as a Wikipedia entry. It is shameful.
This entire Wikipedia entry is a shameful mess. Its failings are encapsulated by one of those 'protecting' it, who actually compares the events in Cologne with the Armenian Genocide (the thought of someone with this level of education editing a serious contribution to knowledge would be frightening, were it not laughable).

1.5 million people died in the Armenian Genocide. Nobody at all died during disputed incidents in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, and not a single person has been convicted of a serious sexual II assault. On the contrary, hard evidence (not racist anecdote) points to minor thefts. Contrast these FACTS, with the absurd opening to this section - one that actually alludes to multiple rapes in a public place in a major German city on a public holiday. There is zero evidence for these rapes, beyond vague claims. Wikipedia is meant to be about hard facts, not propagandists desperately trying to support a racist agenda with what they can scramble together from dated newspaper articles. The 'excuse' for the lack of images of these crowds of men assaulting young women is the 'poor quality' of film. Of course, because in 2016, CCTV and phone cameras used to record pretty much every single public incident in the world just aren't up to it in Cologne.

Wikipedia is discredited enormously by the kind of people who are allowed to produce massively overwritten, confusing, contradictory, racist messes like this, and who then spend all their waking hours 'protecting' them. The good thing is that this entry is so outrageously dishonest, so appallingly one sided, so racist, and so lacking in balance that nobody with a basic level of education will take it seriously. You carry on writing what you want. Decent people know exactly who you are, and what are you doing. Calcoform (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have any constructive suggestions, King SJW? All you have done is put a load of unsourced denialism and advocate sources that don't actually agree with what you're saying? If anyone educated would right this great wrong, why are you on a one-man crusade? Would you deny someone's accusation of rape if it was by a blue-eyed blond? If so, you would be a likely misogynist. If not, you have a curious cognitive dissonance that suggests people never commit crimes just because their race is in a minority. What is your agenda? Are you one of these German/Swedish broadcasters hiding the truth? Are you behind that shameful victim-blaming video mentioned in this article? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A good start for improving the article would be diversifying the reactions section to cover all points of view. Also, some points in the article feel quite misleading. For example, under "Other similar incidents", some of the information is formatted in a way to lead people into believing this was some kind of a widespread organized effort. Why is Finland even mentioned there? The National Bureau of Investigation rebutted the claims by Helsinki police. Furthermore, two reports of harassment from a single city of half a million people on New Year's Eve is not a statistical anomaly. If anything reeks of a conspiracy, it's the tone of this article. But I at least don't really have the time to get into editorial wars with people who spend two thirds of their waking hours working this kind of agenda over the Internet. Tzaeru (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I never said that 1.5M died at Cologne, but that denialist fringe revisionism has no place on Wikipedia. Your case rests on there not being convictions, which means nothing, and you provided a source in which the police say the assaulters will never be caught! Thanks for giving me a good laugh, I look forward to hearing more of your wacko conspiracy theories. Although you're not as funny as the Forbes writer who suggested it was Pegida with a heavy spray tan doing the assaults. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop using trans-title in references
Unless you know German sufficiently well, please stop using param  in cite web references. Adding machine translations is not helpful, and mostly leads to confusing, comical or misleading results.

It's all right to include the param and leave it blank, that's a handy way to signal that there's a that needs some translation help. (Or ping me here if you have just a couple that need translation.)

If you do know German, please help me fix up the article, which has over 100 occurrences of trans-title left that still need checking. Mathglot (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example of the problem: That's quite a difference in meaning! In fact, nobody had been arrested by that point. Mathglot (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * : Cologne police arrest more than 200

Article's name and scope
The article's title is New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, but there's info in the article about other crimes as well, on other dates than that night, and in other countries. Should the article be renamed - or split between different articles? Jim Michael (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Jim, we already had some discussions about that earlier. Germany was the main focus of the events, so the page title is justified. If there's enough material, I would support to create articles for other countries as well, like e.g. New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Sweden.--Gerry1214 (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)