Talk:Clausnitz

Neutrality of section about recent refugee protest
I'd like to discuss the neutrality of the current wording about the recent refugee protest in Clausnitz which says:

IMHO this has a number of problems:
 * "viral video" is irrelevant and even what "viral" means is subjective. We should start with what factually happened and then briefly mention the coverage if that's important.
 * "xenophobic protestors" is a contentious WP:LABEL that represents an rather extreme WP:POV that accuses the crowd of "hating foreigners", which may or may not be true. It's a simplistic deduction from their actions, not a fact. The protests could have been triggered by fear of e.g. what happened in Cologne at New Year. How do we know?
 * "triggered particular outrage" is again excessive hype.
 * "harsh criticism" is ambiguous. It could mean the criticism is unduly harsh, although I suspect the editor meant something different.
 * "It was showing a refugee boy wich was grabbed roughly by an officer." Grammar and spelling issues. Why do we need this level of detail. It's enough to say that videos of the incident drew harsh criticism.. and of the police not just the crowd.
 * It misses out the investigation of the incident by the police.

My preferred wording, is something more like this:

However, my attempts at a more neutral, factual and broader wording have been changed or reverted 4 times by User:Lettres, so to avoid an edit war, I have laid it out here and invite Lettres to discuss his preferred wording and others to comment. Bear in mind that Clausnitz has 800 years of history, so the length of the report of this 90-minute protest needs to be kept in perspective! Bermicourt (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Viral video - 568.937 views (one of dozen versions) has sparked a heated debate online. It is a proof of the xenophobic event in the Tal der Ahnungslosen.

It was trending in google and twitter. Google News 425,000 results Google Trends Clausnitz Twitter Trends 2016-02-22 #Clausnitz #22

Federal government spokesperson Steffen Seibert said in Berlin, "What we have seen in Clausnitz is deeply shaming.“

“XENOPHOBIC INCIDENTS - The German government has roundly condemned the outbreaks of xenophobic violence in Clausnitz and Bautzen.“ The Press and Information Office of the Federal Government

German lawmakers condemn anti-refugee, right-wing extremism in Saxony

“Members of the Bundestag have demanded a crackdown on rising xenophobia, especially in Saxony.“

'refugee boy wich was grabbed roughly by an officer“ is one of the main causes of the debatte at the parliament of Germany. Deutscher Bundestag debate video (german) Deutscher Bundestag debate PDF (german)

User Bermicourt first deletes coverage of xenophobic riots and references and explains this with: “hype and unnecessary references. In years to come this will be a minor incident in the long history of Clausnitz even if emotions are running high now. Let's report it neutrally and proportionately.)“ here and explaining now with “Good refs in English, but we need to try and report this in a neutral way and keep it reasonably short, remembering that this is 1 1/2 hours of a mob shouting abuse in an 800-year-old history.“ here.

800 years in central europe is undistinguished. There where probably more Illiterates.

Lettres (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Neutral version of article has been restored. Softlavender (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * to play down details of xenophobic violence is not a neutral position.Lettres (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * due to the xenophobic riots in Clausnitz: "Saxony has a problem with right-wing extremism "

Suddenly clear words in the Bundesrat: Prime Minister (of Saxony) Tillich (CDU) acknowledged that Saxony has a problem with right-wing extremism. This is larger than "the one or the other wanted to admit." Source: ARD Tagesschau (german)Lettres (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Be careful, you have already been warned twice about edit-warring. Turning to your comments, AFAIK there was no "violence", just hostile shouting. Whatever the German media and politicians say, we can of course attribute to them. But that's different from stating opinion as fact. Remember that neither journalists nor politicians are neutral, they are playing to an audience; one for money and the other for votes. BTW if you want to include a lot of detail, videos etc., why don't you add it to an existing one on the migrant/refugee issue or even create a new one. It shouldn't dominate this village article and people won't easily find it here anyway. Bermicourt (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * “No investigations against refugees“ Markus Ulbig

Minister of Interior of the German federal state of Saxony. Lettres (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * “it is determined against four alleged participant of the blockade“ Markus Ulbig announced Lettres (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just running a news ticker isn't helping. Please engage in the debate properly or start a new article if you think it's that important (although I note the German Wiki one is up for WP:AFD). Bermicourt (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Could people please indent properly with the correct number of colons? Please don't use more colons to hyper-indent posts; nest them properly. In the matter of the text in the article, there is no current consensus to include any more than the bare minimum details on the refugee-protest incident. For one thing, to do otherwise would violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. We are also not allowed to editorialize or to make statements which are in dispute. For example it's impossible to tell or know if so-called alleged 'rough handling by a police officer' was for the refugee's safety, or because the refugees were refusing to disembark, or what. There are mixed reports on that, and there's no need to mention it. The only reason to mention it would be if down the line there were an actual legal investigation and a police officer was convicted. Anyone who continues to edit war against these polices will be reported to administrators and blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clausnitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719040316/http://www.hgv-rechenberg.de/index-Dateien/clausnitzer_bergbau.htm to http://www.hgv-rechenberg.de/index-Dateien/clausnitzer_bergbau.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)