Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger

Article's name

Hi, I think the name should be more discrete and say "Murder of Maria L." to protect the family. This wasn't a public figure and that's the way it needs to be done. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't censor surnames on English Wikipedia. They're routinely stated - look at the many other articles about murders. Jim Michael (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

We can do the decent thing however and exercise some editorial judgement. Agree with H-s' move.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Aside from the fact that it is a common standard to mention full names in the English WP, the family of Maria Ladenburger published her full name in Frankfurter Allgemeine, one of the leading German nationwide newspapers. So obiously they don't want to conceal it and we should respect that.--Gerry1214 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The family published an obituary in Frankfurter Allgemeine not mentioning in any means that their daughter had been murdered. The burial was in Brussels, so they could not know this would be connected to the murder case, and this was weeks before the murderer was found. Only then an article in Frankfurter Allgemeine mentioned the position of her father as an high EU official. The idea they don't mind seeing their full name published is entirely speculative and in my opinion contrary to normal psychology, especially as some social media talk expresses "Schadenfreude" seeing the daughter of an EU official victim of such a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.195.96 (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. Parsley Man (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean the policy that doesn't say anything about how we must throw away common decency when making editorial changes? Or do you mean the policy that is one of the most abused policies on wikipedia because people tend to misunderstand it in some sophomoric way? I have read it. What's your point? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

We should not let our personal emotions get in the way of editing on this encyclopedia. If an RS covers it, we must report it. Parsley Man (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

And we do. That's why this article exists. What does that have to do with anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If an RS covers the surname, then we shouldn't make an exception for excluding it. Parsley Man (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So which RS does mention the name? I only see some British tabloids. The obituary that Gerry1214 mentions does not for itself draw any connection to the crime. Drawing the conclusion that the family wants the name of her daughter to be known in connection to the crime is rather speculative. LucLeTruc (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times. Unless you think the LAT is a British newspaper. And of course there is nothing wrong with British media, anyway. XavierItzm (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

If an RS covers the surname, then we shouldn't make an exception for excluding it? To me this melody sounds like orthodox communism oder like catholic inquisition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.172.150 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Burqa "ban"

The mentioning of Merkel banning Burqas in Germany as a reaction to this event here is wrong. First, she did not propose to ban the Burqa completely as it is phrased here (only in certain places), second the tabloid you use as a source here does not qualify as a reliable source and third even the sun does not connect the two things. The article only mentions the rape to describe the current political climate in Germany. Just ask yourself, what sense would it make to ban Burqas because some criminal raped a woman? How can these things be related? LucLeTruc (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The source itself makes the connection. The source is cited. What you request would require WP:OR and that goes against WP policies. XavierItzm (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The source does not make this connection.LucLeTruc (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The source reads, with regard to the burka ban by Merkel: "It comes as the country reacts with horror at the murder of 19-year-old Maria Ladenburger - the daughter of a senior EU official." XavierItzm (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

So where is the causal connection which justifies this beeing included as a reaction to the crime? The burqa debate has been going on for quite a while now independently of this rape case. LucLeTruc (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

WP goes by published sources. The sources publish facts, one cites the facts. One does not engage in WP:OR to try and determine if there has been a debate, how long the debate has been going on, etc. XavierItzm (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I have added another part of the source - though this argumentation is an abuse of Wikipedia principles. I could quote another newspaper as a new source, ans probably I would not quote the sun. Arguing only with published sources without any other arguments like this would cause endless edit wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.195.96 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I deleted this. Not because it is not covered by a RS, but because, also according to the sources, this was not a reaction to the crime.LucLeTruc (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Since the source reads, with regard to the burka ban by Merkel: "It comes as the country reacts with horror at the murder of 19-year-old Maria Ladenburger - the daughter of a senior EU official," I will proceed to revert. Once consensus is reached, then the WP:RS can either stay or be removed, as per consensus. Please do not vandalize until consensus is reached. XavierItzm (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I deleted this because it is misleading and wrong (in contrast to the other stuff we are argueing about here which is not wrong but just not relevant). I know what the source reads. The source clearly does not state that the proposal to ban the burqa is a reaction of Merkel to the crime itself. By listing this as a reaction, however, you explicitely claim this (Which is WP:OR by the way). So how do we reach consensus then if you just keep repeating your argument without explaining how the rape and the burqa are related and what makes the burqa relevant for this article? LucLeTruc (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The deletion was unjustified as you have not achieved consensus to delete. Besides, you are wrong. The Los Angeles Times, for example, indicatest Merkel moved forward to reduce "anger in the country" caused by the rape of Maria Ladenburger, the Cologne sex attacks, and the Munich terrorism.

Well, if you reread this thread, you will notice that I was argueing that the tabloid "The irish sun" which you used at that time to source your claim dos not write about a connection and I still stand by that claim. Which source are you referring to now? You link another article of the sun which still does not directly link the two things (it just lists the rape as a source of anger in Germany which it undoubtedly is) but mention the Los Angeles Times which I do not see linked anywhere in the article.LucLeTruc (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Answer to Pincretes question below: Well, I tried to find quality German newspapers reporting the burqa thing on the party conference in connection with the crime here but failed. What she claimed there, however, is not really different to what she argued for before the crime happened: To ban the burqa under very specific circumstances (see here). So if she just repeated her earlier argumentation, how can this be related to the crime here, XavierItzm? LucLeTruc (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Carolin G

Folks, wikipedia is no tabloid. Please do not link the murder of Maria L and Carolin G as long as there is no proof of a connection of the two. Police investigated possible links but at the moment largely rule out a connection. Adding a whole paragraph here is not appropriate. You can add a possible link as soon as investigators find any. LucLeTruc (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The same as below. Sources tied it, the nationwide German TV show Aktenzeichen XY mentioned the possible link. Therefore, it is related.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, there is a difference between a crime TV show and an enzyclopedia like Wikipedia. Wikipedia only writes about well reported and well sourced facts and no speculations. And there just simply (currently) is no known fact that links the two cases. Police actually largely rule out a connection. LucLeTruc (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Aktenzeichen XY … ungelöst is a very reputable TV programme, to my knowledge the oldest of this kind. The article does not say that the cases are linked in a criminological way; it mentions what happened: that more than 400 people called in to give information to the police in both cases, and that no link was found up to now. And this is important, as many speculations can be found in the internet. There are various press articles who tied both cases as "Frauenmorde von Freiburg", not only because of the fact that many people in the region, especially women are simply scared, but also because they were "strikingly resemblant".[1]--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding this in one sentence would be enough and would not draw the attention away from the case which is the focus of this article. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There should be enough space on the servers of Wikimedia foundation and we should leave the decision, what he wants to give attention to, to the reader himself. ;)--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the art of writing good articles is also the art of writing focussed articles that stick to the relevant aspects of the subject. In my eyes this is not too relevant. But lets leave it as is, other aspects on this page are more important in this regard.LucLeTruc (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Family of Maria L

How is the mentioning of the family of the victim important for an enzyclopedian article? I would remove all info about her father and the obituary as this does not add any useful information. LucLeTruc (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The sources tie this information to the case (FAZ mentioned the profession of her father for example); the family itself released an obituary. And it is also important for the political dimension of the case. It's not important what some people consider as "not useful". Others will find it useful, and so do I.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So in what way is the name and profession of the father related to the case? Or to the political dimension of it?LucLeTruc (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that makes any difference, as we cover both.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:BLPNAME. There is no relevance of the fathers name, nor of his profession for the crime. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

But as I said it's relevant for the political dimension of this. To conceal it would mean to conceal a decisive element of the tragic events.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, even though I asked you did not say why this could be relevant to the political dimension. I doubt that there is a relation between the father of the victim and the crime and the political dimension of it. LucLeTruc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do me a favor, write to Frankfurter Allgemeine and ask them why he mentioned him?! Maybe because he is a high official of the EU and has a public website at Saarland University. Would be reason enough.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You still did not answer my question. Just because somebody else mentions these irrelevant aspects does not mean that we have to mention them. And by the way, they explicitly do not mention his full name. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

But numerous other sources do.[2][3][4].--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This discussion gets tiring. Again, please explain the relevance of the name and profession of the father for the crime.LucLeTruc (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Again you ask for WP:OR. We, the editors, must not engage in WP:OR. We simply cite the WP:RS, which have mentioned the Ladenburger's profession and occupation. It would be improper to censor out that which multiple WP:RS cite. XavierItzm (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstand WP:OR which does not relate to what I am suggesting. Just because some tabloids report something, this does not mean that this has to be mentioned in an article in an encyclopedia. LucLeTruc (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

LucLeTruc asked: "please explain the relevance of the name and profession of the father for the crime" at 20:48, 8 December. The WP:RS mention this multiple times; for example, [5][6][7]. We go by WP:RS, and there is no need for editors to do WP:OR to justify the WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said in other threads, we are running in circles. Just the fact that a bunch of tabloids (and you guys by linking personal job-webpages of the father or personal obituaries of the family) dig out personal details about the victim of a crime case and her family which are not related in a causal way to the crime itself does not make any of these things relevant for the crime itself and hence not relevant for the article here. I asked multiple times where this causal connection is which would make these details worthy of beeing included in an encyclopedia and the only answer I got was: "Because the yellow press reported it". Lets see what other people are thinking, I doubt that we will reach a conclusion here. LucLeTruc (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia, what is considered relevant is generally that which the sources considered relevant to report. In this case, the sources mention certain facts regarding the antecedents of the crime, and naturally these facts are included in the Wikipedia entry. XavierItzm (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What is considered relevant is generally that which the sources considered relevant to report? That will end up in one side looking for sources backing up their opinion an the other side in the same way - Someone picks up sources describing croatian warcrimes against serbs and another one sources describing serb warcrimes. This is no fiction but for example reality in german wikipedia, only that more or less only the serb side is promoted, probably caused by russia-linked activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.195.96 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is just plain wrong, XavierItzm. Have a look at WP:ONUS and my comment here.LucLeTruc (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Several reputable media outlets decided that this information is an important part of the background of this case; that should be enough.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You already said this. As I said, we are running in circles and will probably not reach a consensus here. Lets try this RFC feature. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The full name and specific occupation of the victims father was sourced with a primary source (his university webpage) which is a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. I deleted this. Despite this I still argue for not mentioning all these family details at all but we will see how the rfc turns out. LucLeTruc (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The deletion was unnecessary, because it was mentioned here twice that there are WP:RS covering this. The Telegraph even entitles its article "Afghan asylum seeker arrested over murder of German medical student who was daughter of senior EU official". So it is obviously important.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The deletion was necessary as only the primary source was used (at that time). Thanks for adding some sources. One major disagreement between our perspectives, however, seems to be what we consider as RS. I would not use most of the magazines that you guys use here as sources and stick to more "quality" papers like the guardian, bbc, NYT etc or FAZ and ZEIT. We will, however, most probably not reach an agreement here. LucLeTruc (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Donations for refugees

Please do not use the tabloid Bild as a source. What they claim (that the family pleaded for donations for refugees) is just wrong. Here is a statement of the affected organisation regarding these misleading press reports [8]LucLeTruc (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The organisation is clearly active in refugee relief which they don't tell us in their statement for whatever reason, but it can be found on their homepage [[9]], so Bild is right from this perspective and the donations for the organisation are partially for refugees. But you're right it should be said precisely in the article that she herself was engaged not directly in refugee relief, but in a project for Ghana.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The subject could be important, because it is not finally clear, if Maria met the murderer before, maybe at the association's office or the university.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Weltblick clearly states that the donations will not be used for refugee relief. However, she may still have been active in some sort of refugee activism outside of this organisation. Several newspapers say so but it is unclear whether this is correct or as badly researched as the Bild stuff. Well, the conflict is the same as in all these other articles we are arguing about: This "could" be important, but it does not have to be (if the perpetrator did not know his victim). Please wait until the investigation is over and include this until then rather speculative stuff only afterwards. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The article does not say anymore that the donations are for refugee relief, it says they are for Maria's association. It tells the facts and don't leaves that to dubious websites that spread rumors. That's what Wikipedia all about.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not only about mere facts it is also about relevant facts. Such relevant facts are the crime, the perpetrator, the circumstances of the crime and the political debate triggered by it. All the tragic details of the family of the victim etc. are the realm of tabloids but not an encyclopedia. Just because something is true, it does not neccesarily have to be included in this wikipedia article. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And I wrote above why it is relevant. It is even more relevant, because the Weitblick association now published an "open letter" and participated in the public debate with this.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you do not say why a call for donations in an obituary is relevant for a rape case.LucLeTruc (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I did.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss in a constructive way. This ping pong is tiring. I do not see a convincing explanation. You state that the victim may have met the perpetrator in this association which is highly speculative and should hence not be in the article (until confirmed). Still this does not make this plea for donations relevant. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The sources mention, even provide graphic evidence, that the family requested donations for Weltblick. Weltblick engages in country-of-origin aid projects and also engages in refugee-sponsoring projects in Germany. The article is quite clear in explaining this, and all statements are well-sourced. Since the WP:RS themselves provide the information, there is no basis to attempt to censor out the sources. XavierItzm (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

We are running in circles here. All this does not in any way explain the relevance of this donation plea for the subject of this article. In fact, most of the information about the victim of the crime is, as of the current status of the investigation, totally irrelevant to the rape case. Just because some yellow press newspapers like to dig out stories about the personal background of people involved in crime cases and report this stuff, does not make any of this relevant to an article in an encyclopedia. LucLeTruc (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Multiple WP:RS cite these facts. If you disagree with the reportage done by the WP:RS, you could contact their editors and challenge their reporting directly. XavierItzm (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not care what the British or German yellow press is reporting or not, I care about what is reported on the wikipdia and what is not. The criteria for information to be included in the two totally different kind of media are substantially different.LucLeTruc (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is considered yellow press (by you). Maybe you should edit the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wikipedia page to indicate you consider it to be yellow press, if you have WP:RS to support this. XavierItzm (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

In this case we are speaking of a local correspondent of the online page of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which is becoming more and more yellow press like; it publishes partly the same articles as in the paper version and some others too; anyway like other online media it has the habit of drawing attention to its articles AND the discussion site by sensational themes and details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.195.96 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

XavierItzm, you clearly misinterpret and/or abuse the wikipedia policies. WP:RS defines what constitutes a possible reliable source, it does in no way state that we have to report everything what a RS reports, it still has to be relevant. Just have a look at WP:ONUS. None of you guys has demonstrated yet the relevance of either the details of the family of the victim or this donation for the crime.LucLeTruc (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any guideline that says we should leave out facts that are given by reliable sources. I only see a user that seems to be interested in doing so, but fails to demonstrate why we should do this.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You just fail to understand the "users" argumentation (by the way: it is two users). WP:ONUS and WP:TOPIC are the relevant pages in case you really need a guideline. LucLeTruc (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Your problem is that you think the material is WP:OFFTOPIC, but in fact it is quite relevant, as multiple WP:RS agree on citing it. XavierItzm (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how this could be a problem of mine .... As I and the ip user have mentioned, mere mentioning of something in any WP:RS does not guarantee relevance for the article (WP:ONUS). Even if you keep repeating this over and over again. Please explain how the name and job of the father of a rape victim and the families obituary for example could be relevant for a rape?LucLeTruc (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you insist in asking others to engage in WP:OR. The WP:RSs cite the facts, and we cite the WP:RS. If you do not like what the WP:RSs cite, I suggest you contact the WP:RSs. XavierItzm (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As you seem unwilling to read the stuff I linked yourself, here as a service for you the relevant paragraph from WP:ONUS:"While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."LucLeTruc (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Place of birth

Is there any evidence that Maria was born in Brussels as mentioned in the box on the top right? At least the obituary in FAZ does not mention her place of birth. 80.187.100.142 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This has no relevance for the crime.LucLeTruc (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This was unsourced, maybe someone misread it.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible link to case of Carolin G.

It seems to me there is no evidence for the sentence saying the suspect was investigated in the other murder case. Obvoiously you would think he is a natural suspect there, but anyway - why not stick to the rules here too and name a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.172.150 (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC about the relevance of several aspects mentioned in the article about this crime

Should this article about a recent rape crime in Germany include the following aspects disputed above:

1. biographical aspects of the victim like her social engagement for Weltblick and rumours about work in refugee relief (which is, as of the current state of the investigation not directly linked to the crime) or place of birth
2. biographical aspects of the victims father (name and profession)
3. information about an obituary published by the victims family
4. a possible connection to a rape that ocoured close by where the police currently largely rule out a connection
5. a statement of chancellor Merkel to possibly ban the burqa which happened shortly afterwards

Please give opinions about the different aspects individually (i.e. include 1 - 3 but exclude the rest or similar). See the several open threads above for the detailed discussion. Thanks a lot. LucLeTruc (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Umm, sorry that I mention this. I find it a little strange that an account who has only few discussion contributions or harshly reverted some political stuff [10] now tries to push this article/discussion in a certain direction, using very good knowledge about Wikipedia mechanisms. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't help smelling at least one used sock here.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I can only smell a blunt attempt by you to spread rather unsubstantiated rumours to most probably divert my attempts to follow wikipedia etiquette and to establish some sort of consensus here by gathering unbiased opinions of other editors. Do us a favour and stick to a content and consensus focussed discussion.LucLeTruc (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

So "unbiased" as yours? ;) Some more productive work in articles wouldn't harm your "kind" attempts anyway, but who am I to give you any advice. So sorry. ;) --Gerry1214 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment I may respond above when I have time, however I would point out that DNA evidence from the crime scene conclusively identified him as the perpetrator in the lead is ludicrously POV. The whole point about a trial is that evidence is tested, neither police nor news sources, even less WP editors decide what is "conclusive proof", even the source used refers to 'suspect' (I don't have time and my German is not good enough to check what the source actually says, however we should not use this description even if 'Die Welt' does). The sentence should be rewritten as a claimed link between the accused and the crime. The sources don't seem to draw any connection between Merkel's 'burqa' comments and this case. The inclusion of unnecessary/irrelevant biog info about the victim and her family seems tasteless, intrusive and pointless, though I would drfer to whatever are norms on crime articles. Pincrete (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Question, does 'social engagement' refer to the sentence beginning "She was, as many Freiburg students, socially active, namely in the Weitblick"?Pincrete (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As for the "social engagement": Yes, I am referring to the victims engagement for Weltblick and rather unsbustiantiated rumours of several newspapers that she was active in refugee relief itself (I have added that above). For the crime this would only be of relevance if the victim and the suspect knew each other through such activity which the police is currently investigating but for which they have no indication (yet). Facebook and webpages like Pi-news are full of people ridiculng and criticising the victim and its family for such suspected connections but, as long as there is no connection to the crime, Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of information.LucLeTruc (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the place for this information, as highly reputable sources report it. If dubious news pages make jokes about it, this is disgusting. But they could "ridicule" about any other fact. Why would you want to conceal that one? Is it because of the tragic dimension that makes the case very similiar to the killing of Alexandra Mezher, that not anyone was murdered; but a person who was definitely known for her social activities, and which came from an refugee friendly family! This was clearly her background and nearly everyone who knows about this case mentions it, because it characterizes it. And so do highly reputable sources, and Wikipedia has to follow them.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia has to follow nobody and especially not newspapers (see, again, WP:ONUS). If at all, WP has to follow scientific literature. I agree that the background of the family might add a tragic human dimension to the case but reporting this is the realm of newspapers and books, not an encyclopedia. Especially if living people are involved.LucLeTruc (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia only displays what reputable sources write, especially essential facts. Above that, Clemens Ladenburger is notable himself as an author of several books [11] and in his position as a top EU official, lawyer and university lecturer with his own webpage, he is a public figure. So we rightfully mention him. Anyone could start an article about him.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Lets stop this here, I doubt that we will convince each other. I stand by my point to only mention aspects relevant for the rape in an article about a crime case but lets see what others are saying.LucLeTruc (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Just an initial reply: The way you start the discussion ("ludicrously", "tasteless") is clearly not very much on topic and reveals your on POV (which I know for some time). To me, rape and murder is "tasteless" in the first place. The extent and some circumstances of the case are very similar to the Killing of Alexandra Mezher. And that is in my view only one reason why this is important background information, except from the political dimension and the fact that very reputable sources report it. "Die Welt" source reads: "Eine DNA-Probe wurde im Landeskriminalamt untersucht und der Tatverdächtige damit identifiziert." (A DNA sample was investigated at the State Criminal Office and the suspect was identified by it.) So if the suspect is "identified", he is obviously the perpetrator. (But maybe it was an alien from outerspace, so indeed we should be very, very careful;).--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The only "similarity" between this case and the murder of A. Mezher as of the current state of the investigation is that both victims are dead and that the perpetrator is a refugee. Other than that the cases are substantially different. Other than that neither you nor XavierItzm has answered my repeated questions why exactly all this biographical information is relevant for the case other than repeating that WP:RS reported it.

Regarding the DNA: In principle you are right, Pincrete, we should only use the word perpetrator after he has been sentenced for the crime. The DNA evidence, however, pretty convincingly links the suspect to the crime (i.e the rape) so that even police here in Germany mostly speak of the perpetrator (instead of suspect). It would not hurt, however, to reformulate the article and use the word suspect and just describe that the DNA evidence is pretty convincing or just change the word "conclusively". Maybe some nativeEenglish speaker could help here? I just guess that neither me, XavierItzm nor Gerry1214 is one ;-) (correct me if I am wrong)LucLeTruc (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

See my answer to the Mezher case above.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It is false to state that "neither you nor XavierItzm has answered my repeated questions." All topics on this page have been answered. XavierItzm (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Cite the whole sentence. You always answered that it is relevant because the RS reported it which neither in my eyes, nor in the eyes of the IP user participating in the discussion does guarantee any relevance for the article here.LucLeTruc (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This is because Wikipedia works on the basis of WP:RS. It does not matter if "you" Luc think something is relevant. If the WP:RS consider it relevant, this is a very strong indication that the material merits inclusion. XavierItzm (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is two people now who consider this family background to be irrelevant and the burqa thing to be misleading. But lets see what others are saying, the thread here is about a request for comments from others and not about an endless repetition of the arguments we three have exchanged here already. LucLeTruc (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a connection between 'burqa' and this case, the US source merely mentions both in the same article about German attitudes to the burqa and to refugees, that is a very weak connection IMO and alone would not warrant inclusion in this article. Co-incidence of events is not a causal, or even relevant connection without a great deal of SYNTH. If the german sources are more explicit, that would change the situation.Pincrete (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

See my comment in the burqa thread above. LucLeTruc (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Gerry1214, "A DNA sample was investigated at the State Criminal Office and the suspect was identified by it" is a statement of fact, it could be written as "The State Criminal Office claimed that DNA analysis positively identified the suspect". However "DNA evidence from the crime scene conclusively identified him as the perpetrator" is ludicrously POV and SYNTH. Have you never heard of forensic evidence being discredited? It's fairly rare perhaps, but that is precisely why police and newspapers and WP editors don't decide who is guilty or innocent in any civilised society or in WP. That is why even sources refer to 'suspect' or 'accused' until a trial, after which he becomes 'convicted' or otherwise. Pincrete (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Aktenzeichen_XY_…_ungelöst

This case was only mentioned in a sub-clause and shortly in the beginning of the show, see here a link to the show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W24V-Gk8ZQA&t=2127 Subject in the show was the case in Endingen. The actual reference is just not true, it states "Die beiden Fälle wurden vor Kurzem in der ZDF-Sendung „Aktenzeichen XY … ungelöst“ aufgerollt. ", that is for sure not the case. --Engie (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)