Talk:Dublin Regulation

Comments

NB Disputed text is hers Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Remove because it is WP:COATRACKING and WP:UNDUE. The huge majority of the 800 000 refugees who arrived in Germany last year arrived due to this suspension of the Dublin agreement (without this suspension only the few thousand refugees coming by plane could legally apply for asylum in Germany) and this is already covered in the article. So mentioning this here gives WP:UNDUE weight to one isolated case just because this person happened to commit a crime. The only political aspect of this particular crime case is the fact that he already commited crimes in Greece without the German authories knowing this when he applied for asylum because his info was not in Interpol but this has nothing to do with the Dublin agreement. Hence, the whole case should not be mentioned here. LucLeTruc (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - the item comes straight from a WP:RS.XavierItzm (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

re: the item comes straight from a WP:RS, could you please show us the RS that describes the 'accused' as 'the murderer'?Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. A very important point from WP:BLP and just a basic fairness issue. I have made the change. XavierItzm (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Do not add - Most importantly, the content violates WP:BLP. Calling someone a "rapist/murderer" who at this point is only a suspect and has not been convicted is not permitted for legal reasons. Additionally, see WP:BLPCRIME:"For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured."

At this point, this is only a suspected effect. Even if a conviction is secured, and the effect is proven, I agree with LucLeTruc that this article is not the appropriate place to cherry pick isolated cases to highlight. Otherwise we'd need to include "effects" like this as well: Syrian Refugees Rescued a German Neo-Nazi Leader From a Car Crash.

If there is some broad effects (ie is there evidence that crime rate has increase and can be tied to Dublin) then I would support adding that. TDL (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Very nice technicality! Delete a whole paragraph with a good WP:RS instead of adding the word "accused" immediately before the existing text "rapist of Maria Ladenburger".... I salute the creativity on display here. Will amend the entry as suggested. XavierItzm (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

BLP is most certainly not a "technically". Posting potentially libelous content on wiki exposes the project (and you personally) to potential litigation and significant financial damages. We simply cannot allow a reckless editor to put the project at such risk. Nor is there anything "creative" about this observation: it is very clearly a black and white BLP violation, as echoed by other editors here. What is "creative" is your selective reading: ignoring my explanation for why the content even with "alleged" is still discouraged by policy, hence my full removal. I strongly suggest you read the BLP policy. Also you have still not addressed the due weigh agruments. TDL (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Do not add Proposed text is blatant BLP violation. If a more neutral text could be proposed, it would be possible to assess what weight to give to this case. Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The text has been amended to be more neutral, as requested. XavierItzm (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Do not add Because it establishes a microscopic cause-effect exception, that is not relevant in the context of the the article which discusses macroscopic european legislation. It describes one isolated case and therefore should not qualify as an effect. Despite the fact that the reference states so, it establishes a relationship between the two events they are in fact not related. Before the suspension of Dublin Regulation, it was already common for the German authorities (as Finnish, Swedish, etc) not to return asylum seekers to Greece, considering the country had no conditions to receive them. Asylum Seekers were entering Germany despite the Dublin Convention, and Hussein K. would have entered either way Germany. The misconception is that the Dublin III regulation was actually enforced and put into practice before its suspension, and that its suspension has changed legislation to the point that it permitted a murder. This legislation is complex and oversimplifying it to establish a cause-effect correlation with a murder is an action that should not find a place in an encyclopedia. It is just as valid to say that the murder is an effect of the 1951 asylum convention, or the whole European policy on asylum. Also the paragraph was poorly written, treating the case in a subjective manner and failing to demonstrate how the two things were related. Still, I understand that this point may be relevant and important for many people, but it was not the correctly formulated. Maybe, if instead of effect, one can change the headline to criticism on the partial suspension and restrain from a cause-effect formulation, it will be more acceptable. Maybe the point should reflect on how the suspension threatens national security as it can be exemplified by this murder case. Nmp.escudeiro (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nmp.escudeiro -thank you. A very constructive comment. I agree that one drop of snow does not a winter make. I did not know what you quote, which is "Before the suspension of Dublin Regulation, it was already common for the German authorities (as Finnish, Swedish, etc) not to return asylum seekers to Greece". This seems to contradict the main section "Partial suspension of the regulation during 2015 European refugee and migrant crisis," where it says: «On 24 August 2015, Germany decided to make use of the "sovereignty clause" to voluntarily assume responsibility for processing Syrian asylum applications for which it is not otherwise responsible under the criteria of the Regulation». I say it seems to contradict because if Germany was already commonly not implementing Dublin III, then why bother making a big announcement in August 2015 that Germany unilaterally suspends it? I seem to recall Merkel gave a big press conference on it, even. Maybe we should revise that text? Also, I've altered the headline as per your comment. The idea here is to edit Wikipedia and reach a common consensus on the best way to present information, rather than just deleting stuff, so I really appreciate your approach. XavierItzm (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Your modifications, Xavieritzm, are WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to the worst. As I explained to you after your additions in Syrian Civil War, you are not allowed to put your own interpretations, judgement and viewpoints in here and to strategically combine different sources to a new meaning, just to drop the link to this murder case here (as you tried in so many articles). And, more important, you really need to understand the circumstances of the events you are writing about. The fr source does not say that the case increased a wave of critizism of the Dublin suspension (this is only your POV) and the NYT source relates this growing anger to terrorist attacks and the cologne incidents. This is WP:SYNTH as its best. To help you with your understanding: The reason why the suspect was not returned back to Greece was that he did not tell authorities that he came from Greece. Germany only suspended the agreement for refugees from Syria. So, at the moment, the available sources mostly speculate about the asylum procedure of the the suspect in Germany. As long as this does not change and we have a RS that clearly writes what went wrong where, putting this case in all these asylum procedure articles is largely WP:OR. LucLeTruc (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I agree, LucLeTruc. I think Nmp.escudeiro raised some quite valid points about the criticism to the Dublin III suspension and we have some quite specific WP:RS that cover (1) the criticism and (2) an exact quote regarding some of the things that can arise from Dublin III suspension. XavierItzm (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I just tried to explain to you, neither did the murder happen because of this suspension, nor do the sources you use say this. Hence your formulation is WP:SYNTH, whether you agree with me or not. More important, we just do not know what actually happened as all sources are rather vague and contradicting with regards to the asylum procedure of the suspect. You are just trying to construct a case here by selectively picking some sources, interpreting them with your WP:POV and WP:SYNTHing them with other sources to prove your point for which Wikipedia certainly is not the place.

You are totally right, there are some serious issues with this whole Dublin agreement and @Nmp.escudeiro: raises some of them which should be addressed in this article. Cherrypicking isolated cases and misrepresenting the sources to demonstrate a POV here is just not the way to do this. LucLeTruc (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's go one by one. Do you question that Deutsche Welle reported in October 2015 that many politicians from the ruling coalition criticized the suspension of Dublin rules, "saying that many migrants would see her decision as an invitation to apply for asylum in Germany."^[1]? Looks pretty legit to me! XavierItzm (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No, you picked the only part of your addition that is not WP:SYNTHLucLeTruc (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, are there any objections to «Reports such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine of December 2016 that the Dublin III suspension may have impacted at least one criminal case, "he would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter"^[2]»? XavierItzm (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

As i said numerous times, at the moment what the faz writes is total speculation. Authorities have not yet confirmed what actually went wrong there. According to the faz source you cite, police in Germany apparently did not know that the suspect arrived from greece so that is the main reason that they did not send him back, not the suspension of the dublin agreement. The way you put it in the article, the article falsely claims exactly this. The main reason that he was granted temporary asylum (until his 18th birthday) was most probably that he was underage and the Dublin III agreement has regulations to protect such underage minors and prevents them from beeing send back to the country of first entry. But this is all speculation and should hence not be in the article. Try to find a general source about critizizm and shortcomings of the Dublin agreement (there are plenty) and write something about general issues but leave out this particular case where it is totally unclear what actually happened. LucLeTruc (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying the Frankfurter Allgemeine is not a WP:RS? Hard to believe. Or are you saying the Frankfurter Allgemeine is usually reliable but in this particular case you don't like what the Frankfurter Allgemeine is reporting? XavierItzm (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'Do no add per all of the above; this raises too many policy and common-sense issues. However, if controversial interplay between that case and the politics surrounding the Dublin Regulation is itself the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple major sources, it might be worth mentioning that [presently hypothetical] related controversy, as a related controversy, at this article, rather than dwelling on the case's details (it already has its own article, remember). Even if that controversy exists, it should be covered more at the article on the case, and only be mentioned in summary here. I would think that it would need to show a strong impact on Dublin Regulation political discourse to make it into this article at all, for the UNDUE reasons. The BLP reasons to exclude it are fixable by copyediting, but the relevance and PoV ones are not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. @XavierItzm:, the pretty overwhelming consensus seems to be to remove the addition you added about the murder case. Can we close this RfC and delete the paragraph in the article? I really do not see a way that we can turn this stuff into something that would add useful information to the article without speculation and WP:UNDUE weight. LucLeTruc (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It does not look like SMcCandlish is addressing the current page, but a previous version. To wit, the editor says: "The BLP reasons to exclude it are fixable by copyediting". In the current page, there are no grounds for BLP, as no names are cited. Also, is the editor talks about a "[presently hypothetical] related controversy". So, the quote from DW is a hypothetical controversy? I cite from the current article: «Deutsche Welle reported in October 2015 that many politicians from the ruling coalition criticized the suspension of Dublin rules, "saying that many migrants would see her decision as an invitation to apply for asylum in Germany."^[3]» XavierItzm (talk)

Same situation here as in the Murder of Maria Ladenburger and the Burqa case: A big majority of editors argues against your addition, with you constantly keeping the discussion going. So, I have boiled down your content to stuff that is actually in the sources and no voilation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In my eyes, the rest is still pretty much useless for the article but i am tired of these endless discussions. In the current version of the article, there is at least no speculation and none of your WP:POV in it anymore so i could live with this version. LucLeTruc (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. But I think you mistakenly removed a WP:RS citation from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung which explicitly addresses Dublin III: «"he would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter"^[4]» I will be adding it back, to correct the oversight. XavierItzm (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"In the current page, there are no grounds for BLP, as no names are cited." This is not true. You did not remove all references to his name.

Yes there is a real Dublin controversy, but the hypothetical controversy being referenced is one directly related to this specific case. You are trying to synthesize other controversies with this case to justify the content addition. This, as has been explained to you, is OR. TDL (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Endorse version written by LucLeTruc, and remain opposed to addition of content XavierItzm has been campaigning for. After nearly a month of debate, the user has still not addressed the synthesis and due weight objections raised by a number of editors. If the user is just going to reapeat the "but the case and the Dublin regulation were mentioned in the same article!" talking point to all arguments, without addressing (or perhaps grasping?) the objections it seems of little use to continue arguing with them about it, given the clear consens against the addition. TDL (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. You perfectly summarize this whole discussion. I personally would still remove the stripped down version which is in the article right now as in my eyes it does not add any useful information but i could live with the current version and am rather tired of this debate. So lets close this discussion. Any revert reintroducing any reference to this murder case will be boldly reverted, Xavieritzm. LucLeTruc (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)