This article was nominated for
deletion on 31 May 2024. The result of
the discussion was keep.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or
poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see
this noticeboard.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Okay, now I get what AutisticAndrew wants to say: knives have no sights to aim at targets, unlike guns. So stabbings are never ever aimed at somebody, just happen to happen in years and cities. Nothing to see here, move on.
2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 (
talk)
15:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, good point. Well, we have the police reports, they are public, why should anyone need a "reliable source" to interpret and print them? Also, none of the "reliable sources" have covered the event with a live stream, but someone did. Is that video a reliable source or not? No "reliable source" reporter was present, how can they be reliable if they cover the story despite the lack of being a source? Anything from Germany on that colorful list at all? Ah, there it says "There is consensus that Der Spiegel is generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are fabrications, and are thus unreliable." Sorry, the whole magazine is unreliable, proven by Relotius. He just wrote what they asked for, made-up feel good stuff about the good guys, made-up feel bad stuff about the bad guys. Liberty Valance all the way.
2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 (
talk)
18:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, so no 1+1=3. You did not answer the question "Is that video a reliable source or not?", referring to the 27 minute long live recording until police ordered it to stop. Was on YT for days until it got axed. Which "reliable sources" do host the video, or parts? Have you seen it? Would you like to? It even caused 1+1=1 floating around, as there were two bald sturdy white men in blue jackets, white pants, grey shoes. The first is a BPE member with slogan "Aufklären statt Verschleiern" (
since 2016 "Clarify instead of conceal/cover/wearing-a-veil, double meaning probably intended) printed on the back, he got injured early, the other is the bystander who wound up under the police officer. Many believe(d) this being the same person, acting quickly. There is second, short video from a different angle, showing both guys at once, the first seemingly injured, the other fighting. No 1+1=2 "Synth" allowed based upon that?
2003:C6:373C:F1EF:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 (
talk)
20:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Essentially, your point seems to be that if you can see for yourself what happened, you don't need a published source to say so. One of reasons why Wikipedia policy doesn't accept that reasoning is that unfortunately what one person thinks is obvious often doesn't seem obvious to another person. However, whether you personally think the policy is right or wrong, it is Wikipedia policy. Of course you are perfectly welcome to criticise that policy, and to try to get it changed, but as long as it is policy your editing of the article needs to comply with it. Also, I see that you have repeatedly had your edits reverted by other editors. Wikipedia works by collaboration, not by each editor persisting with what they personally believe is right even when they find that there's a consensus among other editors against what they are doing. Anyone who edits Wikipedia is likely sometimes to find that they have to accept something which they think is wrong, because other editors don't. (That has happened to me many times.) That is how Wikipedia works, and if you aren't willing to work in that way then editing Wikipedia isn't for you. If you continue to edit in ways which are contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines after being informed of those policies and guidelines there's a likelihood that you will be blocked from editing by an administrator. I advise you to avoid that.
JBW (
talk)
08:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply