Talk:Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber

Merger?

There may be a case for merging the article with Walter Sedlmayr. The article is reliably sourced and is designed to give both sides of the dispute. Making it too short defeats the object of a standalone article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what "both sides of the dispute" has to do with it. Here is someone that committed murder and is now deemed to have served his sentence. That's already covered in the parent article. There doesn't seem to be much else to say about him. The part about Wikipedia shouldn't appear in a biography - tiffs with Wikipedia are ten a penny, and this one isn't even remarkable. If there's sufficient interest to support it, move it to an article about Wikipedia controversies, otherwise, remove it entirely. Its presence here is clearly as a coat. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Have to disagree here, see Virgin Killer. Legal tiffs with Wikipedia are not ten a penny, particularly when they pick up third party coverage. The best option is merging the dispute with Walter Sedlmayr.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's no Virgin Killer case yet however. I wouldn't be surprised if it remained fairly low key, and in that case it is most likely far better to be placed in the Walter Sedlmayr article. At the moment it's just a low key news story and those are hardly notable. I say merge and redirect, we can always unmerge again. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i don't really care which way we swing, but what happened right there certainly wasn't ok. Page protected for an hour so some actually discussion can take place. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point there is very little coverage of Wolfgang Werlé. I'd support a merger into the main article. Frankly, having this article almost seems like a reaction against the suit. Something like "You don't want your name here? Oh yeah. Now we'll have a full article about you. Take that!" That's not good. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any vindictiveness is felt on the part of most people here. However, Werle has suddenly become quite a bit more notable as a result of this suit. I think that it's still an arguable point as to whether or not this page should be a separate article, but the case for keeping it separate has recently been strengthened.Blowfish (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blowfish and am inclined to oppose a merge. It's now in the New York Times, Wired, and a bunch of European papers in a variety of languages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There is still the issue with WP:ONEEVENT and largely repeating what Walter Sedlmayr already says. However, I'm not going to push hard for a merger for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If I can offer my two cents as someone who wandered along, this isn't an article about Werle. It's an article about Werle's suit against Wikimedia. It belongs somewhere else. (Maybe with Sedlmayr, maybe with Lawsuits against Wikipedia by ex-cons or somesuch.)

You know you're in trouble when the article begins to speak about itself. The article tries to defend its existence by saying, "Werlé became a public figure when [blah blah blah]." The article doesn't even include basic biographical information.

Anywho, free advice. You get what you pay for ... :) cheers, 66.25.169.151 (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I s'pose I'll add there's WP:BLP to consider. And someone already pointed out WP:COATRACK. Just a thought. 66.25.169.151 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still in favor of a merger. To quote the 2008 case on this, which in turn is quoting WP:BLP: —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

I don't think that this article qualifies as sensationalism necessarily. A move may be warranted, though I'd agree with 66.25.169.151 that "Werle lawsuit against wikipedia" might be the correct target for the move. Right now, Werle's notability seems to be more due to this lawsuit than to the murder, at least in the English-speaking world. Blowfish (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

While an article about the lawsuit may eventually be needed, I don't think that a separate article on this person is warranted. Does not seem to satisfy our notability guideline on criminals, IMO. Specifically, no info on fame other than being convicted of a murder. --mav (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Mav. This article on Werlé does not seem to contain enough information to need an article outside the murder section in Walter Sedlmayr. However, the information on the lawsuit (which now makes up the bulk of the article) seem to merit independent coverage. Well, I guess it depends whether there is additional 3rd party coverage of the suit, since it seems borderline right now; but it sure feels like something that is going to find more sources in the next days (I saw the writeup on slashdot, which may not be a source in itself, but does promote wide interest). I guess that amounts to a 50% merge and 50% rename or something, as a technical matter.LotLE×talk 18:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking around at some more sources, I think the story of the lawsuit has already had sufficient 3rd party coverage to merit an article, even if there are not more sources. In fact, our fine new article can even link to Streisand effect at this point. LotLE×talk 18:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep here Ironically, if the lawsuit hadn't been filed, the article should've been merged with the article on the murder victim. However, since Mr. Werle has now chosen to sue Wikipedia as well, that is two distinct events, which easily garners him notability, and that pairing of information cannot be easily moved into an article on the lawsuit, or an article on the murder, and so it should stay here. I oppose strongly the idea of separating this information into two articles, when they both clearly relate to the same person. Ray^Talk 19:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the articles should definitely not be merged. It would be inappropriate to include the material on him suing Wikimedia in the article on the murder victim. His role in a very famous murder case, and now in the history of Wikipedia and the discourse on internet censorship, makes him clearly notable. He has received significant coverage in international media. Frontier9 (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The articles can definitely be merged. It's a non-notable person, with an article looking like a teenager wanted to write one "just because someone said I shouldn't." It doesn't contain any information that isn't in the parent article, and that's not surprising: The man's only known as a (likely, but either way convicted) murderer. The controversy with Wikipedia is merely an off-spin: He doesn't want to be known for being that very same murderer. BTW, whether we merge or not, Jennifer Granick's embarrassing quote merits some context unless we want readers to assume that Wikipedia somehow endorses that confused (or simplistic?) view. [And before you all jump at me: Whether or not the name should be mentioned, yes, I don't endorse Granick's panic scenario. She makes some sweeping universal comment about censorship and then puts the legislations of a democratic country (Germany) in the same basket like China and a monarchy. It's like saying "Who cares about the US Supreme Court? If we were to follow laws, we should all have deported Jews in 1940! At stake is the survival of Judaism!" Instead, we should reasonably discuss a) whether the claim by the German jurisdiction is valid, and b) whether [irrespective of its validity] it should have moral or legal consequences for Wikipedia. End of comment explaining why I think Granick's quote is embarrassing.] Finally, if any and every lawsuit against being mentioned in Wikipedia constitutes notability, I will sue Wikipedia on the next business day: I don't have an entry yet, but hey, afterwards I will!! Extraordinarily silly... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It happens that suing Wikipedia or even threatening to sue Wikipedia can lead to real publicity or a drastic increase in publicity. That that happens is utterly irrelevant to whether or not we should have articles about people who do so. We cannot treat people who are notable due to a connection to Wikipedia any differently than how we treat those with no connection. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Jennifer Granick has been removed, because it seemed somewhat clunky. On balance, there is now a case for keeping Wolfgang Werlé as a separate article, since there may be further media coverage of his legal action which would be outside the scope of Walter Sedlmayr.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed mind about merging. Most of the details now included don't belong in the victim's article and there are other issues that can reasonably go in this article such as Werle's claims of innocence. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should stay where it is for the present. I do read German and I have been following German websites on this issue. Werle is also suing an Austrian hosted website for posting his full name and the issue has been refered to the European Courtof Justice. The hearing is in December and it will be interesting to see if this German law can be inforced outside Germany. This would affect England where I live, would be much resented and add to anti-German and anti-Europe feeling which is too prevalent in England these days. 00.53 23.11.09 Ilkshirley (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and other issues

The article needs to maintain WP:NPOV, as well as not wandering off into WP:SOAPBOX or WP:NAVEL territory. There is still a strong case for avoiding duplication by merging with Walter Sedlmayr, but for the time being this article should not become a WP:COATRACK for attacking the legal action against Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The obvious way to avoid duplication is to have issues relating to Werlé covered only in an article about Werlé. I don't see how those issues are strongly related to Sedlmayr in any event. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I removed all but a briefest mention of the lawsuit. The bulk of the detail, if it should indeed be here, should be in an article about Wikipedia controversies or somesuch. Disputes between individuals or companies and Wikipedia are ten a penny (this is one of the reasons why we have WP:OTRS). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record...

This is what the Wikipedia:General disclaimer says about its legal status in respect to hosting of content:

Publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. Laws in your country or jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or distribution. Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws; and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce, or republish the information contained herein.

The interesting point here is that the German courts have no power to remove the names of the murderers from the English language or the German language versions of the Sedlmayr article. The German language version could give the names if it wanted to, but has chosen to omit them (for the time being). Wikipedia has no operations in Germany, so German law has not been broken regardless of the language of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well duh ! But in reality, international law is much more complicated than this, for a large part because it is an unexplored gray area. You state: "so German law has not been broken", but that is far from true. German law has been broken, it simply has no jurisdiction over our servers. But we are more than our servers. While they cannot win directly due to the 1st amendment, there are certainly other ways they can use to make our operations difficult (esp in Germany/Europe). I'm not gonna list them, because I don't want to hand anyone any more ammo. If you think that this is about "being right (according to US law)", than you are sadly mistaken. It's about how much time and money you want to spend on defending that you are right. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule, people are advised not to do anything on the Internet that would violate the local laws where they live. This is what the General Disclaimer says. There have been clashes like Virgin Killer, and Wikipedia would not want to be blocked in Germany. The real lesson here is that legal threats over privacy are a good way to boot the ball into the back of your own net. How many people in the English speaking world knew or cared about this case before Herr Werlé decided to make a fuss?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This article in The Guardian is interesting, because although The Guardian is a UK newspaper, it says "The two men cannot be named here because the Guardian is available in Germany." This issue was the subject of extensive and often heated discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required in 2008.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware. I am also rather informed about the Virgin Killer case (I was the one who discovered it was the IWF blocking the image). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As the guardian newspaper has printing and distribution operations in Germany printing their names could result in direct damage to them and their business partners. The Wikimedia foundation is not vulnerable in this way. Distribution is technically carried out by the ISPs in Germany. 141.84.69.20 (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The law itself is in good faith, but god how stupid these people are. You can see from the articles that this isn't even really that high profile a case, but now they're all over the Internet, ironically trying not to be identified by their names. The first thing they should've been told after being released. --nlitement ^[talk] 18:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As the saying goes, What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I don't have a problem with German law deciding that these men have anonymity, but when it comes to telling people in other jurisdictions what to do, the line has to be drawn. It is against precedent in the English speaking world to attempt a ban on information that is already in the public domain. History cannot be un-reported, any more than the toothpaste can be squeezed back into the tube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the law here in germany is pretty strange. It doesn´t matter if the disputed information is on a server in germany or not. As long as the information is "intended for german citizens" german law applies. (At least that´s what judges say here) But I doubt this would be valid by international law. Comments? FreddyE (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Parole in Germany?

News articles on the subject of this article describe him as having been paroled from a life sentence. The Parole article defines the practice as:

the supervised release of a prisoner before the completion of their sentence in prison. This differs from amnesty or commutation of sentence in that parolees are still considered to be serving their sentences, and may be returned to prison if they violate the conditions of their parole.

Does anyone know if this is how parole is viewed under German law? It seems to undercut arguments that the murderers have "done their time". Sommerfeld (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Life sentence is different under german law. It means a minimum of 15 years in prison...NOT until death. If the sentence is more then those 15 years then you get the chance of parole after those 15 years have passed FreddyE (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The question was not about life sentences (the US permits parole from some but not all life sentences), but about the nature of parole: is a parolee who violates the conditions of his/her parole subject to having parole revoked? 192.18.43.225 (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

He is..depending on how strongly he violated the conditions.

FreddyE (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Streisand effect

Since the Streisand effect has been mentioned repeatedly in coverage of this case, it is worth looking at the stats. In October 2009, the English language article Walter Sedlmayr was averaging less than 20 views a day - practically zero views in the English speaking world (stats here). The recent media coverage has boosted interest, and on 13 November 2009 around 10,000 people accessed the article.[1] It is also worth pointing out that although The Guardian is based in the UK, it declined to give the men's names [2], saying "The two men cannot be named here because The Guardian is available in Germany." What they really mean is that they did not want The Guardian taken off the shelves in Germany after a legal row over a case that most English speaking people care little about.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Put more simply, Germany has jurisdiction over the sale of newspapers within their borders, but not digital content hosted in Florida and relayed in Amsterdam, so the Guardian has actual legal obligations (unless they had chosen not to distribute to Germany that day). Bigbluefish (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, as has been pointed out elsewhere, Scotland on Sunday reprinted the New York Times article with the brothers' names.[3]. No news source in the English speaking world is constrained not to give the names, but may decide to do so if it complies with the wishes of the German courts.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This one should be deleted

I se no reason why this one should have an article.--85.164.31.170 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has already been had. As pointed out above, there is now considerable international coverage for Werle (see references on the page). He is notable both for murder, and for the news coverage which has occured in the wake of the lawsuit just recently. Therefore, deletion is inappropriate. Hope that helps. Blowfish (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Article expanded, source offline

Added some more details about the case to the article. Also, the citation with the names from Focus magazine is currently unavailable and producing an "account suspended" message.[4] No need to panic though, as it is still here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed this with a new citation: [5]. The full magazine can still be found at [6].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Move

Someone beat me to this already, but I think the move to the name of the victim wasn't a good choice. First, there's an AfD in progress, so even if there was to be a move, it should probably wait until that concludes. Second, given that a good chunk of the article (the Wikipedia lawsuit) isn't directly related to the murder, I think the present (ie Wolfgang Werlé) title is a better fit. There are some potential coatrack issues here, so I'd be open to other ideas, but they really should wait until after the AfD. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Extensive where

The current lead contains "extensive media coverage in Germany" describing the murder of Sedlmayr. However, I definitely recall (vaguely) reading about the crime in US newspapers back in the 1990 timeframe (perhaps again later when the trial was underway), so I think it is reasonable to say the coverage extended outside Germany. Unfortunately, it is rather harder to find 1990 newspapers that predate the WWW. Does anyone have quick sources that would let us change this to "Germany and elsewhere" or something like that? It's not a huge matter, but I think this would be more accurate (but needs citation). LotLE×talk 21:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The only reference that I found in the new york times is this article from 1990 which mentions it only to say that another story about German unification was not the Lead. So a very tangential reference. Blowfish (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The case was clearly big news in Germany at the time, but how much coverage it received outside Germany is harder to say. In pre-Internet days, it can be hard to judge these matters, as there is no Google to give an instant feel for the notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I know. Memory is never that perfect. I'm sure that if someone had mentioned any of the names by themselves, it would have meant nothing to me. But once I read the details, it definitely jogged my memory as familiar (and I've never been in Germany, and don't read German). However, from such a vague recollection, it's hard for me to judge what that actually meant about degree of coverage... maybe I just read page 10 of the newspaper that one day by chance, or maybe I saw it dozens of times... that level of detail is lost to memory. LotLE×talk 21:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Description of Werle

The sentence "Werle is a german murderer" is a bit overdramatic in my view. This sort of construction is used in most articles to describe a biography subject's profession. I don't think it's appropriate here unless we want to give the impression that Werle murders as a profession. If you have opinions on the matter, please make them known here -- we seem to have an edit war brewing over this point. Blowfish (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I tend to prefer the wording "Werle is a German citizen convicted...(Etc etc)" over "Werle is a German murderer" as well... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit to insert "Werlé is a murderer" is far too flat-footed, awkward, and editorial in tone. The phrasing "Werlé is ... convicted of the murder of ..." is far and obviously superior. Moreover, while I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the conviction, there are good sources for our mention that the bio subject continues to protest his innocence. The more neutral description is just more encyclopedic. The only case where the crude version might be appropriate is, as Blowfish mentions, if we were writing the bio of a professional hit-man, which isn't this article. LotLE×talk 07:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The wording "Wolfgang Werlé is a German who was convicted of" is non-standard and not in accordance with WP:MOS. The first sentence of biographies should refer to them as something, not merely to their nationality (John Doe is a Greek businessman, John Doe is an American politician, Wolfgang Werlé is a German murderer etc., not John Doe is a Greek who owns a company, John Doe is an American and a member of the Illinois General Assembly, Wolfgang Werlé is a German who was etc.). It's certainly neither "awkward" nor "overdramatic" to refer to a convicted murderer known solely as a murderer as a murderer. A wording like "convicted of the murder of" is not "superior" in the first sentence because it is non-standard and does not comply with MOS. Urban XII (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, it is irrelevant that "the bio subject continues to protest his innocence". He is convicted, end of story. Urban XII (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant, as there is always the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. The article sources the doubts that have been raised about the fingerprint evidence in the case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Urban, just stop. I've looked into the most comparable situations I could find, that is wikipedia biographies of famous one-time murderers. If you'll look at Bruno Hauptman, Hans Reiser, Leopold and Loeb and even the Menendez brothers, none of them say "is a murderer" on the first line. For good reason, I think. It suggests a particular point of view, namely that the article is written with the purpose of condemning its subject. It's much better, and certainly more idiomatic to put a neutral descriptor in that word position. Blowfish (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth

Someone has added 1953 as Werlé's year of birth. For the sake of accuracy, this should have a citation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber

I had asked this question on the AFD. Now that the AFD discussion is over, I'm going to bring it over here. Right now, Manfred Lauber doesn't have his own Wikipedia page. The fact that he's known for exactly the same things as Werle is indicated that he's just as notable as Werle is. However, since both are known for the same things, the two separate articles would be extremely redundant. I wonder if instead, we should change this article to Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber; kind of like Sacco and Vanzetti. Any thoughts on this idea? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's probably the best course of action. A wrinkle in this is that only Werle (to my knowledge) filed the current lawsuit. On the other hand, almost all of the coverage of the current dispute mentions both of them. On balance, I'm in favour of the move to Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber, as it seems like the fairest and most accurate depiction. Blowfish (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, according to the New York Times article, Werle's lawyer won a default judgment against Wikimedia for Manfred Lauber in a German court, before sending a letter to WIkimedia regarding Werle...unless I'm misreading this? But even if that's not the case, Lauber is at least tangentially involved with the case. And wouldn't the outcome in Werle's case also have the same affect on Lauber? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that any action that results from Werlé's cases (it is not only Wikipedia that was C&D'd, it was also German and Austrian publications) will apply to Lauber, who did not participate in them. The facts involved are presumably identical, but we have no basis on which to make an assumption about Lauber's wishes. He may well have no urge to force the removal of his name from sources, as Werlé apparently does (for any of many reasons we could imagine in the abstract). I do not know German law, but I imagine a plaintiff has to voluntarily participate, rather than a court ruling on their behalf that a law might as well apply to them. Even if Lauber were to file similar C&D's, different judges sometimes rule differently. For all we know, Lauber may live under a different political jurisdiction to Werlé, where legal situations would differ.

Amending my comments. I had not read the particular NYTimes source Hunter Kahn points to. It appears that the lawyer for both Werlé and Lauber is the same Mr. Stopp. Mr. Stopp won a default judgment in German court on behalf of Lauber, but sent a C&D in regard to Werlé. Exactly why he took a different legal strategy in the two cases, I cannot fathom. The default judgment presumably just means that Wikimedia Foundation didn't show up as defendant. In any case, even though the actions are slightly different for the two article subjects, they are in the same vein, and could reasonably be presented together.

That said, while we should not include speculation on possible future legal action by Lauber, at least a chunk of the article applies to both. Namely, the murder, trial, convictions, etc. It doesn't seem terribly impractical to have both names in the title (with redirects from each individual name), and have the section on C&D's only discuss Werlé, who has sent them. I'm not really advocating that naming, but I don't oppose it as such either. Looking at mentioned NYTimes article, I lean towards the name change proposed by Hunter Kahn. LotLE×talk 05:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Most importantly, it would finally solve the problem of whether to say "german," "german citizen," or "murderer." Blowfish (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Re. Blowfish: Oh, I dunno. I think a certain editor might still try to insert a lead sentence like "Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber are murderers most foul ..." :-) LotLE×talk 07:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Urban XII (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that no offense was intended. I recognize that your efforts are in the same spirit as everyone else's, to make the best page possible, and I think that these sorts of disputes (as the one above) are natural and most likely healthy. A lack of disagreement would be more troubling, in my opinion. Blowfish (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wolfgang Werle is more notable because of the internet censorship case and the fact that he has received significant international media coverage in 2009. I think Werle should have a separate article, as decided by the recent AFD. Urban XII (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the AFD's purpose was to decide whether the page should be deleted, not necessarily its ultimate form. Having a single page for both individuals seems to be the best fit, and in keeping with practice here on wikipedia, where we have a single page for Leopold and Loeb, or Sacco and Vanzetti, as Hunter mentioned. While Werle may have been more of a primary mover in the recent events, much of the coverage, even recently, mentioned both individuals. On balance therefore, I think that grouping them together makes sense. Blowfish (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. In fact, the closing decision included "Discussions on renaming or possibly merging the page should take place on the talk page" and a number of comments in the discussion indicated support of a rename or reformatting of how this information is presented. Grsz¹¹ 01:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I note the following inconsistency currently in the article: "In 2009, Werlé and Lauber again received international media coverage when he attempted to remove his name from foreign media sources, including the English language Wikipedia, citing German privacy laws". Did Werlé act on behalf of both? Urban XII (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, there is this sentence: In 2009, Werlé and Lauber again received international media coverage when he attempted to remove his name from foreign media sources, including the English language Wikipedia, citing German privacy laws. It should either by "they", or Lauber's name should be removed. I don't know which one is accurate. Aditya Ex Machina 08:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• The October 2009 letter came from Werlé's lawyer. If a court ruled in his favour, it would presumably remove Lauber's name as well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

German court action

This article from the Rheinischer Merkur on 10 December 2009 is interesting. It says that Wolfgang Werlé's court action against Wikimedia will start in Karlsruhe on 15 December. Watch this space, as the saying goes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The December 15 ruling was not a knockout punch for people in Germany who wanted to name the brothers. A document from 2000 naming the brothers was found on the website of Deutschlandradio, but the judge ruled that only a targeted search would have unearthed it, and that ruling against Deutschlandradio would have had implications for free speech and online research.[7] The presiding judge made clear that this was not a blank check to name the brothers in the German media, and it also seems that the Wikimedia angle was not covered in this case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The coverage of this case in the German online media today is weird. None of the major news sources names the brothers, but the court ruled that archive coverage was unaffected. This creates a paradoxical situation where new coverage of the case can be censored, but old coverage cannot.

Also, there is a very good photo gallery in Die Welt at [8], so it has been added to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The online article that led to the current court ruling is here. It is dated 14 July 2000, and is called "10 years ago - Walter Sedlmayr murder." It is hosted on a German website (www.dradio.de), and it gives the names of both brothers. It also says that Wolfgang Werlé was Sedlmayr's foster son (Ziehsohn) and that there had been rows over money and inheritance which were the motive for the killing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

March 2010 incident

This is reliably sourced [9], but at the moment it is the only story that I could find. Has he turned up since March? This will need more research.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it looks like trivia to me, especially in light of WP:BLP1E.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to find some more German language news coverage of this. If there is no luck, it may be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been removed for the time being. It is not quite trivia, but there needs to be more coverage to establish the notability and what happened next. Still can't find any other online news stories about this, can anyone help here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

October 2011 ruling

The 25 October 2011 ruling from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg is here. It does not name Werlé or Lauber as one of the parties in eDate Advertising GmbH v X (Case C-509/09), so there is a WP:OR issue. However, it says that X and his brother in Germany were sentenced to life imprisonment in 1993 for the murder of a well-known actor. Considerable scope for jigsaw identification here. This article goes into more detail, and this Guardian article mentions the ruling, which also involved the privacy of Kylie Minogue. The Guardian says "European court of justice's decision reinforces law under which UK online publishers can be sued in any EU member state". Since Wikipedia is hosted under State of Florida law and has First Amendment protection, none of this applies. The real problem for the article is that the ruling does not say that X is Wolfgang Werlé or Manfred Lauber (who was released in 2008), although the proverbial rocket science is not required to infer this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The lawyer representing X in C-509/09 is A Stopp, a German lawyer, who is also referred to in the NY Times article on the Wikipedia dispute (which is referred to in the article) as acting for Werlé and Lauber. Given the facts stated in the article, it is highly implausible that X is not either Werlé or Lauber, or both. It is likely that X was only anonymised because of the subject matter of the reference from the German court. Removal of the reference to the CJEU judgment misrepresents the extent to which Werlé and/or Lauber are prepared to go to defend their German image rights. Not only is a reference for a ruling to the CJEU unusual, but the plaintiff is asking a German court to enforce German image rights to prevent publication of a story by an Austrian website, albeit one that is accessible in Germany. Also note that the joined case (C-161/10) concerned the French privacy rights of Olivier Martinez and his father Robert, rather than those of Ms Minogue who was not a party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexrocket (talk • contribs) 18:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of the English language media coverage has concentrated on the Martinez case (Kylie Minogue was not one of the parties, but Martinez objected to a Sunday Mirror article involving him and Ms Minogue). As for C-509/09, this article is unable to say that X is Werlé or Lauber because it appears that the name of the person bringing the action was anonymised (press release from the court here).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is some reference to this ruling not included on this page?204.65.162.251 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the October 2011 ruling is that it does not contain the names of Werlé or Lauber. While it may be inferred by jigsaw identification that this may be the case involved, it would be original research.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

June 2018 Euopean Court for Human Rights ruling

The European Court for Human Rights ruled that murderers don't have the right of their names being removed from press archives. There is a three months time period for both parties to appeal against the decision. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/egmr-sedlmayr-101.html --Con^spiration 05:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it is here in English as the previous source is in German. Maybe, just maybe, this marks the end of the road for the repeated legal attempts to block the media from mentioning the names of the two killers of Walter Sedlmayr.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)