Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required

Deletion of edit history required
Namely at the article on the German actor Walter Sedlmayr. He had been murdered back in 1990, and the two perpetrators, that were sentenced in 1993, have been released by now on probation. THEY EVOKED A COURT DECISION THAT THEIR NAMES ARE NOT TO BE MENTIONED in the coverage of the murder. (see:, found linked at , both in German) I still found an German Nwepsaper article that gives their first names , so I only removed their last names. We probably need to see if some further edits are required, but the previous two revisions that give their full names need to be deleted, definitely. Zara1709 (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That raises an interesting legal question, i.e. can a German court order Wikipedia to remove information? I suggest no one other than Mike Godwin etc. try to answer that.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it can does not really matter. No German court has ordered Wikipedia to do anything. The Regional Court decision that Sara cites was apparently issued against a German newspaper and has no binding force with respect to anyone else. It might conceivably set a precedent if the issue were to be raised in another German court or against someone else. But even that is not too likely, since the decision was issued by a Landgericht, a regional court of first instance. Decisions of lower courts are not generally precedential. Ringelblume (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't find too much in the way of public sources that reveal the perps' last names; as such, I've deleted the history of the article as a purely precautionary measure while we sort this out. east718 // talk  // email  // 22:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever tactic we do, it is going to be similar in nature of what we did with the article on the German hacker "Tron." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I respectfully request the undeletion of the deleted revisions. There is no legal or policy reason to omit these names. Wikipedia is not censored, and particularly not for the benefit of criminals. The full real names of the perpetrators remain available in numerous German online sources; see this Google search. Two reliable German mainstream media articles were cited for these names in the now-deleted version of the article, so WP:BLP is not an issue. Also, even if a German court has decided that the perpetrators have a right not to be named under German law, that verdict does not bind Wikipedia, whose operations are covered by US law. Ringelblume (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a policy reason. These are living individuals of marginal to zero notability.  Guy (Help!) 00:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see: the last names aren't banned as far as we know; and we have not received orders to remove them. So what's the debate about? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V?  Corvus cornix talk  00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability concerns the suitability of a topic for an article of its own, not the content of articles. But the two perpetrators would probably be notable for an article of their own, due to the substantial publicity given to their trial and now to their efforts to have their names removed from online archives. Ringelblume (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a moral question rather than a legal one. If someone who was convicted wrongly of a murder, served a decade of their life in prison, and then were released and now wants no press or reminder of what happened - should we still include their names if they just want to get it over with? I'm not taking a position. --mboverload @ 00:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First, the article does not assert that the two were wrongly convicted. While that may be the case, the article does not argue this, and considering the sources are in German, I am unable to verify such a claim. Second, by making a decision to omit who the convicted murderers were, we are effectively, as you said, making a moral decision. This is quite dangerous, and begins to stray from adherence to NPOV and verifiability. When reading the WP:NPOV page, the first three bulleted points are: Verifiability, NPOV, and No Original Research. If the source is verifiable, if it is relevant, and if it is notable, I posit that we are bound to cover the fact in the interest of an unbiased encyclopedia. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Lazulilasher. Well put. --mboverload @  02:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be worth noting that de:Walter Sedlmayr (from which our article was translated) specifically excludes the names, and has for several months. One source linked in the deleted revision identifies them by first name and last initial only; the other does not appear to include their names at all. The Google search provided by Ringelblume does not appear to find the names in high results, except on Wikipedia and its mirrors. Obviously I cannot perform an exhaustive search of German media, but currently these last names do not appear to be reliably sourced. – Luna Santin  (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm...That is worth noting. I checked as well and, aside from mirrors, the sources didn't seem to have last names. There are other hits, however my German is at a lower level, thus I cannot determine. However, if there is not a reliable source I would imagine we should keep it removed until if/when a reliable source is found. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At the time of my translation of the article, the two cited online versions of the articles did contain the full names of the perpetrators. They seem to have been removed by now, presumably in response to legal action in Germany. But the names remain verifiable, because the names cannot be removed from the print versions of the two newspaper articles that are cited. As citations to these print versions, the references fulfil the requirements of WP:V and WP:BLP. Ringelblume (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! The malleable nature of online sourcing, eh? Discussion below seems to adequately address the question of sourcing. Thanks for the clarification. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I remain puzzled why we should be willing to censor this encyclopedia for the sake of the privacy of two verifiably convicted murderers, which we have no legal or moral obligation to do, and which is at odds with our practice in all other articles that concern notable crimes. Ringelblume (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking only as an editor and as already noted above, the content easily meets WP:RS and WP:BLP. I would tend not to see any reason to omit these names unless word came that the foundation said it had to be done. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be cultural difference between Germany and the English-speaking world, in a way. Being accustomed to how the press handles things here in Germany, I feel myself intuitievely agreeing that we don't really need those names – they are, essentially, non-notable people. But then, I'll acknowledge standards here are different. About the legal issue of whether the German court rulings have any effect on us, I can't say (my guess would be probably not). But the initial issue brought up here, that we ought to not only remove the names from the text but also purge the article history, seems like an over-reaction to me. I mean, it's not as if those names are actually secret or anything. The old newspaper reports from the time of the trial, where they were published quite legally, remain in existence; anybody can go to a library to look them up, just like anybody can click on our edit history. The intention of the ruling is just that they shouldn't be unnecessarily trumpeted out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not subject to German law, and invoking some moral concern is a serious violation NPOV when we have the names in reliable sources. If not for the German court order we wouldn't even thinking about this issue; the standard is to give the names of relevant individuals. There's no BLP concern since the matter is reported in multiple reliable sources. We should both undelete the revisions and put the last names back in. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I agree 100%--see my arguments above. However, the question has now become: can we reliably source the convicted men's last name? I looked in the sources provided and in the Google Search. The last names are only in Wikipedia mirrors as far as I can tell (sources are in German and my German is not great). Lazulilasher (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My German isn't very good either but from all descriptions people agree that the paper versions contain the names. That meets RS/V. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the deleted sources, however if they are reliable and do cite the full name, then I agree with you. As a note, this news page seems to use the names: . It appears reliable, but I am unable to tell. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If I had known that some people would object here, I would have discussed it on the talk page of the article first. But I personally considered the situation as simple. Two people, that had been convicted for murder, are now released on parole and to move back into a normal live, the don't want their names mentioned in relation to the murder, what they made clear by obtaining a court decision. There is a legal side to this, but I could say anything on it with a significant degree of accuracy. When I first stumbled across the court decision, my first reaction was to add something about it at Notability (criminal acts). Because the issue we have here is precisely that of notability (criminals). The two murderers are not notable for anything else than the murder; they are, as far as I see it, also not notable enough on WP for the murder. (Exactly when this is the case would be the issue that the guideline should solve.) Now, since they are not notable, respect for their privacy would demand that their full names are left out. Since they went to court with this, the perpetrators have made clear that they would like to keep their privacy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a forum for public shaming, their full names should be removed (and consequently also be removed from the edit history). Further discussion on the notability of criminals would probably be useful, but we could also do this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts). Zara1709 (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Simply put, an NPOV article about an individual would name who killed the individual. There's no way to get around that. You can make an argument that they are not notable enough for articles of their own and this is true. But that's not the issue here. This is easily obtainable, reliably sourced info. So it goes in. Frankly, to do anything else is to let our own personal POV about effect things just as much as if we took out pictures of Muhammad. We don't censor. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * These two convicted murderers don't want their names published? I expect that ALMOST NO convicted murderers want their names published! If their names were published in printed newspapers, then WP:V is certainly satisfied. If a murder is notable enough for an article in Wikipedia, then the names of those convicted for it are certainly to be included in the article, unless a court with competent jurisdiction has ordered the English Wikipedia to remove the names. Determining that is a job for Mike Godwin and no one else. Edison (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In reply to Zara, I understand your concern. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, hence we do not make value judgments. By definition, our articles concern notable subjects, are written with verifiable information, and utlize reliable sources. It is not our charge to make judgements on the content, merely to succinctly compile the facts. In the absence of a consensus to do so, removing the names of those convicted for the murders would effectively mean Wikipedia making a value judgement, which is an action an encylopedia cannot do. If a legal question is raised, there exists a foundation team to handle that query. Lazulilasher (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG, guys, even if they are criminals they still got rights. Regardless of whether they were convicted rightly or wrongly for murder (it was a difficult case), they have now been released from prison and are legally free men, except for the point that the are required to regularly check back with the police and if they commit another crime they could be back in their life-long sentence. They are faced with the same common challenges as we, like renting a flat, whith is already difficult enough for them since they were present with full name and picture in the tabloids, but shouldn't be made harder with their names linked to that murder in any Google search. By the current legal/moral/cultural standards of (western) civilization, criminals, too, have a right of privacy, and this right is included definitely in wp:blp: Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. The only thing you'd have to do is to weight the persons right of privacy against the publics right to be informed, which has already been done by a German court. This is not an issue of NPOV, this is not an issue of Verifiability, and this is not an issue a value judgement, unless you want to call the standpoint that criminals have rights, too, a value judgement. Zara1709 (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Court sentences are public. Nobody can ban a piece of public justice. NVO (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We appear to have a clear consensus that WP:NPOV requires that the article about Walter Sedlmayr include the names of Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber, who were convicted of murdering Sedlmayr. I have therefore reintroduced the names into the article, and have added this additional source – a regional newspaper who does not yet appear to have gotten around to removing the full names from its online archives. I ask Zara to abide by that consensus.
 * In reply to Zara, I am aware of the reasons why a German court (a lower court only, it must be said) has ordered the names to be removed from online archives. They are reasons peculiar to German law, though, and are not compatible with the guiding principles of this international project, which is to produce a neutral, uncensored encyclopedia. The English Wikipedia in particular is inspired by Anglo-American notions of freedom of speech, for which I am thankful, and which mean we do not yield easily with attempts at censorship on the part of the German authorities.
 * As a matter of law and morals, I certainly agree that convicted criminals have rights, including a right to privacy, but I strongly disagree with the German court's appreciation of the interests at issue. The court has held that the convicted murderers' right to privacy outweighs the right of the public to information, and the right of individuals to disseminate that information. These two men who are now free on probation were convicted of brutally murdering Sedlmayr, their close business associate, for profit. I, for one, think that any future business associates of theirs should have the chance to look up what happened to their previous business associate before deciding whether or not to enter into a business relationship with them. The interests of the public to be informed clearly outweigh the two men's right to privacy. That would be my opinion even if I were to agree with the notion – which I do not – that in a free society a court should be able to order, Stalin-like, the entire archives of newspapers to be censored for any reason.
 * Finally, it should be noted that the names as such are common in Germany. If searched for individually, they yield hundreds of Google hits about unrelated men, and nothing about the Sedlmayr murder. Only if the two names are searched together or in conjunction with "Sedlymayr" do we get any search results about the murder. This should limit any exposure to their past that the two men may face in their life on probation. Ringelblume (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we don't have a clear consensus here. We neither have a NPOV issue, since there aren't divergent POVs here on the question whether those two persons have full names. Furthermore, thanks to your mentioning of their full names on this talk page here in the unlikely but possible case that a German court would enforce that their names are to be removed from the English WP, too, ALL INTERMEDIATE REVISIONS OF THIS TALK PAGE WOULD HAVE TO BE DELETED. This is not about a Stalin-type editing of archives. The newspaper archives in Germany are to be left unchanged, as the court specifically pointed out, but WP is an online encyclopaedia and instantly accessible from Germany. You are also confusing Not with wp:tabloid. Their full names are not of any relevance for an encyclopaedia, but those persons have a right of privacy, too. That two people who were convicted to have murdered their business associate are to be listed on WP to give their possible future business associates the option to check their criminal conviction is you personal sense of justice. There is no consensus on this here. Zara1709 (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Censorship is censorship. We have reliably sourced information and you are removing it because of a POV, the POV that criminals have a right to privacy after having been released (it is a POV I strongly agree with but it is a POV). No one calls it censorship when they are in favor of it. Moreover, your use of all-caps is uncivil and unproductive (and incidentally it is highly unlikely that a German court would ever make such a ruling about the English Wikipedia and moreover we don't need to worry about unlikely legal issues. That's the job of the Foundation). And Ringelblume's comment makes perfect sense; this encyclopedia exists to serve the public if you forgot so if we are going to take into account peoples desires then the the interest of the public to know is just the same. We have no policy of removing the names of criminals when they have committed notable acts, and there is no consensus for this removal. We wouldn't even be discussing this if the murder had occurred in the United States. It is only due to the high levels of censorship that German culture allows that we are even discussing this. (To everyone involved- I don't think comparisons to Stalin are really that helpful so it might be good for everyone to calm down). JoshuaZ (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Joshua. I'll keep Uncle Joe in the closet from now on :-)
 * Zara has removed (against the clear consensus here) the names that I have added back. I have reverted this. To avoid sterile editwarring, I'll endeavour to continue this discussion at the article talk page, where I am now listing a number of reliable online sources that (still) include the names. It would probably help, though, if a few other editors would watchlist Walter Sedlmayr. Thanks, Ringelblume (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now added a thorough list of sources to Talk:Walter Sedlmayr, and one more to the article itself. Ringelblume (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can bring in Stalin if you want: Denying someone his rights (in this case the one of privacy) because he is a criminal is the "friend or foe" scheme that was developed by Carl Schmitt. There is no encyclopaedia relevance that would mandate to have their full names listed here, but their privacy would mandate that their full names are left out. This has to be weighted against each other in every singe case, but it is not even attempted here; Instead people cry "CENSORSHIP", which considering that WP:NOT explicitly states: Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies ... will also be removed, is kind of ridiculous. You can't get around a discussion about the applicability of wp:blp by calling the application of wp:blp 'censorship'. Seriously, this is just another discussion at WP that I don't need and I won't put up with it. Now, that you got all those sources listed, I wonder how many of them will get into another lawsuit, since the lawyers of those two persons are known to go around and sue EVERYONE, which I, frankly, wouldn't consider necessary if it wasn't for the tabloids and some other people that don't respect other's right of privacy. Zara1709 (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Zara, this has nothing to do with Carl Schmitt or his philosophy and invoking it comes perilously close to triggering Godwin's law. Moreover, we have no need to worry about lawsuits; as we've tried to explain to you; if the Wikimedia Foundation is worried about a lawsuit they can intervene. Again, it would help if you stopped using the call caps. And you seem to be ignoring the fact that many editors disagree with you that there is a BLP issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me about Godwin's law, if I hadn't mentioned Carl Schmitt you wouldn't even have noticed. And anyway, he is a respectable jurist who had quite some influence on the after-WWII-juridical discourse in Germany.
 * I never insisted that this was a legal issue (although it might become one); If this isn't a BLP issue, well, why does wp:BLP say that articles need to be written, "with regard for the subject's privacy?" What encyclopaedic value is gained by mentioning the full names of two otherwise non-notable persons when their first names and the first letter of their last names would suffice? (No one here has tried to answer that question, and as long as this is not answered, obviously I am still in disagreement and we don't have a clear consensus. Please note at least my minority view.) What really prompted me to consider this as "friend or foe" scheme was this statement: "I, for one, think that any future business associates of theirs should have the chance to look up what happened to their previous business associate before deciding whether or not to enter into a business relationship with them." These two people were judged, convinced and sentenced for murder. They have served the time of their punishment, and are legally free (with some restrictions, since they are on parole). If they were still considered to be dangerous criminals, they would not have been released. But apparently WP should still list their names as a warning to "future business associates". And of course I strongly disagree here. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; It is not one of the aims of an encyclopaedia to punish former criminals by crippling them socially when they have done their sentence. I only get the impression that Wikipedia is abused here for this purpose. Zara1709 (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Zara, you seem to be ignoring most of what people are saying. First, standard practice (and normal practice in most of the civilized world) is when mentioning names to mention the entire name that is relevant. In no other article about a murder do we mention merely the first names. Moreover, your obsession with the notion that this is a "punishment" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the arguments that people are attemtping to explain to you. Finally, you are right that if you hadn't mentioned Schmitt I wouldn't have noticed- because Schmitt is only relevant in your warped interpretation of what people are saying to you. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (undent) I'm not sure I understand the concern about future business associates and punishment. A court conviction is generally public record, no? And as an encyclopedia we are merely providing an article covering a notable actor's murder. Part of this coverage includes who was convicted of the murder. This is not punishment, this is merely done in the interest of an unbiased, NPOV, verifiable encyclopedia. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if I am ignoring most of what people are saying on this talk page: Does BLP include a POLICY on privacy? IS there any NECESSARY REASON to give the full names here? Let's take the opposite case: Assume that the family of a murder victim would not want their full family name to be given to the public, but the tabloids to it anyway. Should Wikipedia here follow the practice of the tabloids or should it remove the full name in this case? We would need to answer that if we ever want to propose a guideline Notability (criminal acts), which was the reason why I turned to this case in the first place. Now I'd say, after some consideration, that any person who is non-notable as such, but only for a certain event, should not be mentioned with full name on Wikipedia. And I can't make a distinction here between murder victims and murderers. To exclude some from a right, because they are 'enemies of society' and society can't allow them that right, is what I perceive a Carl Schmitt line of argument. You can say criminals don't have a right to keep their names private because they are dangerous. In the next step you can also work towards having the full names of criminals included in Wikipedia, so that Wikipedia, in connection with Internet search engines, also serves as a database of dangerous criminals; In the future everyone will be able to know the criminal record of his neighbour using Google.  Now, I am saying that this is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and that it is also against the right of personality (Persönlichkeitsrecht) that is included in the modern (western) legal system. Of course, this right has been under attack and it is currently under attack, and at this point we could start a long juridical debate. (So much for the relevance of certain jurists...)  Zara1709 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The notion of Persönlichkeitsrecht exists in some but not all of the West ("right of personality" as I understand it as a slightly different meaning in English but IANAL). The US for example has very little of that sort of notion and any strong idea of Persönlichkeitsrecht is inherently POV. And again, there's no one claiming that some rights have been lost. If these individuals had been acquitted we'd likely include their names. You are taking this topic from a very narrow POV and are forcing what other people are saying into interpretations that make sense in that POV's context. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (e.c.) Indeed. Persönlichkeitsrecht is a rather novel Continental European concept, and one that not much of the rest of the Western world (let alone the rest of the world) shares. U.S. law, for instance, knows only of a much weaker tort of public disclosure according to which a disclosure of truthful facts is tortuous only, inter alia, if the facts disclosed are "non-newsworthy, not part of public records [or] public proceedings". That, the names of Werlé and Lauber are certainly not.
 * (And now back to my regularly scheduled comment:) I won't belabour the point of policy, as others have done so better than I could, and you are at any rate not arguing on the basis of policy. But you are mistaken, Zara, in bringing up Schmitt. The Feindstrafrecht does not originate with Schmitt, effective legal bogeyman though he may be. As Günther Jacobs has persuasively shown, the notion of some criminals as enemies to be destroyed has always been an inextricable part of all systems of criminal law, Western or otherwise, and we benefit from recognising that. Werlé and Lauber, by the way, have not been made subject to Feindstrafrecht, as they are – unlike Walter Sedlmayr – alive and free. (And, no, this does not have no longer anything to do with an incident requiring the intervention of administrators, so may I suggest that this thread be archived?) Ringelblume (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I now have the answer to something that puzzled me: a German Wikipedia article on a sensational crime which is still under investigation never mentions the last name of the prime suspect, instead replacing it with the initial. Anyone reading that article could simply click over to the English Wikipedia version and find the true name, so it seems pointless. Vegasprof (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is done during investigations to help prevent injustices like that done to Steven Hatfill, who was for a long time reported as the leading suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks – and who proved to be innocent of any involvement in them, the real culprit apparently being Bruce Edwards Ivins. The matter at issue here is post-facto. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since these people are notable for one thing only, what encyclopaedic value is gained from naming them? The harm, on the other hand, is clear. These are people who have paid their debt to society and are presumably trying to rebuild lives as ordinary citizens, which is their right. Including their full names can only harm them, and it does not do Wikipedia any appreciable good. I haven't seen any strong arguments for inclusion of the men's full names, as distinct from arguments against their removal. Speaking of censorship, I hate to argue ad Jimbonem but "It is not censorship to exercise mature and responsible editorial judgment." What we have here isn't really a question of policy but of what's the right thing to do. Just my opinion; I've been wrong before.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 01:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, SheffieldSteel. So I am right when I don't see any encyclopaedic reason to give the full names here. So this isn't really a question of policy. People have a right of privacy (as mentioned in wp:BLP; their are conflicting legal/cultural/moral standards to what extend they have this right; The German legal notion of Persönlichkeitsrecht going further than the US notion of tort of public disclosure. Now we could have to discuss to what extend WP wants to keep the right of privacy here, if there was anything to gain from mentioning their full names. That would not be an issue of NPOV, by the way. There are different POVs on this, but they don't need to be weighted in the article, WP needs to decide which view it itself should follow. We would have to have a longer discussion about policy. The only question I am asking myself at this point, though, is whether I should push this through now, or whether it would suffice to make a note of this at Notability (criminal acts) and discuss it sometime later, when this or a similar issue attracts more controversy. (Image the layers in this case releasing a press statement that they have looked into the question whether they could sue the English WP because it doesn't respect their clients privacy; regardless of whether such a lawsuit would be possible, if such an issue goes public, it will not be good for WP's publicity, which is, concerning BLP, not that good, anyway.) Zara1709 (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense. We should instead write articles saying 'Bob was murdered." and end there? or what. two unnamable men were convicted, served time, and were later released? Pshh. Smacks of Big Brother and 1984, constantly revising history to meet modern notions. By that logic, The Charles Lindbergh article, the baby's article, and Lady Lindy's article all should be without mention of that carpenter guy, and we should nominate that carpenter guy's article for deletion, since he's only notable for killing the kid (or being the victim of a vast (left and right wing (on a plane)) conspiracy). Likewise, we don't need to name the mastermind of the Tate-laBianca murders, nor the assassin of Robert Kennedy, as they are only notable for those things. This sort of thing is completely alien to the American mindset, and ought to be alien to the mind of any creature capable of grasping the concepts of linear time and long-term memory. redacting names to make murderers feel good... only a moron would insist on that, and yes, I mean Germany as a whole. After all, they do love David Hasselhoff. /ranting. It's the only way to respond to lunacy. ThuranX (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you don' get it. If you look at the WP articles on Bruno Hauptmann, Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan, you will see that there is AT LEAST ONE biography of them linked or listed there. Concerning those two German murderers there isn't anything like that: We don't know where they grew up, we don't know their family situations, we don't even now their birth dates. Ok, there is one German documentary on the murder, which I haven't seen. If this documentary devotes only 15 of its 45 minutes to the life of these murderers before their crime, I am willing to grant that they may be notable (we should then make their names into redlinks). But there would still be a HUGE difference between those criminals you mentioned, that became famous because they murdered someone and these two guys. If a world famous aviator, the family of a world renown cinema director or a politician and the brother of a former US president is murdered, there will be someone who writes a biography of the murderer, making him notable. Concerning these two persons, there apparently isn't a biography. If there isn't anything to be said on them, aside from what would have to be said in the article of their victim, then we don't need to give their full names. And btw., German courts might be more restrictive against the media when it comes to a persons privacy, but OF COURSE they make certain distinctions. When the former RAF-terrorist Brigitte Mohnhaupt was relased on parole last year, a court denied the largest German tabloid to publish NEW photos of her; the old pictures could of course be used as historical documents.
 * Neither does the court decision in this case amount to a "Stalin-type editing of archives" as it has been hinted in this discussion. The court explicitly left archives out in his decision: "Die Beklagte trifft nicht die Verpflichtung, ihre Archive ständig daraufhin zu kontrollieren, ob ggf. ein sich im Archiv befindlicher Beitrag entfernt oder geändert werden müsste. Insofern besteht kein Unterschied zu einem Archiv, das Printmedien aufbewahrt. Eine derartige Kontrollpflicht würde die öffentliche Aufgabe, die der Presse im Hinblick auf die Information der Öffentlichkeit über aktuelle Ereignisse zukommt, über Gebühr beeinträchtigen. Sie würde zudem (…) dem Informationsbedürfnis der Öffentlichkeit zuwiderlaufen, das auch eine Recherche nach Berichten aus vergangenen Zeiten umfasst." Of course, you could try to argue that WP should be considered an archive, then. I would then hold that WP is not an archive, because it constantly is edited. But we are nowhere near a discussion that would sort out these points. Zara1709 (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the English wikipedia. Translation, please. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

INSERTION: Translation by machine via Google Translate "The defendant is not the obligation, its archives will constantly check to get a contribution in the archives located removed or have to be changed. In this respect, there is no difference to an archive, the print media kept. Such a requirement would control the public function of the press in terms of informing the public about current events given to unduly prejudice. It would also (…) the information needs of public run, including a search for reports from the past." - Thats about the best you are gonna get for now. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no valid reason for censoring the names of the perpetrators. This is the English wikipedia, it is not censored for content, and German "political correctness" is irrelevant. As another editor said, the "notability" factor only enters into it if someone wants to write an article about the perpetrators separately. It is perfectly valid to include their names in the article about the guy they murdered, assuming the guy they murdered is notable. To exclude the names lowers wikipedia to the level of totalitarian states trying to filter the news. It's shameful, it's offensive, and must be resisted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is NO valid reason to include their names, either. And there is is a valid reason to leave their names out, wp:blp (privacy), as I have repeatedly stated above. This is not censorship, but the application of a WP policy, as I have also pointed out several times. And I already summarized the German court decision when I wrote that the court explicitly excluded archives, the quote was merely indented as convince for the German speaking editors here. It would take me about 30 minutes to translate the legal phrasing... Time which I have already spent at this discussion. Zara1709 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Every few months we have to have this debate, from Nevada-tan to Crystal Gail Magnum, and seemingly chase in circles around the connection of internet law, local law, vengeance and uncensorship at all costs. For what it's worth I have always objected to the censorship of any material that can be reliably sourced, and in this case I believe no different but not on some ridiculous argument such as "don't protect murderers" but simply for neutrality, consistancy and comprehensiveness of the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia can not be consistant, neutral or comprehensive if facts would be ommitted by an order anywhere in the world (you can't enforce a German gag order, then ignore a Zimbabwean gag order on anti-Mugabe dissent, or a Chinese gag order on Tibetan protestors because you don't agree with what it is gagging). –– Lid(Talk) 08:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that the article should be censored because a German court decided that. I am saying that the two people who are named in this article have a right of privacy, which is not only a legal right, but also included in wp:BLP. And condisring that Baseball Bugs just brought in totalitarism again: Censorship is totalitarian (or at least tyranic;) But also is disrespecting the citizen's right of privacy. Totalitarian regimes are known for their tendency to persecute people for something they said in private. That the state might try to censor the public discourse is one of the dangers in a democracy. But another danger - considering that this specific German legislation developed in the time of the German Autumn- is that a sensationalist media makes the public percieve certain people as 'enemies of society'. But even if the are terrorists and criminals, this kind of 'news coverage' does not in any way help the public discourse. In this specific case the court found that it is more importent to give the criminals a second chance (to renew the 'civil contract', if you want to get into a debate on the philosophy of law) than to tell everyone the full names of the criminals, which are not needed to report about the old case anyway (the first name and the first letter of the last name should suffice.) I am not saying that WP should be censored because a German court ordered this. I am only saying that the privacy of two persons should be taken into account; I though that this was not only a legal policy in Germany, but also common sense and part of Wikipedia's BLP policy anyway. Obviously am was mistaken that it was common sense, but I still want to insinst that this is not simply filed under 'censorship'. Zara1709 (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your point of view, but your last line of it being "common sense" is simply not factually correct. Wikipedia's view on the privacy of identities has always been in a state of flux, for a long period it did not exist and then for a really harsh it was near "no one is a public individual" (which lead to about four ArbCom cases, a dozen DRVs, and who knows how many AfDs and threads on ANI) and is now trying to find a happy medium between the two. I'll ignore your refutation of the totalitarian argument, as I ignored the totlaitarian implication to begin with as it's usefulness in this debate is only to drive negative emotion against the opposing view rather than weighing it on its merits, and will instead focus on your argument about "right to privacy". Right to privacy, on wikipedia, is an entity which can not exist if it acts in overpowering WP:Notability. An odd argument, I know, as WP:N is used as the standard of keeping articles and bringing it up as being overruled seems to be a non-existant issue but if you clean down your argument to its core it comes to read as "people are not notable if they do not wish to be", which is an article standard that can not possibly work on wikipedia and has, literally, thousands of examples that show that this can not (and will not) be the case. The counterpoint to this is the usage of WP:BLP1E however that counterpoint ignores that BLP1E states that the event is notable, not the individual as a person, which is the case in this regard. The event, the murder, makes the murderers notable individuals. Notable enough for their own arguments? Probably not, but ommitting their existance is a misuse of the policies we abide by. –– Lid(Talk) 10:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They can have a right to privacy only when the guy they murdered comes back to life. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not for vengeance (soapboxing), arguing people foreit being people because of their acts isn't a compelling argument for their names inclusion. Please refrain from using pleas to emotion that ignore any opposition argument as being put forward by "murderer protectors", it helps no one and only acts to make the sides splinter and isolate their views as the opposition is not actively discussing the argument and it becomes a "who yells longest and loudest is the victor". –– Lid(Talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And you should take your own advice. Wikipedia is for information, and the readers have the right to know who the murderers were, in this or any other murder case. The arguments against it, all amount to censorship, and must not be tolerated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You do realise I agree with you in including the information, just not you're going about arguing it right? This isn't some childish "if you're not with me you're against me" thing where everything is black and white and your opponents are the devil incarnate and anyone who hasn't outright ignored the arguments and gone straight to referring to them as fascist censorship happy dictators is in league with them. Should censorship be tolerated? No, but there are far better ways of stating it. –– Lid(Talk) 12:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not called anyone a fascist. I understand their sympathetic arguments, even if I think they amount to bleeding-heart liberalism taken to an extreme. But this section began with someone censoring something because some idiot judge in Germany decided to protect the so-called "rights" of murderers. Deleting it amounted to censorship - it was out of line and should have been reversed immediately. If these guys were innocent, that would be a whole other matter. But if they were correctly convicted and simply don't want that fact public - sorry, too bad. The people at large have the right know who the murderers are. The needs of the many outweigh the selfish interests of the murderers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, if they were innocent it would be the same matter, because being innocent or guilty has absolutely no bearing on its inclusion or uninclusion. Trying to argue they have forfeited something because of their actions is the wrong way to go about fighting against the removal of the names as it is a conviction of the individuals in question, when this topic should be as far removed from the individuals as possible and be a question of wikipedia article content. Forget everything to do with the case, who they are, what they have done - it is entirely meaningless in this debate and that people keep brining it up is the reason this is going in circles. –– Lid(Talk) 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We have two individuals who have performed a notable act against a notable individual, their names can be sourced reliably and it is known information. That is all there is to it and that is all there is to see as to why the information should be included. –– Lid(Talk) 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (undent) My main fear is what precedent would be set by removal. If in this instance we cater to a local law, what would happen in the future? There are huge variations in interpretations of privacy/censorship throughout the world. In order for us to truly not have a POV, we shuold adhere strictly to RS/V/NPOV/notability. In this case, the action was notable, the murdered man was notable, and the sources are reliable. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Wikipedia does not censor facts, but it does adhere to notability guidelines. It also does not originate information. If this info was not publicly available, then it should not be here, for the OR reason as well as, potentially, the BLP reason. But if it's publicly available, and the fact itself is non-controversial (which this appears to be), then the BLP argument does not figure into it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the totalitarism argument, what do you expect? If I am confronted with an argument: "This is censorship, this is totalitarian!", why shouldn't I react with an argument: "This is disrespect of privacy, this is totalitarian!" It would be more interesting to take a look at German history to explain why such a legal policy (Persönlichkeitsrecht) did develop in Germany and why I think that it is justified. But this discussion would hardly be worth the effort. After a lot of consideration I am willing to grant that there is a little encyclopaedic value in giving their full names. One could image that someone recalls this incident, but doesn't remember the name of the victim, only of the perpetrators. The only question is whether it wouldn't be the case more often, that someone conducts a google search on one of these persons, when they have just applied for a job, etc. These two aspects still have to be weigthed against each other, and I still hold that privacy overrules notabilty (if you allow me to call it that) here. However, this is a subjective value judgment. I don't see any objective way to justify it, so understandably this discussion is leading nowhere. And for the last time: This is not an issue of censorship. And if you want to deny criminals their rights because they are criminals, you are not a liberal. Not any more than Carl Schmitt or Thomas Hobbes, that is. Zara1709 (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If I'm an employer looking at hiring one of these guys, I have the right to know that he has a felony conviction in his past, and especially in this case. Someone who murders once could murder again, and it would be unfair to subject my other employees to that potential risk. Their practical rights to safety outweigh the theoretical "rights" of killers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but it is censorship. Censorship is the hiding of facts, and that's exactly what these arguments amount to. If a guy applies for a job and says, "I was convicted of murder, and I have changed my ways," then the facts are out in the open. If he applies for a job and does not tell the potential employer about this heinous act, he is being dishonest from the beginning. There is no right to a specific job. If someone is willing to hire him, knowing the facts, then there is honesty and openness all around. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not employers' right alone, employers are frequently obligated by law to do background checks. Isn't it odd that someone who was caught smoking pot in grade school is disqualified for decades, while convicted murderers enjoy a code of silence? NVO (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That they are convicted murderers is entirely irrelevant, please stop bringing it up to try and claim a non-existent moral high ground. –– Lid(Talk) 13:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is relevant for an employer who must comply with regulation. The employer who legally obtains this info must keep it locked, but he has to have it in first place. NVO (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. After these two persons had spent 15 or 17 years in prison, a court hearing came to the conclusion that they aren't a danger to society and can be released - otherwise they would still be locked up. Execpt for the fact that they are on parole and shouldn't even dodge the fare on the bus, they are normal citizens again, their life only being made difficult by that fact that people are scared by them, since anyone can look up their name on Google and see that they are murderers. Zara1709 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Parole or full term does not matter. I would repeat the question, what makes these two model gentlemen different from millions of others former convicts? Why these two enjoy a regal treatment while others wear radio bracelets? If it was a general treatment I wouldn't object; so far it seems like an isolated, irrational glitch of justice. NVO (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Examples: Rolf Clemens Wagner. Paroled 2003, maybe still needs time to adjust. Brigitte Mohnhaupt, paroled in 2007. Should we extend the code of silence to him too? Take a closer look at Category:German criminals, what's your take on this? NVO (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the article on the German Wikipedia it seems there's a chance these guys are convicted but maybe not guilty, there have been several calls for resumption of proceedings (!)

I think no matter the circumstances and question of guilt social rehabilitation should be a keyword here. It is already hard enough as is to make a new start after prison.

Also, as already mentioned by others, besides their involvement in this court case either as victims or as offenders both have little to no notability.

The claim to start an article on these guys because they "try to hide their names" is absurd, as is this constant white noise about censorship without any further ethical reflection.

I think it goes without explanation that posting and preserving their names on what is the world largest reference source has a different quality to it than "looking up names in a library" or reading years old newspaper headlines. And it is this very difference one has to keep in mind when working with BLPs. (there's a German court ruling called Lebach-Urteil which elaborates on that)

to sum it up: one should not endanger rehabilitation or prolong harm by blaring out their names as a repeated social sanction completely uncalled for.

(As for legal impact, I'd assume German jurisdiction is effective for any editor that could be traced back to Germany, whether it is a registered user or not.) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, if they were wrongly convicted, that's a different story. And if there is some legal action on that point, then that could also be in the article about the murder. There appears to be no reason for them to have individual articles, though. The story is about the crime and its followup. And the previous editor makes an excellent point about background checks being required by law. That's to prevent, for example, child molesters from getting jobs as grade school teachers. The rehab of one person is not as important as the safety of the public at large. If the guy is truly reformed, he should be open about it and not be trying to hide it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For employers to do a background check there is the polizeiliches Führungszeugnis (criminal record) in Germany. If they have a good probation officer they probably have a gotten a job anyway. But it can hardly be the task of Wikipedia to provide the full names of criminals as a convinience for employers, or can it?Zara1709 (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevant if they are innocent as it turns out, or even if down the line their convictions are overturned, the conviction and hypothetical overturning are also notable events. The notability becomes them having been wrongly convicted of the murder, which is in itself a notable event and does not make their names any less public. –– Lid(Talk) 13:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Section-break (German court-order)
Why doesn't Germany give these two convicted people new identities? Count Iblis (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not preventing the German authorities to let these pesons hide their identity at all. in this day and age, if it is decided that someone should be able to start a new life and not be confronted with his past, then it is not practical to demand that no source anywhere in the world mentions the name of the person in relation to the past events. The only way this can be done is to give the person a new identity (new name, new passport, new fictitional place and date of birth etc. etc.). This is standard practice in many countries. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid TLDR, but my view is this: if a properly-appointed judicial court in a decent democratic country has made a legal decision with the privacy and well-being of certain individuals in mind, Wikipedia ought to respect that as a matter of courtesy. Obviously (I guess, though I'm not sure) a German court order doesn't cover the WP servers - though if a British editor added that info, perhaps the court order applies to them because of the EU? - this doesn't matter. We should volunteer to respect the wishes of accredited judges abroad. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not if the information is publicly available. And by the way, a "decent democratic country" would not allow murderers to hide their identity. And Wikipedia need not kiss up. Censoring publicly available facts on the fear that some judge somewhere is going to be unahppy about it, is offensive and a bad precedent. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Are you suggesting, then, that Germany is not a democratic country? Because the EU, the UN, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the US Department of State and the Paraguay Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to name but a few organisations, all believe otherwise, and I reckon they're more qualified to pass judgement.
 * Secondly, just because you see the court as helping murderers to conceal their identities (and you've got no real reason to; naturally, any privacy-related injunction will involve the judge not divulging the whole situation in order to maintain the privacy it refers to), doesn't mean that you have to act as a force for righteousness and uncover the entire German state-sponsored conspiracy to allow murders to merrily wander the streets of Cologne, free men once more. Wikipedia is not about fighting for justice, quashing the henious apparatus of the evil censors in the German court system. It's an encyclopedia.
 * And this judge (who had the power, both legally and morally - being a properly-appointed individual, to interpret/enforce the law of a democratic country - to pass such an injunction) chose to do so, I respect that he must have had reasons for that. I suggest that Wikipedia obeys not out of "fear", and not out of a desire to "kiss up", both of which you alleged while managing to ignore the reason I provided first off. Which was...
 * Simple courtesy. Just because you have the arguable legal (and perhaps moral) oppurtunity to do something, doesn't mean you do it. If somebody asks you to refrain from a particular act, just do it, within reason. If my neighbour tells me to turn my music down, I turn it down, rather than quibbling about censorship of my personal tastes, and rather than reaching for my decibelmeter. Just be polite and do as we're bid. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "If somebody asks..." Who has asked wikipedia to censor this information? And don't say it's not censorship, because it is; be it legal or not, it's still censorship of facts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Calm down Bugs. Actually, a "decent democratic country" believes in rehabilitation; namely, once a criminal has served their sentence, their punishment is over.  In most European countries, many convicted murderers are given new identities once released.  In this case, though, as far as the information goes, it's publically available, and verifiable, so it can stay if it actually adds something of value to the article.  I haven't seen that it does, at the moment. Neıl    ☄   14:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank God I live in the USA and not Europe. You've got governments there basically putting the public at potential risk for the sake of social experimentation. It's outrageous. Honesty and openness should be what's important. If someone wants to hide their criminal past, then they are engaged in deceit and trickery. How does that benefit society? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bugs Bunney, you are trying to argue a social and ethical point about the European system of crime, punishment and rehabilitation. It so happens that I strongly disagree with your viewpoint, however, such a debate is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia. The question at hand is whether we should voluntarily obey the democratic and reasoned ruling of a foreign judge (who ordered certain information confidential, at least as far as his jurisdiction went). I say we should. Since your latest replies, most emotional and profound (in a good way!), don't address our issue we're supposed to be debating here, I can't elaborate further; only ask if you have anything more germane to add? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Germane"? Funny way to put it, as that word actually derives from the same root as "Germany". Now, tell me which wikipedia policy requires us to defer to some censoring judge in Germany. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 14:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Germane" - I know it's a funny way to put it, I'd have said "hilarious", myself, that's why I chose it :-) Now, as I clearly and distinctly said no fewer than three times, no Wikipedia policy requires us to defer to censoring German judges. Since the issue of censorship is entirely within your own mind, and irrelevant, we'll skip over that and onto the issue of policy.
 * I believe we are now forming the policy. This is the discussion as to whether WP should voluntarily bow to the verdicts of foreign courts in "respected" countries (you know what I mean, a democratic, fair court system, as recognised by most international organisations and foreign ministries). I say we should, and you have yet to provide a reason as to why we shouldn't - so far, you've just repeated and re-repeated the fact that we're not required to, ignoring the fact that it is actually quite courteous to. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG, Baseball Bugs have you done a background check on you understanding of democracy lately? If in a "decent democraty country" you want everyone to be publically watched, because they could be criminals, any further discussion here is pointless. Not that I've seen a point in it the last two days anyway. I am not going to wage an uphill battle to remove about 10 letters from an article about a Bavarian actor I don't care about. If I ever want to wage an uphill battle I would spend the effort on something worth it, like explaining on the German Wikipedia why Hitler was not a charismatic leader. (I've you don't get this remark, don't worry.) As far as I am concerned we can leave the article as it is, although the image of their names being mentioned in some newspaper articles that was uploaded should be removed. Zara1709 (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hitler was a charismatic leader. Just not in a good way. Freedom is about openness. Censorship subverts freedom. These guys aren't members of the Witness Protection Program, they're murderers. And if they can work with a probation officer to smooth the way towards finding a decent living, that's fine. But society does not owe them anything. No one forced them to commit murder, they chose to do it. And you live with your choices. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bugs, please re-read this discussion from today and WP:FORUM, because you're still arguing your sociopolitical point. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are my opinions, but they're not relevant to wikipedia as such. What's relevant is that wikipedia does not censor facts, and is under no obligation to refrain from presenting publicly available information on the grounds that some judge somewhere might be unhappy about it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you have again missed my two main points, which I have stated no fewer than four times. Please read them carefully, I am not going to repeat them again. NUMBER ONE: I know that Wikipedia is under no obligation to; however, I believe that this fact is not reason enough for us not to. We are perfectly capable of volunteering to co-operate. That is, the fact that we're allowed to is not reason enough for us to do it. NUMBER TWO (as in, the one that comes after NUMBER ONE): I am not in fear of the judge's wrath, as you so astutely pointed out seventeen or so times, the judge has no sway or influence over us. I propose that we obey him as a gesture of respect, of courtesy, simply because he knows why he made that ruling, he made it for a reason that satisfies him and I trust him as a democratically-appointed member of the German judiciary. Thanks for ignoring. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I did not miss the point. And I'm saying that wikipedia is about presenting verifiable facts, not about giving "courtesy" (i.e. kissing up) to some judge. There is no policy compelling or even suggesting we do that. If someone raises an issue with wikipedia, we should respond. Out of courtesy, we should explain wikipedia's policies about verification, and if they push the issue, we should explain why we are under no obligation to kiss up. But we should not pre-censor out of fear, or courtesy, or any other politically-driven reason. Someone earlier accused me of not being "liberal". "Liberal" is about freedom. Censorship, which you are in fact advocating regardless of how you cloak it, is anti-freedom and anti-liberal. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

< Yes, and you're clearly pro-freedom and pro-liberal, jolly good. My belief is that cloaking the names is not censorship, but regardless, Wikipedia is neither pro- nor anti- anything. If you believe a democratically-appointed judge in a respected, developed democratic country would make anti-freedom rulings, that's fine for you, but the international community (and by the looks of it, the Wikipedian community, thinks different).

And to be honest, it doesn't matter. Being courteous is not kissing up, I'm not trying to impress the judge or get a clerkship with him next summer. Being courteous is defined as, "Showing regard or thought for others" - if simply showing regard for others is, in fact, kissing up, then the whole of humanity is in big trouble! I've never heard such a loony definition. <font size="3" color="#262CA5">╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of judges who make bad rulings, in both the U.S. and Europe. And, yes, it is kissing up. Regardless, tell me which wikipedia policy requires or even suggests that we should be "courteous" to authority figures??? How about we focus on being "courteous" (as per your definition of showing regard or thought for others) to the readers of wikipedia, who expect uncensored verifiable facts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had more intelligent conversations with rotting mangos. "Which Wikipedia policy requires that we should be courteous to authority figures?" - if you had the slightest idea of what courtesy WAS, then you wouldn't ask. Polite and good members of society don't only do nice things because they have to. <font size="3" color="#262CA5">╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 15:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If those mangos are answering back, I'd just as soon not know about it. I am an American midwesterner, and we tend to be blunt-spoken and unvarnished. And Americans in general have a disdain for kissing up to authority figures and condoning censorship. That's why we don't dip our flag to foreign kings, for example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, let's focus on the topic at hand without bringing this into a personal and political discussion. We are not comparing the relative merits of democratic systems used throughout the world. We are trying to bring an article regarding a German subject into compliance with Wikipedia's policies. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues are dealt with by the Wikimedia Foundation, not by individual editors. If the German courts make stirrings towards Wikipedia, Mike Godwin will deal with it, and if the edit history does require purging, he's the one to do it, or order it done. Issues of this nature are not to be dealt with by well meaning editors practicing amateur law.

Many good arguments have been made on this page in support of the inclusion of the names, but I think most succinctly put is an NPOV article about an individual would name who killed the individual. Done. There is perhaps wiggle room in the area of people whose names appeared in the paper through no fault of their own, (e.g. Star Wars kid), but these are two convicted murderers. Our moral responsibility to these gentlemen is low, and not transgressed by printing their names. Whatever the German media does is irrelevant to us here. Ford MF (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We have no obligation legally to withhold the names of the murderers of a notable individual. No one seeks to give them articles, but it is absolutely notable WHO killed a notable person. If you don't name them, you can't explain the motive, if one exists, expect in general terms "He was murdered by someone he knew" or "he was murdered for revenge for something he did, but german "morality" (a questinoable term at best) prevents us from saying who.". Both of which are fucking ridiculous alternatives to "He was murdered by Bob dickface and Tommy shitlicker, who were hired to kill him in revenge for a business deal which failed." One makes sense, the other doesn't. Simply put, European morality in these cases is predicated on IGNORING bad things. It's like talking to a German about the Holocaust. They won't do it. Sure they learn about it, and now have limits on their free speech because of it, but actually talking about it is as verboten as being in a neo-nazi group. THey say things like "I don't want to discuss that, it's in the past" or "WHy dredge up those old memories?" or, and I heard this one, it's my personal favorite "All those people are dead anyways, what do we gain by talking about it?" "Those People" Referred to Jews killed in the camps. The discussion I heard that in was when one of the concentration camps was in the news a few years back. In a couple years, the Europeans will be back to calling Josef Fritzl a nice, quiet, odd neighbor. It's not forgive and forget there, it's denial. ThuranX (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oy weh :/ please spare such generalizations and stereotypings. Speaking of denial you might want to read this and calm down?


 * If movies are your thing The Dark Past (1948), Compulsion (1959) and A Justice That Heals (2000) might be a good starting point for a bit of reflection. Yes I'm serious, you have to start somewhere. Please keep in mind no judge (in a country like today's Germany) would set free two murderers known to be incurable mentally disordered. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In a few countries, it is still considered proper to execute murderers. It's quite understandable for citizens of those countries to feel that, not only failing to kill them, but eventually releasing them from jail, is treating them far too lightly. That is my best explanation for some of the more bloodthirsty sentiments expressed above. Wikipedia, though, is not the place to right great wrongs.

As far as I know there is no policy or legal reason why we must not include those men's last names. There's no compelling argument in favour of censorship. It's not a question of common sense. It might be a question of common decency. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 04:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"There's no compelling argument in favour of censorship" This is not about censorship but about a privacy right that overrides public interest. It strikes me funny you use this It is not censorship to exercise mature and responsible editorial judgment. -- Jimbo Wales quote on your talk page, but don't waste a thought about what is "responsible editorial judgment". In my opinion there a good chance responsible editorial judgment covers to omit information that intrudes into an area where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Like coming out of prision and get a brandnew start.

Collective wrongdoing is a common thing with low-brow journalism. Wikipedia policies (if followed to the letter rather than the spirit) are Neandertal tools compared with a sane mind capable of reason and ehical reflection. To feign ignorance or join the "no censorship" choir without addressing different cultural backgrounds (which you did ;)) just exhibits a lack of social responsibility. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mmm, yummy. An "Americans are bloodthirsty and uncivilized" ad hom on everyone here who argues against censorship, stating that Common Decency is something we all lack. If that's all you have to say, don't say anything. ThuranX (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If your remarks directed against the German people and the morality of Europe are justified, I think it's certainly reasonable to point out that some editors have expressed a certain eagerness to see these people punished further.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You attack all editors who think that common sense trumps 'common decency', which the two killers obviously lack. Editors have said repeatedly: German courts don't control En.Wiki; The material, nad names, are out there in numerous reliable sources; There's not 'punitive' value to it because anyone who wants to find out can find out elsewhere. Your response? "Americans are blood thirsty savage monsters who want to cause horrible pain to two innocent murderers by not censoring the pages to protect them from their own actions and legacy." And I stand by the European mentality about history and the past, as I've experienced it. ThuranX (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please try to remain civil in your edit summaries. As for the content of your post, I can only say that you seem to have misunderstood everything I've written. I don't think there's anything to be gained by continuing this.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take that as admission of guilt, and drop this as well. ThuranX (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Section-break (again)
"The only thing you'd have to do is to weight the persons right of privacy against the publics right to be informed, which has already been done by a German court. This is not an issue of NPOV, this is not an issue of Verifiability, and this is not an issue a value judgement, unless you want to call the standpoint that criminals have rights, too, a value judgement." -- Zara1709

This might be one of the best statements I've read in this dicussion (from a legal standpoint anyway), it just happens many editors have never in their life spent a single thought about how a persons right of privacy could be weight reasonably against the publics right of information and how decay of such a public right could happen over time. FULLSTOP ;)

The concept of rehabilitation is just one more alien approach to many so it seems. :(

Some try to assume no responsibility and state in all seriousness whatever some tabloid spits out should be archived on Wikipedia as public knowledge. Listen up, in such cases even big name newspapers can become sources that should not be preserved on Wikipedia during the liftetime of a subject, as they serve daily information rather than encyclopedic conservation.

Editorial judgement is backed up by WP:BLP <span title="as the possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement">policy here, we don't need to call it a curtsey and we don't need to know the inner workings of American or European privacy law either (even though I got a feeling some of us do ;)) I don't believe in digital maoism. The no-censorship mob is not yet fit for such tasks with our current policies, but we can and should always improve these BLP policies to catch such cases in simple words.

Maybe, just maybe, linking to real world examples such as this one (or even Star Wars kid) in our policies could be one approach to strenghten the idea of editoral judgement where it is reasonable. I know some might consider such example lists somewhat clumsy, but it can really help to get an idea across rather than using some arcane three dollar wordings for the sake of flow.

I'm not happy with this "do no harm essay" in current state, but I do hope it can be reworded to become one of the policies we weight against each other rather than being a "stopgap" under constant attack from people who act like Google replaces any thinking and responsibility of their own. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The end of a prison sentence does not give an individual an automatic free pass back into society as if nothing had ever happened. He has to prove he's worthy of the trust placed in him by the parole board or whoever freed him; he has to prove he's fit for re-entrance into society. Starting out with deception, i.e. by assuming a new identity, is not a favorable step in that direction. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not relevant to the Wikipedia discussion; this is social debate. Please restrict the use of this page to appropriate material. <font size="3" color="#262CA5">╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. The issue is settled, the names are in the article, and they'll stay there. Maybe everyone could agree to just stop posting here and let the archiver remove this whole megillah in about 24 hours. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The self-styled "privacy" guy 3vil-Lyn has taken it upon himself to delete the names with no consensus to do so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion this is covered by editorial judgement, so much for being offtopic, bitter much? :)
 * Baseball Bugs, hate to bring it to you but I'm no guy. :P
 * Anyway, the rule of thumb with BLPs should be to exclude potential harmful content until there is consensus to include it. Do we have consensus? --3vil-Lyn (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Guy" in the generic sense. Now read the discussion. The info is perfectly valid to be included and because it's public knowledge, the "right to privacy" claim is irrelevant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite aside from that this has been exhaustively argued and that the horse is long-dead, there's an important point being obscured, and it's one that Americans, especially, usually muff. Do individuals have "rights?"  Yes, they do.  What does that mean?  It means that the government cannot do certain things to them.  Wikipedia is not the government; it is a private entity that has no duty to respect anyone's constitutional rights except as provided by law.  There is no right to free speech, to privacy, to pretty much of anything here, except as provided in Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines.  Except to the degree those policies and guidelines are applied, and unless compelled otherwise by a court with jurisdiction over the English Wikipedia (read: the US federal courts and state courts in California and Florida), it can say pretty much whatever the hell it wants about whomever it pleases.    RGTraynor  16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "it can say pretty much whatever the hell it wants about whomever it pleases" -> no it can NOT. Take a look at WP:BLP
 * Putting everything law101 aside, ethical concerns have their place in the Wikipedia policies, and this one is either covered by editorial judgement or we can just as well forget about the idea of editorial judgement as it can't become much clearer than here.
 * As for beating a dead horse. If'd color everything that goes for an argument (of either side) this whole dicussion would shrink to a few sentences. Showing there is no consensus build on arguments that could even remotely trump those who support to omit the names. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (shrugs) There was a great deal of "Don't they have rights?  What about their rights?"  You can't argue law when you think it's on your side, only to drop it like a hot potato when it turns out not to be.  As to ethical concerns, your belief in the clarity of your editorial judgment notwithstanding, your position seems to have been heavily outvoted, let alone attracted a consensus to overturn black-letter policy.  Consensus /= unanimity.    RGTraynor  17:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I argued ethics and the idea of rehabilitation from my very first post in this dicussion. :) It is you who joined with nothing but the notion that Wikipedia can't be forced by law, something that was never questioned by me; and something that has already been identified as irrelevant to this discussion unless the editor in question actually lives in Germany. Whenever I pointed to law, I tried to bring the idea behind the ruling across. So either you go argue against this idea of rehabilitation with morals or you just retract to your legal argument which is NOT sufficient according to Wikipedia's own policies as we have to take ethical concerns and the idea of "do no harm" or better "do not prolong harm" into account. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As other have noted, what makes these two characters different from any other offender who is released and wants to restart his or her life? I hope we're not going to make it standard policy to remove names from articles once people serve their sentences! As an encyclopedia, public interest trumps their private wishes. justinfr (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[Reindent] I have to agree with Ford MF above:

IANAL, but Wikipedia.en is incorporated in the USA and not Germany, and is subject to the laws of the former, not the latter. (I don’t know if Wikipedia.de is subject to German law, but I would expect it to follow German societal norms for the most part, censored or not.) In any case, though, rights are enumerated in general principle by constitutions and expanded or limited by constitutional law. Since the two nations do not have the same constitution nor the same interpretations of constitutional rights that emanate therefrom, there should be no expectation of universal concurrence on what is a full and proper determination of “rights.”

Zara1709’s main point, though, is about the moral issue, not so much the legal issue. Her assertion



is therefore correct that the issue centers on weighing a person’s right of privacy against the public’s right to be informed, but the decision of a German court – and a lower court at that – does not make it one of universal application and legal force. It applies only to those under its jurisdiction.

In the U.S. privacy is restricted to individuals, not institutions (including the government itself – aside from information on individuals it may hold). A person committing a crime is committing violence against the public itself and the proceedings leading to conviction become a public record. They have, in this sense, “given up their right to privacy” in this regard. Public figures have a more restricted degree of privacy due to their decision to act publicly. If you commit a public act, you have no right to expect that it can subsequently be made “private.” The strength of freedom of the press and the right of self-defense in the U.S. are considered to outweigh the privacy rights of those convicted of criminal offenses. Incarceration pays the criminal’s “debt to society,” but it doesn’t absolve him or her of the consequences of their having committed it. This understanding of the “social contract” is rather pervasive among both Western and non-Western cultures. Indeed, even the Avoiding harm essay notes that the "do no harm" principle “does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person.” In fact, that essay’s inclusion test passes this topic, although it would tend to discourage creating articles about the two murderers (at least if that’s their only claim to notability). The main policy limit on their treatment in Wikipedia is found in WP:BLP:



In other words, it should be short, to the point, NPOV, cited to reliable sources, and without undue weight, and the way it is treated in Walter Sedlmayr appears consonant with this:



Given this, the preceding discussion, and Wikipedia’s various rules impacting this issue, there seems to be no broad-based dominant legal or moral support in favor of expunging the names of convicted felons from Wikipedia articles just because they are on parole or have served their time in prison. Indeed, the consensus (which does not mean unanimity) appears to be in line with keeping the malefactors’ names in the article on their victim, since the information is effectively in the public domain and beyond the court’s means to completely censor post facto. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Askari Mark, thank you for this well thought out post, which is refreshing! Nonetheless ;) you have not addressed how editorial judgment can cover to omit information that intrudes into an area where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also, in my opinion we shouldn't follow this essay on "do no harm" to the letter but should rather keep it's spirit. Moreover (hey I still like your post ;)) you did not address how the publics right of information might decay after an incident leaves the daily news rotation and people have served their sentence.

You are, of course, right on spot that limits on their treatment are to be found in WP:BLP as the possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement.

Can endangering rehabilitation lead to real world HARM done to a person? -> Yes.

Does omiting the names go along with a risk for public safety? According to the judge -> No.

Does public interest override our idea of "do no HARM" in every case? -> No, we wouldn't need the idea of "do no harm" (read editorial judgment) if public interest could not be restrain’d in favor of a subject's privacy where it is reasonable.

Is it reasonable TODAY to omit the names? Judge -> Yes. | You -> ? (...they broke the social contract and have no more right on privacy whatsoever?.)

Does citing old newspaper headlines and Google caches answer that question? Moi -> No ;)

Soooo, *lights a cigarette with a studied languor that Humphrey Bogart might have admired*

I got four lil questions for you ;)

1. You cited "weight the persons right of privacy against the publics right to be informed"

Why don't you do just that? ;) now instead of telling us how German jurisdiction has no effect on the English language Wikipedia or how American Law differs from German law (...which is welcome btw, you did a good job here ;))

please tell us why YOU think the privacy rights of these guys are clearly outweighed by the publics right to be informed in this particular case you know everything about thanks to Google translations of tabloid zines.

2. Do you think this Mike Godwin guy ANY editor posting here knows the case better than the judge in charge? You know the guy who personally interviewed all witnesses to understand the facts of the case... including medical and psychological opinions by experts ?

If so, why?

3. Isn't there the slightest possiblity user Ringelblume is just a disgruntled German editor who can't get her/his way on the German language Wikipedia, where such adds are currently immdiatley removed by the OTRS team and has therefore started this article here, ready to disease the article's discussion page with those names no matter the fact the supposed murderers of Walter Sedlmayr have zero notability outside Germany? What could be the motivation behind this behaviour given EVERBODY remembers these names in Germany (18 years later) like Ringelblume wants us make to believe?

4. Do you think Jimbo will be overzealously excited about the idea of having to call Mikey because he just entered German jurisdiction on some Wikipedia conference in Germany? ;) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC) title="for Zara ;)">♫


 * Fair enough, I'll bite: (1) My personal views, and those of any other editor, are irrelevant. Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and of civil law, are.

The notion that personal views are irrelevant in this discussion is just so amazingly completely wrong that it leaves me baffeled. We try to build consensus here (maybe even a new policy), so personal views are important when weighing reasonable privacy interests and ethical concerns (which are part of WP:BLP), something that can vary greatly with different cultural backgrounds. However this question aimed in another direction and that is whether or not you are in the position to judge sources facing the language barrier.

(2) Probably not, but that's irrelevant to the issue, as are the facts of the case or medical and psychological opinions by experts. The issue of whether it is a WP:BLP violation to report the names of convicted criminals is a basic one and does not - and should not - be affected by the particulars of the trials or the personalities of the criminals.

It is relevant to this issue to recognize that even a "lower court" judge in Germany does know a lot more about this case and has way more information to value privacy rights vs public interest than any editor posting here, which gives such order a lot of weight in my opinion. I'm basically just following TreasuryTag here, but see this not as a "courtsey" but more as a cogent reason when comparing my own limited knowledge about the circumstances with the possibilities of a judge in charge of things. Also psychological opinions by experts play a major role before some one is set free which directly counters some concerns from above (the sky is falling!). That Wikipedia isn't a criminal record database for foreign people of little notability is out of question. So, yes we should volunteer to respect the wishes of accredited judges abroad to use TreasuryTag's wording.

(3) I refer you to WP:AGF ... and you really don't want to go there, because one could just as readily ask why you are so passionately interested in keeping people from knowing about these names. There are thousands of articles about notorious crimes where the names of the perps are given, and there's no reason to presume that everyone who edits a true crime article does so out of suspect motives.

There are probably thousands of cases where German judges have given more weight to public interest than to the right of a criminal to disclose a name. However not in this case. due early release on parole, unclear motives and a new suspect out of country. Judges denied resumption of proceedings but set free earlier. As for WP:AGF I assume good faith as long as there is not evidence not do so. Looking at the history of Ringelblume we find two articles translated from the German Wikipedia, both featuring the full names not included there. The other edits and the constant claim to silence Zara1709 and just "move on" speak a clear language to me (as do the rants on the German article's discussion pages). Also I don't like to see editors who made some really good points getting scared away by people who scream censorship or post long offtopic rants (not Ringelblume though everything Feindstrafrecht is completely humbug) without addressing any of their arguments. As for offtopic, people often tell me that I am passionate in whatever I do... thanks ;)

(4) Jimbo's not the COO of the Foundation, wouldn't be making that call at all, and that's why you have an in-house counsel.  RGTraynor  15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter? One should not expose any member of the Wikipedia foundation to legal risks. Besides this one was really more on a humorus note than anything to lighten up the discussion :)

Conclusion: You condone how I indeed argue with BLP policies as the possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement.

Many more arguments have been made to omit the names, mainly about a decaying right of public interest, about the difference between a daily newspaper and an encyclopaedic record for eternity, about social sanctions not to be "prolonged" by a self-proclaimed anti censorship mob, about the idea of rehabilitation, about marginal notability of the subjects in question (WP:BLP1E), about media penetration Wikipedia vs print media, about the idea to respect the wishes of accredited judges in respected democratic countries and about language barriers when trying to understand the reasoning of a foreign court order.

We also have positions who argue some less drastic positions to omit the names like the observation that this information doesn't really add anything of value to this particular article as Neil put it, or a user named SheffieldSteel who said it might be a matter of common decency to comply with the German judge. Editor Guy notes these peeps have marginal to zero notability so the names could be left out, same goes for Zara1709 who sees no encyclopaedic reason for inclusion among privacy concerns. TreasuryTag argues for a policy addition even, which I'd favor too. To claim this dicussion has just ended with consensus or is a dead horse is way off.

The only thing that has indeed just ended is the idea it is possible to block consensus with offtopic rants (not you) or repeating the irrelevant fact that the Florida based Wikipedia can't be legally forced to comply with a foreign court order ad nauseam. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind commendations and provocative questions, 3vil-Lyn. No, I didn’t get into the particulars of my personal beliefs.  After all, this is not a forum, so I tried to take a dispassionate approach to framing the issue of differing interpretations of moral responsibilities versus Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines with respect to obtaining a consensus under which Wikipedia.en is obliged to follow.  Since this is not a forum, I don’t see this as the proper place for delving into personal views, as it’s a matter more of achieving consensus, which means we all give and take.  So, I hope that you will forgive me if I don’t try to carry on a personal debate here, nor attempt to posture as someone especially knowledgeable about German legal and cultural mores.  (Besides, I’m allergic to cigarette smoke, however languidly it may be enjoyed.)


 * I will point out, though, since it is relevant to the consensus regarding this issue, that “harm” and “moral weight” are relative and that any given “right” does not trump all others all of the time. I think we can agree that the harm done to the rights of Herr Sedlmayr are more grave than the prospective harm done to his murderers having to continue to carry the weight of the reputation of their crimes.  Likewise, where the greater weight will fall with regard to the person’s right of privacy versus the public’s right to be informed will vary from culture to culture.  No German court nor American court nor other court can enforce a universal declaration of this balance on all others.  Accordingly, unless and until there is a world court of universally accepted jurisdiction that can impose one, a minority German (in this instance) “determination of weight” has no ability to trump all others.  Since Wikipedia is governed by consensus, neither does it trump other traditions.  As I mentioned earlier, the German court’s ruling may (or may not – I don’t know) have bearing on Wikipedia.de, but it has none such a priori effect on Wikipedia.en.  For the latter, one would expect US law and custom to take precedence since it and its servers are domiciled there, with custom tempered by that prevailing more broadly in the English-speaking world.  And that is what forms the consensus here in this case – to whatever degree we like it or don’t.  Askari Mark (Talk) 02:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I figured I should answer you too though many points are addressed in the answer I gave RGTraynor. Just a small note, there is no need for an "universal declaration" like you call it, every case should get reviewed with all circumstances taken into account. The interrogation style questions (I hope you had some fun! ;) indeed should lead you the way to develop a certain sensibility when juding sources for BLPs and ultimately lead to the insight you might not know enough about the case to weigh the relevant wikipedia policies against each other like the German judge did in his own words (which, curiously enough, reflect ideas we worked into official Wikipedia policies).
 * By the way, the German court’s ruling has an effect on Wikipedia.de you just need to check the article in question. Too bad I have to refrain from blowing a puff of smoke in your direction now ;) Therfore I just switched the cig in favor of a multi-vitamin drop today (...one of those you can smell in a two meter distance though :) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * An interesting diff: it seems that the particular German editor went beyond what I understand is called for by German law to remove even the abbreviated names from the WP.de article.  That doesn’t tell me, though, that WP.de is legally required to partially (much less fully) excise their names.  Yes, I do concur that the German judge knows more about the case and German law than we do; I don’t think that anyone here has disputed that.  However, no matter how perfectly he or she may have applied German case law in accordance with German cultural mores, that neither mandates nor requires its observance outside of Germany.  Ipso facto, the fact that this particular German social norm is not broadly held (or enshrined in case law) among English-speaking cultures thereby does not obligate its observance through self-censorship on WP.en.


 * Just as a Gedankenexperiment, it’s interesting to consider what the full extension of the German approach should be if the criminal’s right to privacy is so strong. Doesn’t it then require the further expunging of all records of the murder, all the way to the point where Herr Sedlmayr’s death should be reported as just that and not a murder?  After all, stating that it was a case of murder only invites someone to ask questions the time-served criminal would rather not have raised at all because of their potential harm to his future quality of life.  Frankly, it’s difficult to see how such a “passive” approach to rehabilitation can be anywhere near as effective as active ones.


 * In any case, without a “universal declaration” of human rights (natural and derived) and their relative weight vis-à-vis one another, there is no mechanism (other than religion) for conveying moral obligation beyond national borders. To date, there is no universally accepted such definition, and even the partial lists promulgated by organizations like the United Nations are interpreted and weighed quite differently from one culture to another. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a quick response to this post:
 * "no matter how perfectly he or she may have applied German case law in accordance with German cultural mores, that neither mandates nor requires its observance outside of Germany". But that's completely wrong in my opinion. ;)


 * High quality sources trump tabloid stories any day. Also, the Wikipedian "anti censporship crowd" can often agree upon some pretty ridiculous claims (criminals or wrong suspects released have no right of privacy), which are very far from both expert opinion and from anything like an average of public opinion on a subject. Why would I want to put my opinion on how to weigh privacy versus public interest on a particular criminal case - I know nothing about - in a foreign language, I can't speak with the level needed to even get a grasp of the case, over that one of an expert in the field? Experts know particular topics particularly well. By paying closer attention to such court decisions, we improve our chances of getting the truth; by ignoring them and following tabloids revelations, we throw our chances to the wind.


 * " this particular German social norm" you should re-read my post ;) There are probably thousands of cases where German judges have given more weight to public interest than to the right of a criminal to disclose a name. However not in this case... (the purple text)
 * That said, the idea of "new identies" is a rather alien concept for German authorities, as far as I know they only use it on the German federal anti-terrorist unit (oookay, I asked ;)).


 * "In any case, without a “universal declaration” of human rights..." Now this would make for an interesting but sadly offtopic discussion. So I think we should refocus instead on the policies we follow here on Wikipedia and this particular case is covered by WP:BLP and it's sub policies. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "legal risk" to English wikipedia from this, because Germany has no jurisdiction in the matter. The most they could do is to somehow prohibit the German people from accessing this website. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Three points here. Keep in mind, I am not stating my POV on anything. I am only pointing out the most basic, fundamental issues of the Project that are apparently unknown to some of our editors. Please excuse my tone if it seems brusque, but, again, this is ironclad fact.


 * 1) The issue of the English Wikipedia community being legally obligated in any way, shape, or form to censor essential information based on the wishes of a German court, or any foreign court, is a non-issue. Utterly. Completely. It's not even a consensus-decided policy, subject to the approval of the community. It is a Jimbo Wales, Owner-Operator, God-King decided policy. This is crystal clear per List_of_policies and it is not up for debate. Mike Godwin is our lawyer. We are under explicit instructions from Jimbo to refer all legal issues to him. End of story. Anyone continuing to argue otherwise should be warned for disruptive editing and then blocked if they continue. Because you can't argue it away, and all you're doing is wasting our time and energy in trying to explain it to you. I'm sorry if that seems rude, but I can't say it any other way.


 * 2) The issue of English Wikipedia being morally obligated to remove the names is based on consensus-determined policy, specifically WP:NOTCENSORED. This policy is widely endorsed by the community of English Wikipedia, and forms one of our core policies. It has withstood the test of time against many, many arguments for "self-censorship" similar to this one. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED for the community's definitive statement on this subject. Again, this policy is firmly and strongly supported by community consensus and has stayed this way for the entire existence of English Wikipedia. If you wish to attempt to gain the consensus necessary to overturn a core policy, you would need to take it up on the talk page of WP:NOT, with an appropriate notice at WP:AN and WP:VP. This is how we do things here. Any decision this big would need to be made after a long discussion process involving all users in the chance to comment. And once policy is supported by consensus, it is not broken except in specific instances by Jimbo himself (please see WP:OFFICE).


 * 3) There are precisely zero arguments other than these two that matter. The material has been proven several times to have met WP:V pertaining to verifiable information. This "discussion" needs to be archived for posterity (or deleted) like the last 29 perennial legal proposals that have been raised because all you're doing is shouting at the rain. I'm getting sick of seeing people demand we change the color of the sky because blue offends them. It's not changing. Get over it. <span style="font-family:impact, serif;background:black;color:red;border-style:single;letter-spacing:1px">Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 09:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Other sources do not have to abide by our policies - something that reputable news sources can get away with may completely be in violation of any number of Wikipedia's policies such as BLP (or in this case, BLP1E and it's associated sensitivity)." -- Georgewilliamherbert (found on Star Wars kid and it spares me work :)) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal interpretation of WP:BLP in the interest of sensitivity is not an end run around 7 years of rock-hard consensus and a direct order from the guy who owns the website (and his lawyer). Arguing that merely including the names of two convicted murderers in a notable, verifiable article about the man they killed violates WP:BLP (but somehow not anything else) is specious Wiki-lawyering writ large. I encourage everyone to argue whatever they feel like they ought to, but I again say that the decision to abrogate WP:CENSOR without a long discussion and a strong consensus is completely unacceptable. No one here has the right to unilaterally decide this. Three editors on WP:AIV does not cut it. Furthermore, comparisons to the star wars kid are completely specious since no one is arguing that Manfred Lauber and Wolfgang Werlé deserve their own WP:BLP articles like the star wars kid had. <span style="font-family:impact, serif;background:black;color:red;border-style:single;letter-spacing:1px">Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 18:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter at all, but here you are: "the two perpetrators would probably be notable for an article of their own, due to the substantial publicity given to their trial and now to their efforts to have their names removed from online archives. Ringelblume (talk)" You might want to read the discussion before referring to it. Please watch your assumptive tone of speech and maybe revisit Civility, keep in mind the editors around here are not your high school buddies and might get offended. Your idea to leave Jimbo Wales a message is not all that bad though ;) But I doubt the positive learn effect by pushing this in the form of a WP:OFFICE decision instead of using the WP:BLP policy which is sufficient. Should he join in to tell us we overwork BLP here, I'll drop my magic wand and go sulk forever :P --3vil-Lyn (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bottom line: a decision to remove this information requires one of two things: a Project-wide consensus you are not even close to achieving, or the direct intervention of Jimbo in the form of WP:OFFICE. Your chances of achieving the first are infintesimal at best, so I'd suggest you all save your breath. As for the second, why not email him or leave a note on his talk page at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales? Any action conducted to remove the names outside of those two decisions is a violation of hard consensus-endorsed policy and will be reverted. I hope this helps cut through the 99kb of bullshit. <span style="font-family:impact, serif;background:black;color:red;border-style:single;letter-spacing:1px">Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 18:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not ending the debate like this
The moral aspect: (SKIP THIS SECTION IF YOU DON'T CARE)

I've being considering of giving up this issue for days now, put I am currently not inclined to do so. Specifically since 3vil-Lyn's comment in the edit summary: ("If I were to cut myself off from those of my brethren who sin, I would be alone." --Solomon ibn Gabirol) reminded my of why I have such strong views on this in the first place. A week ago User:Ringelblume linked on this page a German article on Feindstrafrecht. Currently I am wondering whether that article quotes Jean-Jacques Rousseau correctly, because I fail to see what permanent damage a crime does to the social contract. A crime, a murder certainly, does permanent damage to its victim, but does this mean that the perpetrator has set himself PERMANENTLY outside the civil society? Can't society as a whole (not the victim of the crime) forgive the criminal? The social contract is more than the individual; In what way it is offended by a crime committed against one individual. Voltaire argued that a human being cannot offend God, if he murders his neighbour; This is a offence against his neighbour, not an offence against God. If the link between the concepts of "social contract" and " friend or foe" is made, would this mean that it was an accurate description of the theory of Thomas Hobbes to say: "The Leviathan is not God. God forgives." ?

To continue the argument I would bring in Hannah Arendt on the importance of forgiveness in politics, .. but apparently I can't attempted to solve a debate that permeates modern philosophy of law.

Outside the moral aspect:(CONTINUE TO READ HERE.) But I never attempted to justify the removal of the full names here with a moral argument anyway. I have stated that there are moral/legal/whatever reasons to respect a persons right of privacy, but I never argued that Wikipedia would morally obligatedto remove their names. On the other hand, I have found myself with the impression that several people demand the inclusion of those names for the somehow moral reason that they are dangerous criminals and the public needs to be warned about them. And in this case I am saying. No, this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Tabloids do that, but Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The argument that has been brought by Askari Mark deserves some consideration here: He quotes from wp:blp: "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.", but then I don't see how he takes the second sentence about privacy into account. That tabloids "spread of titillating claims about people's lives" is a given. What is problematic is the other aspect: The tabloids obviously see some news value in the identity of two former murderers, 18 years after the crime. This is what led to the court decision in the first place. Now, you can't be saying that everything that is in the news (and for which therefore reliable sources can be found) should be included in WP. (NOT) Despite this long debate I am still waiting for the editor who argues that there is an encyclopaedic value in giving their full names that outweighs the respect for their privacy. I am not saying that the "respect for privacy" outweighs all other aspects. I am saying that it weights more than the marginal encyclopaedic value that would be gained from giving the full names in this case.

Concerning the Gedankenexperiment done by Askari Mark: If you scroll though you will see that I actually provided a quote from the court decision that explicitly stated that archives have to be left alone.

But let me do one, too. If ca. 20 years ago a person murdered someone, probably even a small child. The murderer would be notable anyway, aside from the crime, but the crime itself doesn't have it's own article. And now the family of victim would kindly request on the talk page that the victim's name was removed. Could you deny it? Or, say, they evoked a court decision against a tabloid who did a sensationalist article that gave the identity of the victim. If someone pointed to that court decision and suggested that the full name should be removed, would you agree? I don't suppose that there would be a consensus not to remove the full name, then. What is difficult to see is not the "respect for privacy". The difficulty lies purely in the understanding of the concept of "forgiveness" or social rehabilitation.

The reason why this debate appears to be an "argument against the rain" is that these questions (of "forgiveness" and "social rehabilitation") are morally controversial. The reason is not that the application of wp:blp (privacy) is difficult. This is not a case of "Wiki-lawyering" and it should be very well possible to achieve a consensus here. After all, there is a consensus on this on the German Wikipedia. And as fas as I know, there is currently no legal order against the German Wiki on this. The only ones who should hold their breath in this debate are those who are of the opinion that criminals don't have a right of privacy. Zara1709 (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no "moral aspect". If the guy who was murdered is notable, then the guys who killed him are fair game for naming. German courts have no jurisdiction over the English wikipedia, and their highly questionable social experimentation with giving murderers "privacy rights", as if they were somehow victims themselves, is of no concern to wikipedia. The repeated citation of a quote about sinners implies that all crime or "sin" is equivalent to murder, or that murder is no worse than other "sins". Wrong - and, again, irrelevant to wikipedia policies. "Forgiveness" is also irrelevant to wikipedia policy. The inclusion of the names of murderers of a notable person is perfectly in line with wikipedia policy, and hence it has implied consensus. There is no consensus for the arguments you're making. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FOR THE LEAST TIME: THE GERMAN COURT ORDER IS NOT TH REASON WHY THE FULL NAMES NEED TO BE REMOVED. We only have to be clear on question whether the marginal encyclopaedic value that is gained from mentioning their names does outweigh their right of privacy. And mentioning their names IS NOT "perfectly in line wikipedia policy"! On the German Wikipedia the consensus is the other way round! Zara1709 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And for not the least but hopefully the last time, it has been explained in depth, farther up the page, why the inclusion of the names of the killers is appropriate within policy, and why there is no policy-based reason for not including them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * NO; NOBODY in this discussion EVEN ATTEMPTED TO ARGUE THAT the encyclopaedic value of giving their full names would outweigh the necessary "regard for the subject's privacy" WHICH IS POLICY. Closest was Askari Mark, who wrote yesterday: "I will point out, though, since it is relevant to the consensus regarding this issue, that “harm” and “moral weight” are relative and that any given “right” does not trump all others all of the time. I think we can agree that the harm done to the rights of Herr Sedlmayr are more grave than the prospective harm done to his murderers having to continue to carry the weight of the reputation of their crimes."
 * That the two aspects that are to be weighted are relative to each other is a given. However, since we can described the event of the murder without giving the full names of the perpetrators, the encyclopaedic importance of giving them tends towards nil. Respects for privacy does not "trump all other" aspects always, but it trumps here. But when you are writing "we can agree that the harm done to the rights of Herr Sedlmayr are more grave than the prospective harm done to his murderers having to continue to carry the weight of the reputation of their crimes" or something similar you are bringing in a principle that alien to Wikipedia. "Do not harm" applies to anyone, regardless of his personal history and background. If you follow a notion of retributive justice and want to harm former criminals by keeping their names public, you can feel free to do it, BUT YOU CAN'T DO IT ON WIKIPDEDIA! I (really) don't care if you make a copy of the article, with full names, and host it in you personal webspace; In that case you probably only shouldn't chose a provider from Germany. On you personal webspace you are only required to follow the legislation of the server's location. On Wikipedia the articles have to follow Wikipedia's POLICIES, and although those are sometimes difficult to apply, there definitely is no policy on retributive justice (like wp: do harm) and there is a policy on privacy, namely wp:blp. Considering that the article could easily do without giving the full names of the murderers, giving these names is a violation of BLP. Zara1709 (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If their names are verifiable, then there is no privacy issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, this case is not completely comparable, but concerning this aspect it is: It took me 2 minutes to find a reliable source for the name of the Star Wars kid. Should I go and add it to the article? Zara1709 (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is he a convicted criminal who harmed a notable person? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Privacy rights don't apply to criminals? --Conti|✉ 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not if they are of legal age and the facts are publicly available. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the users RGTraynor and Bullzeye explained this much better than I can. I would like to be done with this endless loop. Read what they've said. If you have further questions, read it again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Only in a truly sick-sad world would an English language encyclopedia based in the United States feel compelled to delete the names of convicted German murderers to comply with German legal customs, to avoid hurting the feelings of the convicted murderers. Refer this to Mike Godwin, who is empowered to make such legal determinations. Edison2 (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As a bit of a (related) theory question, what would be the wikipedia policy on a WP editor revealing the new identity of a convicted murderer who had served their sentence, and had their name changed to protect them from vigilante attacks, in a case such as the killers of James Bulger? Bradley10 (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Different cases, different factors. I ain't no lawyer, but I know a trap when I see one. You should pose that kind of question to the legal eagle, as mentioned above. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's relevant - because the reason their names were changed, and the press disallowed from revealing their new identities, should they come to light, is the high probability of vigilante action towards them because of the shocking nature of the crime. The same applies for Maxine Carr. I'm not suggesting that these cases are identical (and indeed, this case seems to suggest that the two men in question have not had their names changed), but the fact that Wikipedia could carry information that could cause someone to 'take the law into their own hands' makes me a bit uneasy about the issue. Bradley10 (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not originate information, it must come from reliable sources, so wikipedia would not, by itself reveal their new names, they would already have to be publicly known. Meanwhile, if the German guys' names were legally changed and that fact was kept legally secret, then the cases would be a little closer to being similar. Note that the article about the two British kids, Murder of James Bulger, does have the perps original names in it, just as with the article about the adult German murderers. Meanwhile, ordinary free speech and free press are not subject to suppression based on "what if" situations. Free speech and free press can only be suppressed under "clear and present danger" situations, and that is not the case with the German adults. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * note: as for the Murder of James Bulger the two boys were given new identities. Moreover "The Manchester Evening News" was found guilty of contempt of court and fined £30,000 as well as being ordered to pay costs of £120,000 for naming the secure institutions in which the pair were housed, in breach of the injunction against press publicity. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Now talk about strong viewpoints in a debate. Quote: "Only in a truly sick-sad world would..." Well, I say that denying someone his rights or disrespecting him because he is a former criminal (they spent 15 and 17 years in prison, in case you haven't noticed) is not democratic, and, considering the importance of forgiveness in the Judeo-Christian tradition, not particularly Christian. But the attempt to persuade you of my viewpoint would most likely be futile. Fortunately, though, our personal views are of secondary relevance, as are the legal customs in Germany and the United States. "Free speech" against "right of privacy" are weighted differently in different countries. But you can't possibly be wanting to tell me that you can't be sued in the U.S. for making false claims about another person. This is different, since it is not about privacy, but free speech is limited in the U.S., too. But this is not about your free speech anyway. I've told you, if you want, you are free to put up an a version of the article with the full names of the murderers in you personal webspace. There is nothing I would do about it, and there is also not much that could be done legally against it - unless your server is in Germany. On Wikipedia, though, content has to follow the policies. Wikipedia has a policy on privacy wp:blp, which would demand that the full names are to be left out. Because there is no reason the include their names, anyway, since the description of the event can very well do without that. No one in this long discussion has disputed that. People were just voicing their viewpoint, that Wikipedia's policy on privacy would for some obscure reason not apply to former murderers (several people also missed the distinction between a murderer and a former murderer who has been released from prison.) Hey, I admit that this is a debatable moral standpoint and I disagree with you here, but since there is no Wikipedia policy that former murderers should be treated differently from everyone else, this moral debate is rather irrelevant. You can just keep repeating the argument that 'criminals shouldn't have a right of privacy' as long as you like, Wikipedia can't really treat criminals and former criminals differently from everybody else. If you want Wikipedia to do this, you should be trying to draft a new policy. Or start your own project, if you like. Unless you bring in a completely new line of argument, you are bound by Wikipedia's policies, the application thereof not being censorship (as being said previously), and since Wikipeida doesn't treat former criminals differently, for respecting their privacy, their full names need to be removed. Zara1709 (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The BLP policy mandates a respect for personal privacy, especially in matters where generally not notable individuals (those who, for example, are only known due to a single event and its subsequent press coverage) are caught up in notable events. The event of murder of Walter Sedlmayr is notable - the suspects of murder now released on parole (German translation of "Tatverdächtige" like it is currently stated on the German language Wikipedia!) themselves are not. They remain low profile individuals in this particular case. When the name of a private individual has been intentionally concealed (like with the German court decision on future media coverage), it is reasonable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. The removal is covered by editorial judgment in favor of privacy, as the possibility of recklessly endangering rehabilitation and doing harm to living subjects, who might even be victims rather than bad-ass perpetrators easily trumps the idea of public interest and "encyclopedic completeness".

Also, Zara made an excellent post pointing out that wiki-administered justice based on the idea that society needs to be warned about the subjects in questions is uncalled for.

A sidenote on notability. Editors should bear in mind that intense media coverage alone does not confer notability on a criminal, victim, or let alone suspect. Wikipedia NOT#NEWS policy requires editors to consider the historical notability of persons and events and it suggests that a short burst of news reports about an event or person does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability.

The BLP1E policy and idea of editorial judgment in favor of a reasonable expectation of privacy came from Jimbo, have been supported by the Board and the Foundation legal department, OTRS staff, Arbcom, and Administrators as a whole. It's settled policy, and part of the BLP policy. Not everyone likes all aspects of BLP, but it's the Law here. It applies here on the names. That's how it stands. For further information I'll point to WP:BLP and it's sub policies. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Other editors have already explained why it is valid to include the names of the pepretrators. The privacy argument is irrelevant because the information is publicly available. The moral arguments (on either side) have nothing to do with anything except personal opinions. The notability argument is answered by the assertion that the crime is notable. The only reason not to include the info is out-and-out censorship. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * NO, Baseball Bugs, I HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGE COMMENT ON THIS TALK PAGE that argued that there was an encyclopaedic value that outweighs the respect for the privacy of these persons. The reason not to include their full names is WP:BLP, according to which articles have to be written "regard for the subject's privacy". Zara1709 (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Their names are public, the case is notable, and their names are facts in the case. There is no privacy issue here. That's a bogus issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"THEY EVOKED A COURT DECISION THAT THEIR NAMES ARE NOT TO BE MENTIONED" - there is no need to scream. This is not Nazi Germany and I couldn't care less what some ridiculous and irrelevant German judge whose jurisdiction does not include Wikipedia says about this. It's the (erratic) POV of some foreigner. This is Wikipedia, an American encyclopedia only subject to American law. End of discussion. Urban XII (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The crux of the matter
What this ridiculously long debate seems to boil down is, when WP:BLP collides with WP:V, which one trumps the other? IMHO (and I don't expect to contribute to this discussion again) is that BLP allows for the inclusion of negative and potentially harmful information as long as it can be cited to a reliable source. Thus, the names stay.  howcheng  {chat} 18:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These two policies are semantically different, so at a basic philosophical level they cannot collide -- Verifiability is a low bar that all information must pass if it is to stay. Wikipedia is not, and has never been, a repository for all verifiable information, even about major and important people/places/events.  BLP is a relatively high bar that information about living people should pass if it is to stay; the two work in tandem, and if either line is crossed information can or should be left out.  +sj + 08:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not quite. I would be rather surprised if, according to wp:V all material on which there are reliable sources, was mandatory to be included in Wikipedia. The answer to the question if some material should be included depends on the editorial judgement in every case. AND STILL NO ONE HAS ATTEMPTED TO SAY FOR WHAT ENCYCLOPAEDIC REASON THE FULL NAMES NEED TO BE INCLUDED. WP:BLP doesn't collide with anything here, because there is no reason to include the names in the first place. IF THE NAMES STAY, IT IS A WP:BLP VIOLATION. I, too, would like to move on, but this has taken too much effort already that I could agree to close the debate now. Zara1709 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a fact of a notable case, therefore it's valid to include it. And it's public knowledge, so the "privacy" issue is moot. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Valid to include" simply means "is not excluded without further consideration". This is not an argument to keep; and noone is arguing that V is a reason to exclude here. +sj +


 * Really, I can describe the case without giving the full names: See, all done. Zara1709 (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear howcheng, in my humble point of view, this a crass avoidance of the privacy aspect of the WP:BLP policy. I wonder if you really read the discussion you call "ridiculously long"? You might also want to hop over to the Star Wars kid talk page and apply your logic there. I reopened the discussion and requested a review from Jimbo Wales on his talk page as suggested by user Bullzeye. I consider it quite important for future cases. Also, I really can't read these small letters on my notebook. Once the discussion got reviewed it can be closed again. I hope everybody can hold that long.


 * Thank you. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The names are public knowledge. There is no privacy issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So help me, yes I did in fact read the entire long discussion which involved people making many of the same arguments repeatedly. User:Lid made the best analysis of what the issue is: "We have two individuals who have performed a notable act against a notable individual, their names can be sourced reliably and it is known information. That is all there is to it and that is all there is to see as to why the information should be included. –– Lid(Talk) 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)" Everything else that was discussed is simply noise that clouds the basic issue at hand.  howcheng  {chat} 02:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In this debate, I perceived the "crux of the matter" to be the question, whether criminals (or former criminals) have a right of privacy. The "crux", if you want, was the question whether society should forgive them. On the underlying discussion, that, given the regard for the persons' privacy, another reason would weight more than it, I didn't write a specific reply. (Although I remarked a lot on it on the way.)

Obviously, wp:blp (privacy) can't be in conflict with wp:V, because the later only mandates that information on Wikipedia is verifiable, but doesn't mandate when to include information in Wikipedia. (It only says NOT to include information that is not verifiable.) I would agree though, that wp:blp has to be weighted against wp:N. But what does wp:N say in this case? "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The person of Walter Sedlmayr certainly is notable, and there are certainly enough reliable sources on the topic of his murder. But the two former murderers themselves aren't notable, at least currently. If there was a biography of them or if they had the nerve to appear on talkshows, that would be different. This only leaves us with the question if within the encyclopaedic coverage of the murder, we need to give the full names of the perpetrators. But what relevant information are we loosing when we omit them? Their family names don't have anything to do with their possible motives for the murder, neither with sequence of events of the crime (Tathergang), nor with the police investigation, nor with their trial; The court proceedings should easily be found with the name "Sedlmayr" at the disposal of the reader. It is possible that I might have overlooked something here, but frankly, I don't think so. If I haven't, then there is only wp:blp (privacy) to consider; In either case we should be able to finish the discussion now quite fast. Zara1709 (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think the crime at hand has almost anything to do with the fundamental issue here... if these were participants of any sort in any notable event who wanted their names to remain private, and who had this wish upheld by a court somewhere in the world, we would be in the same boat. Should Wikipedia recognize court rulings about when it is socially appropriate to share information?  Should WP exercise original judgement about this?  It feels like the original research debates of long ago.  +sj + 08:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sirhan Sirhan isn't "notable" either, but he committed a notable crime, so he's named in the RFK article. The crime is notable, his name is a fact in the case, and it's public knowledge, therefore it's reasonable to include it in the article, and the privacy issue... how many times have I said this... is irrelevant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Baseball Bugs, I already commented on that example a week ago or so. If you check the article on Sirhan Sirhan, you will see that there is a biography of him available online. There you can read: "Sirhan Bishara Sirhan was born March 19, 1944, in Jerusalem, Palestine, the fifth son of Bishara and Mary (Muzher). The family practiced Jordanian Christianity, ..." and so on. We neither know where Manfred L. and Wolfgang W. were born, were they grew up, what their family situation was (aside from the point that they were half-brothers), whether they were Protestant or Catholic, etc.. From the online sources currently used in the article we don't even know their age - only some other guy who has been suspected of the crime, too, was said to be 44 years old in an article from 2005. So their are no reliable sources that cover those two persons; Without coverage they are not notable. The only thing that has been covered is the murder. If you think that Manfred L. and Wolfgang W. are notable, then we can solve this like any afd on a biographical article. You simply have to find enough sources to show that they are notable in accordance with Notability (people). But since there is apparently not even a source that gives their dates of birth, they would fall under the negative criteria of wp:V. If the only information we have on these two people is that they were convicted of having murdered a Bavarian actor (and that they are half-brothers), they aren't notable. Zara1709 (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And the only reason anything is known about Sirhan is due to the notoriety of the murder. He is still not notable by himself, it's just that there's been enough research on him to allow for an article. You keep looking for an excuse to hide the names of these murderers, as if they were somehow "victims". If the case is notable, then the facts of the case are notable, including the names of the killers, even if the killers themselves are not notable by themselves (and hence no separate articles about them). There is no factual justification for hiding their names. The names are public knowledge, and there is no privacy issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the current draft of Notability (criminal acts) the issue you are aiming at should be included as the question when a criminal becomes notable for the crime itself. That guideline is still in the process of being worked out (which will very likely take a lot more time), but obviously criminals fall under the same notability rules as everything else in Wikipedia, namely wp:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources ... it is presumed to be notable." These two persons, as a separate topic compared to the murder, have not received significant coverage in reliable sources (unless we are somehow missed a lot of sources here.) So, they are not notable. If you disagree, you a free to search more sources. Of course, wp:N doesn't say much about the content of an article. However, if I understand wp:V correctly, it is only a negative content policy, meaning, if there isn't a reliable source on something, don't add it to an article. For the coverage of the murder (and even the trial) the full names of the perpetrators are not required. (And for the 20st-time or so. wp:blp, and also the point that wp:not for scandal mongering, would require that their names are left out.) And if you don't want go this through by policy and guidelines, why don't you just tell me why you think that the names of (non-notable) former convicted murderers belong into an encyclopaedia? Because the fact that they were convicted of murder alone doesn't make them notable. Even in Germany, which it's in comparison to the U.S. rather restrictive gun laws, there are over 100 murders each year (I suppose, don't actually know the statistics.) Most of these case we don't need to cover at Wikipedia at all. Mainly only those where the victim is notable, draw enough attention, and the victim, as being notable, has an article anyway or could have one. To say someone is notable by himself because he's a killer (or at least was convicted of being one, in this case even this is not clear) doesn't make any sense. It's not me who keeps looking for "an excuse hide the names of these [former, convicted] murderers", it is you who keeps looking for an excuse to include them. Zara1709 (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The names are facts of the case, and there is no reason to exclude them except for censorship, which is against policy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) We seem to be going in circles. We have Zara1709 and 3vil-Lyn arguing for privacy, something that the other contributors to this thread have not found convincing. Consensus, two editors excepted, is to leave the names in. In the last few days, nobody has stepped forward to edit the actual article in question either. Can we close this, or does anybody have anything new to say? justinfr (talk/contribs) 15:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, we surely can't close this and keep the article as it is. There simply wasn't a point in editing the article as long as it would be reverted anyway. And, as far as I remember this long discussion, no one except Baseball Bugs in another recent two-liner argued that this wasn't a privacy issue. There broadly was an agreement that this is a privacy issue, only other editors hold that there were reasons that would outweigh the "regard for privacy". I've mainly spent the last few days going through them, and since I didn't get a reply, I think that I can say that I have disproved them. The only one who is "going in circles" here is Baseball Bugs who AGAIN brought in the censorship argument, which as already been refuted several times by referring to What Wikipedia is not, which precisely says "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy...will also be removed. ". Now either 1) someone brings forward an editorial reason why the full names need to be included (what encyclopaedic information do they contain?, wp:V or wp:N alone aren't sufficient) 2) some can convince me (or 3vil-Lyn) that there is a fault in my argumentation 3) or someone brings in a new argument; If not, then I think I can say that by the argument (not by vote) the outcome of this discussion is that the full names need to be removed. And then we only have to figure out if they have to be removed from the edit history, too. Zara1709 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Zara1709, this has been at ANI and received quite widespread coverage for several days, many many people have reviewed this issue. I would strongly urge you to drop it and move on.  At this point, your behavior is approaching disruption and you really need to disengage from this article and edit elsewhere for the time being.  MBisanz  talk 17:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In course of this discussion Zara invested a great deal of thought in this and I am very thankful for it, as it's a cause worth fighting for. I think it quite clear neither Zara nor I fight here for 10 letters on a Bavarian film actor, I for once never heard of ;) In my estimation, backed up by this one court decision, we should not do away with WP:BLP and WP:Harm so quick, and of course we shouldn't disrespect expert opinion (->German judges) either.

While today a many become admins with pure maintenance edits and vandal fighting, there is a certain danger some of these type of editor forget about the spirit of the BLP policies and really try to follow them to the letter unable to weigh them against each other, lacking the most basic understanding behind their reasoning. WP:BLP and especially the idea of do no harm isn't a black and white logic like image copyright. It requires a certain sensibility. When nowerdays even OTRS volunteers struggle, then the time to raise some consciousness for the issues at hand is well invested.

I do hope Jimbo Wales finds the time to read this long discussion. Reading alone won't do though as it needs quite some time for reflection to mentally soak through.

But WP:BLP must be defended here, and strongly, otherwise we can forget about editorial judgment where it is reasonable to omit information for privacy reasons.

There is no general rule to apply here, each murder case needs to be reviewed with the wiki policies a new; and foreign court decisions from respected democratic countries lead the way, they trump any tabloid source there is. There is no point comparing a legal system like in Germany with China as one editor did. This is also not the last case, as I already discovered a pattern with certain editors who got booted from the German language Wikipedia for their no censorship ramblings. Besides, how can some discussion in evacuated namespace be considered disruptive? We need way more editors like Zara, who not only contributes great wiki articles, but also has a lot to say about policies. I know much less about the inner workings of the English Wikipedia. I do have a legal education background though and could "in theory" (read on paper ;)) defend a German citizen or even a Spanish one (if I'm nuts ;)) in a court.

Some people tried to cut off this discussion again and again with snidely remarks. MBisanz, if you feel the need to qualify your commentary, by all means. I object however to absolutisms in debate or creating a poisonous atmosphere waving this disruptive editor flag when there is no need too. BTW, I blame cookie crumbs in my notebook for all the typos, please do not think I do it to provoke you or something ;) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions and analyses in this discussion, btw. They have livened what might otherwise just be an edit war.  +sj + 08:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no way you are accusing me of being disruptive here. Nothing I have done can possibly fall under the category, bec of Disruptive editing, because I haven't done any significant editing at all. Or did I miss something and discussing is the same as editing here? What am I supposed to disrupt? I am not even disputing the wp:ani, since you had the good idea of moving the discussion to this sub page, for which I am really thankful. I think I don't need to explain to Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that wp:consensus is not the same as the outcome of a vote. I can give you a quote, to make sure: "In determining consensus carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves, including the evolution of the final positions, the objection of those who disagree, and in complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority." As far as I see it, I have the superior argument here. This is a complex issue, and it is possible the there is an error in my line of argument that invalidates it. But in this case, you should be attempting to show me that error. The "regard for privacy" is difficult to weight against other things that are to be regarded, but I think that I have shown that, after almost two weeks of discussion, that, on closer inspection, there aren't any encyclopaedic reasons for keeping those full names. The only reason to keep them are either 1) Wikipedia must not regard the privacy of former criminals, in which case you should be drafting a new policy by now, or 2) that this is an interesting detail about that should be kept, although it isn't part of the actual subject matter of the article. In either case I think it will be for the better of Wikipedia if the removal of the full names can be pushed through. The notion that criminals don't have rights has with good reason disappear from the modern penal system (although there is evidence that it is coming back, and there are still debates about this in the philosophy of law); The notion that personal details, which are unnecessary from the viewpoint of an encyclopaedia, would belong into an article could turn Wikipedia sooner or later into an wp:soapbox. Many people find them interesting, but I think that this is something that should be left to the tabloids. Especially considering that Wikipedia is on the way of becoming the worlds most important online reference, if it isn't that already. Seriously, we don't need that power over other persons lives. If they are not notable, and would like to remain private, they should.


 * Of course, there wouldn't be any point in arguing like this, if this was only my viewpoint. No one (not even me) is so confident that he can be convinced that it is worth arguing something when he isn't supported by anyone. But I am not standing alone here. If either User:TreasuryTag or User:3vil-Lyn tell me that they changed their mind, and that the full names should be kept, I will back up from this discussion.


 * Furthermore, 3vil-Lyn already asked Jimbo Wales on his opinion on this. Basically, since he founded Wikipedia, he would be the only authority figure that I trust more than my own mind when it comes to editorial questions at Wikipedia. If he he makes an substantiated comment on this talk page, I would be willing to accept his opinion (whatever that might be).


 * But surely I am not scared when I am being called 'disruptive'. If you really think so, then start an rfc for user conduct, but don't close this debate. Zara1709 (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you likewise for your contributions and analyses. +sj + 08:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The information is verifiable, thus meets WP:V and WP:BLP. I did a browse through (letters A-C) and came up with a half-dozen similar examples of articles about murder victims where (1) the offender has now been released and (2) the offender is mentioned in the article. I did not find a single article where the offender's name has been redacted for privacy:
 * Bonnie Garland murder case (Richard Herrin)
 * Ted Binion (Sandy Murphy and Rick Tabish--acquitted actually)
 * Lyman Bostock (Leonard Smith)
 * Paul Broussard (10 offenders, all named)
 * Susan Cabot (Timothy Scott Roman)
 * Vincent Chin (Ronald Ebens & Michael Nitz)

Presumably those offenders would like second chances too. Should we also remove those names and delete their articles' edit histories? Precident, policy, and consensus all support including names on the Sedlmayer article. justinfr (talk/contribs) 20:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Verifiability has nothing to do with meeting BLP standards. It seems to me that a standard of "has extensively been written about (not simply mentioned in association with an event" is a reasonable one for determining when people associated with a notable event should have their full names and other information published against their explicit wishes.  Again, this is not about crime; it is about a more general principle about individual privacy.  +sj + 08:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there evidence in any of these cases that the former murderer (if he's released) would like to remain private? If he or his lawyer would kindly request on the talk page of the article the full names of the murderer should be removed, should Wikipedia do it, then? In this case, their lawyer evoke a court decision against tabloids and newpapers that interdicted that they give their names. Regardless of whether the German Wikipedia was legally bound to follow that decision, their FIRST and last names were removed there from the article and the edit history cleared. However, there isn't much point of having the names removed at the German WP if they are still in the English WP. This case has brought me to the conclusion, that any non-notable person, when there is no editorial reason to include their full name, can request the we anonymize him. I don't see any difference between a case where someone would request that on the talk page and this one, where a court decision was obtained for it. Sooner or later there will be cases where someone who is related to some tragic incident and whose story is abused by the tabloids will make a press conference and state that he doesn't want to be brought up in relation to this incident. If that person is not notable (only the incident is) I don't want to discuss this then. If in any of the cases you have just listed the murderer(s) are released and request their last names to be removed from Wikipedia, we should do it, assuming they are not notable themselves and they article can easily do without their last name(s).


 * Of course, on this level, this is debatable. And if several other editors value privacy so low that they can honestly say that they wouldn't even remove the last names there was such a case on a murder victim, well, then I will still disagree, but not pursue this issue further. Zara1709 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Justinfr, the Bonnie Garland murder case had historical significance and an impact on how some American legal philosophers view murders and murderers today. There was extensive media coverage on Murphy and Tabish' private life, the dwarf Timothy Scott Roman is already dead and Ronald Ebens is covered even by his own wiki BLP. What the German judges did in our case would compare to an American court giving out new identities (since this concept is alien to German authorities they rather restrict media coverage; they also do not always let privacy outweigh public interest, see e.g. the abduction of Jakub Fiszman), and you won't tell me in a thousand years that some one would put such information on Wikipedia without consequences. Besides there is no consensus on the Sedlmayer article at all, also, when a section is in violation of WP policies consensus is not needed for removal. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Suffice to say I disagree that this is equivalent to revealing somebody's new identity. We only report what's already out there. I also disagree with your assessment that there's a violation of BLP policies. If the information remains it's de facto agreement that there has been no violation. BLP doesn't prevent negative information, only unsourced negative information. justinfr (talk/contribs) 23:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reasoning behind restricting media coverage is the very same, and it's this very reasoning you ignore. Besides, why should we value an amateur opinion on a foreign law case above a court decision in a country like Germany first place? No offense, but we don't do so on other completely unrelated topics either.


 * You might want to read WP:BLP again: " The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
 * I will bow out of this discussion for now, as it does not make sense ;) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another example of a name not being kept private is Katelyn Faber, the woman who accused Kobe Bryant of rape. As is customary in the U.S., rape victims names are not normally revealed for privacy reasons (and it's the law too IIRC), but once she filed a civil suit against him under her own name, then it became public knowledge and thus fair game. Star Wars kid is an altogether different case. He was a minor at the time, and another aspect is that his infamy came to him through no fault of his own; had his "friends" not posted that video, he would have remained just some other kid.  howcheng  {chat} 02:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there was a longer discussion at Talk:Kobe Bryant sexual assault case whether Katelyn F.'s name should be redacted. Without going into the details of that discussion. If I understand tort of public disclosure, (as it has been linked in this discussion) correctly, in the United States there isn't anything that you can legally do against your name being published when there are public records on it; If Katelyn F.'s lawyer was any good he would have informed about that before she filed the civil lawsuit. So as soon as the civil lawsuit was filed, the newspapers were legally allowed to give her full name. But why should Wikipedia necessarily follow the example of newspapers? If there isn't an editorial reason to give the full name of a non-notable person (I am nor sure whether that would be the case with Katelyn F.), Wikipedia might as well anomynize that person. This doesn't mean that we have to anomynize all not-notable persons when there isn't an editorial reason to give their names; Most people probably won't care about this. Many people actually want to become known publicly. But some people would like to remain anonymous, and will make that, in turn, known to the public. And in that case, I think I can say that blp would mandate that we anomynize that person. And I am with 3vil-Lyn here when I think that this German court decision is quite a strong indication that those people value their privacy very much. Now I know that several other editors here don't understand the concept of Rehabilitation (penology), but that aside. German law actually allows a Court to order newspapers to remove the full names from their online articles. It even allows to interdict the airing of a docu-drama on a case when that would diminish the chances of social rehabilitation. Though highly controversial, that was a decision of the highest German court. So, this is somehow comparable to cases in the U.K. (and probably from the U.S.) where former criminals were given new identities to protect them from the tabloids and allow their social rehabilitation. Zara1709 (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To compare an alleged rape victim to murderers who are in no way "victims", is highly offensive. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

section break 3
Dear howcheng, I came to the conclusion that it would be unfriendly to just bow out and wait without answering you, since it was me who said you should take a look at Star wars kid. And you did! So you really took an interest in getting this done right ;)

Okay, let's get the Katelyn Faber case out of the way first, as she did not file an injunction not to be mentioned. She did not exercise any right to informational self-determination, nor did some judge weigh any personality rights against public interest to restrict future media coverage (like with the German court decision), nor does all this really compare with the heavy hitter that is social rehabilitation of a former murderer or suspect of murder.

The crux is, if you follow user Lid here, you have to include the name also on Star Wars kid, it doesn't matter anymore if some one is guilty or not guilty (which shouldn't matter anyway - as criminals DO have rights) or if you get "caught up in an event" or do a crime with firm intention, nor if you are a minor or an adult, nor if it's your or somebody elses' fault. According to Lid it just matters whether or not a person does, is or becomes notable and we have a reliable source.

Luckily, many Wikipedians have recognized that such an approach is NOT suitable, as we have to take into account:

- the encyclopedic and historical value of an entry

- the notability of an event (e.g. crime) versus the notability of the personas themselves

- the idea that some information, even if reliably sourced, could cause big harm to an individual while having little or no value for the reader at all. I often subsume this under editorial judgment.

(just take a look at the ongoing discussion on pornstar names here)

- the idea (I try to defend here) that a judge can weigh personal privacy rights versus public interest better than anyone outside with no legal education unaware of all facts relevant to such a decision.

That's why we should respect expert opinion in my humble point of view rather than call it "kiss up".

(OFFTOPIC: Of course this can lead to problems with none democratic regimes who are doing their best to preserve their power. But honestly, no war-monger in Africa would give a flying hoot about privacy rights, so there won't be any such well thought out decisions on a level an American or European court might promulgate them)

- the idea to not viciously undermine the efforts of a foreign language Wikipedia to comply with such an order, which might ultimately discredit the Wikipedia brand over some completely unnecessary information. No one gains anything from knowing the last names of these peeps in this particular case, nor does it distort the article in any way to leave then out, it just endangers their rehabilitation. Since these people remained low profile individuals they are not notable (not to speak of historical significance), which allows to omit or partially anonymize their names when describing the event.

- the idea that every human has a right to informational self-determination. Some paraphrase this as a reasonable expectation of privacy.

What this means is you cannot expect privacy if you become one of history's most influential serial killers, or... more likely, voluntarily abdicate your privacy rights.

(e.g. using your real name instead of your artist handle in interviews or notable projects. However this excludes ill luck like getting involved in a car accident and having your birth name published without consent in some tabloid just for the sensation to disclose something. Consent is the keyword here, if something like the later happens you can still exercise your privacy rights - they are not suddenly taken away from you because of an unauthorized publication)

However you can become a notable person and still exercise your privacy right to keep your real name disclosed. Even a publication without consent won't take that right away from you, as you can take legal action against the perpetrator and forbid any future publication.

- the not-that-easy-realization that the public's right to information on a certain subject can decay! A criminal can be talk of the town today, but privacy rights might outweigh public interest years later after having served a sentence.

- the realization that reasonable editorial judgment won't endanger the consistency of this encyclopedia but rather add to a generally [ http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article3866927.ece positive public reception.]

Phew, I think I’ve done my duty for the moment --3vil-Lyn (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a good summary (though it could be compressed ;) . The crucial point here is that a body tasked with evaluating social concerns has recommended not sharing certain information, and that Wikipedians are trying to decide independently what information should be shared.  I don't think that this should be WP's role -- we should not be a source for original social commentary or original decision-making about privacy.  Since WP is hundreds or thousands of times more popular than most other pages floating about on the web, any information that is not really broadly available elsewhere is far less "published" when it is not on the current WP page than when it is.  I would recommend a rule of thumb that if Wikipedia publishing information results in dramatically enhanced broadcasting of a fact, it is "original amplification" of that fact, with many of the same side effects of original publication of information that has not previously been published by a reputable source. +sj + 08:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The case is regarded as notable, and hence the facts of the case are notable, including the publicly known names of the murderers. It is not wikipedia's place to censor verifiable facts just because someone doesn't like those facts. The publicly known nature of the names renders the "privacy" argument irrelevant. And the assertion that somehow the names are not important historically is a personal opinion with no basis in fact. And censoring the information based on the theory that it might cause harm is unconstitutional pre-emption of free speech. There is no demonstrable "clear and present danger", so the "might cause harm" argument is also irrelevant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be specific, it is certainly the case that en:wp publishing these names impact the privacy of the people involved in a significant way. Suggesting that there is no privacy impact is misleading.  +sj +


 * I concede the point that sometimes editorial judgement must come into play, so the question is, where is the line drawn? From what I know (and I may not be the best person to argue this), we follow the standards of major media outlets. Names of minors are not published when associated with crimes or negative events (just as they are sealed for juvenile convictions), especially if searching for that name via Google returns our article as one of the top results, as I believe we have decided it's potentially damaging for someone to be associated with something stupid s/he did has a youth for the rest of his/her life. That, however, all goes out the door if the affected person is an adult. There are still cases when privacy can be respected here: An author who writes books on neo-Nazis might want to use a pseudonym and assuming that the real name isn't already publicly known, we would oversight that kind of edit. As you wrote, consent is the keyword but what we are disagreeing upon is if that consent can be revoked. My and many others' position here is no; once it becomes public record and you've implicitly consented, then you can't take it back -- you can't unlearn the truth, as it were. In fact, the more I think about it, Star Wars kid should also include the name; it was part of a public lawsuit, it's already all over the media, and our exclusion of it really doesn't change any of that. Google the name and even though we're still #1 (probably because Google hasn't reindexed the page yet), all other results tie him to his video.  howcheng  {chat} 05:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand it is Lid, not Lidl. –– Lid(Talk) 08:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, mea culpa, changed it to Lidl Lid ;) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument could be made for including the Star Wars kid's name if it were public info. That would be a separate matter. As you said. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello howcheng, it is just consequent to include the name on Stas Wars kid following Lid's argumentation, however it is in clear violation of WP:BLP, BLP1E, WP:HARM and therefore a fruitless effort ;)

As Zara said the major media outlets do currently not give names, since Zara probably lives in Germany I think this to be true.

You said: "That, however, all goes out the door if the affected person is an adult" Of course not! A kid has a right to privacy as has an adult. Forget that idea - and quick ;)

Now on to the keypoint: "what we are disagreeing upon is if that consent can be revoked. My and many others' position here is no; once it becomes public record and you've implicitly consented, then you can't take it back"

No, :) I do not disagree upon that you can become notable and your name be published even without consent, especially if you are a high profile criminal worth your own BLP (there are of course a thousand other reasons why that could happen, but let's keep it simple). I also do not disagree that reliably sourced negative information can be included in any BLP. What I disagree with is people trying to use Wikipedia as some kind of criminal record database for foreign non notable individuals endangering their rehabilitation.

It is also faulty logic :) to accept a sentence of "some foreign judge", but then claim it doesn't matter if the very same judge invalidates a judgment or issues an prohibitory injunction to publish the names, based on the idea Wikipedia should keep false charges or serve as some kind of criminal record reference database. We are not tabloids and have a much stricter rule set, especially if keeping some information appeals to only sensational interest or claims of vengeance as opposed to having encyclopedic value.

It doesn't matter at all whether these guys are guilty for real or have severed a lengthy sentence completely innocent, in either case they have a right to expect privacy after 18 years.

You do not lose your right to informal self-determination just because you go into prison or get an entry in a non-public criminal record (on a sidenote, in Germany the employee can request your criminal record with your consent). Besides "consent" for publication that can be overruled in some cases, the right finds it's limits in public interest and the notability of the crime. As said, privacy might outweigh public interest years later after having served a sentence, and that's exactly what the judges acknowledged in this very case. It's also a difference if some one kills a high profile presidential candidate or some guy who happens to be a semi-notable actor by international standards.

Statements from justinfr like "I hope we're not going to make it standard policy to remove names from articles once people serve their sentences!" or pretty much all of Baseball Bugs comments show a complete lack of understanding the reasoning behind the courts decision. Every case is different. There will never be a one-fits-all policy on such topics. But we shouldn't blame people without legal education and experience, however we for sure shouldn't listen to them in face of expert opinion.

It's like three professors of quantum physics invalidating a theory in a publication and then ten random editors claiming they are wrong and changing the article accordingly. That's what I meant with completely unrelated topics first place. ;) If you can understand the later you should also understand why the same applies to Law Professionals, who have way more background knowledge and a much much finer set of tools for analyzing life situations of people.

Statements like "if they were proven not guilty, there would be no need to hide" is Kindergarten at it's best, but then Baseball Bugs claims to be 13 years old. To include names based on the speculation that these persons might commit more crimes in the future is absurd. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Howcheng, if you are saying "we follow the standards of major media outlets", concerning this case we would come to the same conclusion. Concerning the Walter Sedlmayr murder, the "major media outlets" currently don't give the full name of the perpetrators. That this is due to a court order is secondary. Of course, the court decided that only for the current coverage and specially DID NOT order archives to be edited. So you could try to argue that we should "follow the standards of major media outlets" from 1993. You could try to argue that something that had a news value in 1993 (but, according to the court, not in 2007), has an encyclopaedic value in 2008, but I don't think that such an argument would survive a confrontation with WP:NOT. I personally would insist rather strongly on WP:NOT here, and argue that even if the newspapers do it (in this case they don't) this doesn't mean that Wikipedia should do it.

There is one other point from this discussion that I need to get back to. 10 days ago Lid wrote in this discussion: "Right to privacy, on wikipedia, is an entity which can not exist if it acts in overpowering WP:Notability." My viewpoint would come down to the phrase "'people are not notable if they do not wish to be', which is an article standard that can not possibly work on wikipedia." Well, one point of my argument was that this isn't an issue of wp:notablity against wp:blp (regard for privacy), but I should probably make that cleared. Lid, you are right when you imply that notablity isn't something that people suddenly can decide for themselves. People can influence their notability throught their actions. If those parents whose child went missing in Portugal (I don't remember the name of the case, since I usually don't care about what tabloids write) hadn't gone to the media with it, they most likely would still not be notable. Of course, there will often be cases where a person's notabilty isn't the result of his/her actions, but those are of no interest here. The one point is: If these two people would appear in a talkshow just once with their case, I would be fine with giving their full names and they wouldn't get another similar court decision anyway. The other one is: As surprising as this might sound, this isn't an issue of wp:N. I previously wasn't myself that clear on this, but after reading the policy several times now, I am sure that notabilty can only be apllied topics, not the content of an article. It says: "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." Limits on the content here would be wp:blp and to some extend wp:not. Notability would only be an issue here if Wolfgang W. and Manfred L. were themselves notable, but despite Baseball Bugs disagreement here, I think I have shown that they are not. If the person for whose murder they were convicted (I am not sure whether they actually did it, afaik they still claim that they are innocent.) hadn't been a notable actor (who even turned out then to have homosexual interests during the invtigation) those two persons, although convicted of murder, wouldn't even have been in the press. At least the murder wouldn't be notable. (We don't have an article on every murder victim on Wikipedia, and we would want that, or do we?) wp:N only applies to Walter Sedlmeyr. Within his article, his murder is notable (but that is already part of the content, and doesn't fall under wp:N, which only applies to topics.) But the murder can easily be described without giving the names of the perpetrators. I simply don't see a policy or guidelines reason that would mandate the inclusion of the perpetrators full name in the first place, and don't see any editoral reason either. Zara1709 (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia should not hide or censor facts, and the names of the killers are facts in the case. Their notability or lack thereof only has relevance if you want to justify a separate article about them. The English Wikipedia is not subject to suppression of free speech by some non-English judge. The facts are publicly known, from media sources, and are fair game for inclusion. The case is notable, therefore the publicly known facts of the case are notable. It is not wikipedia's place to decide to suppress facts of a case based on whims or "moral" viewpoints of selected editors. Nor is it wikipedia's place to pre-emptively decide that their names have no value to researchers. For example, if they kill again, it would be useful to know that there's a precedent. Any protestation of innocence on their part is irrelevant to the discussion. As far as the law is concerned, they are guilty, until or if a new trial determines otherwise. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And if they were exonerated then we would change the article to reflect that, while still including the names. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely. In fact, if they were proven not guilty, there would be no need to hide. This business of treating criminals as if they were victims is what I, who consider myself relatively liberal, regard as "liberalness gone wild". They are in no way victims of anything except their own foolhardiness. And wanting to hide their criminal (murderous) past adds dishonesty and deception to their list of "sins". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Baseball bugs in a nutshell:


 * "As I said, if they were wrongly convicted, that's a different story." --Baseball Bugs ... no more questions ;)


 * "To exclude the names lowers wikipedia to the level of totalitarian states trying to filter the news. It's shameful, it's offensive, and must be resisted." --Baseball Bugs


 * "They can have a right to privacy only when the guy they murdered comes back to life." --Baseball Bugs


 * "this section began with someone censoring something because some idiot judge in Germany decided to protect the so-called "rights" of murderers" --Baseball Bugs


 * "Someone who murders once could murder again, and it would be unfair to subject my other employees to that potential risk." --Baseball Bugs


 * "And by the way, a "decent democratic country" would not allow murderers to hide their identity. And Wikipedia need not kiss up." --Baseball Bugs


 * "Thank God I live in the USA and not Europe. You've got governments there basically putting the public at potential risk for the sake of social experimentation. It's outrageous" --Baseball Bugs

Compiled by 3vil-Lyn (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I seriously get the impression that some people here fail to understand a clear augment. I have (throughout this whole discussion) argued, that the removal of the full names would not be censorship (as in wp:not), since the application of Wikipedia's policies is not censorship. (Do I have to quote the guideline here AGAIN?) I hold that the application of wp:blp would mandate the removal of their full names. "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, ... will also be removed." wp:not couln't be any more explizit. If you want to say that wp:not would overrule wp:blp, you couldn't be more false, because wp:not clearly says that it is overruled by wp:blp.
 * The considerations about wp:N in my previous post were merely intended as (late) reply to user:lid. In intended to show that here, unlike the other cases he mentioned, wp:N isn't in conflict with wp:blp. In fact, there is neither a guideline nor a policy, nor editorial judgement, that would argue in favour of inclusion here. That newspapers and tabloids generally don't anonymize the names isn't necessarily an argument for inclusion. If you take into account wp:not, than it might rather be an argument for anonymization in such cases.
 * The legal system handles such cases differently compared to the newspapers. On the blog where I found the link to the court decision, there was yesterday a report about a murder case. Translated it reads: "The district court of Krefeld has sentenced a man for murder and rape to a life long prison sentence..." As source a ddp news bulletin and an article from a German tabloid are linked. The tabloid article translated reads: "Dieter-Paul M., the 'sock-murderer' of Krefeld, will be in prison for at least 20 years. The presiding judge at the district court of Krefeld Herbert Luczak sentences the 50-year old metalworker to a life-long prison term on Friday. .. " If you compare the different texts, you will notice that the criminal defence attorney who writes at this blog doesn't really about the name of the perpetrator or his profession or the name of the victim and certainly not about the name of the judge. He only brings in parts of this in cut&paste quote of the other article. What he is really interested in the argumentation of the judge, why the first plea of the criminal for parole would only be allowed after 20 years (and not after 15), stuff which didn't interest the tabloid at all. If I count the occurrence of names in the tabloid article, there are 4 full names (judge, victim, lawyer of the perpetrator, federal prosecutor) and 2 first names (perpetrator, husband of the victim) given in the article. Also note that the victim is mentioned as Tanja S. in the article, but her full name is given beneath her picture. None of these names contributes in any way to an understanding of the trial. The only think that is interesting from a legal point of view is the verdict itself and the court which decided it. That is why the lawyer who writes at the blog starts his small article with "Das Krefelder Landgericht..." (The district court of Krefeld). If you would take a more detailed look you would see that for the analysis of the verdict it is somehow relevant that the murder was a 50-year old man with a regular job and a family. But his name actually isn't relevant. Of course, you most likely won't be able to take that detailed look, because I won't put up the effort of translating all of this. But if yoiu take a look at our case, Walter Sedlmayr, that his murderers were "former business associates of" and probably that they were half brothers. But the names of his murderers aren't relevant. Actually, instead of them, we would badly need to mention the court that passed the verdict. If there actually was anyone who would like to research more on the topic, he would learn the names of the perpetrators anyway once he looked at the court decision and its proceedings, but to find them it would be helpful to know the name of the court. Bottom line: Full names are interesting for tabloids, not for Wikipedia. Zara1709 (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully understand that you don't think it's censorship. However, hiding facts is censorship. Hiding publicly known facts is POV-pushing. Both of those are against wikipedia policy. And the BLP argument fails, also because these are publicly known facts. Wikipedia does not originate information. If wikipedia were originating the names, that would be against the rules. We aren't, and it isn't. And the English wikipedia is not bound by German media decisions to decide to censor known information. And your opinion that the names aren't relevant is your personal opinion, based on nothing except your desire to hide the names and kiss up to some German liberal-gone-wild judge. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the functions of an encyclopedia is to capture historical facts. The names of the the murderers could be of historical value to future researchers. The absence of their names could be a detriment to future researchers, and would defy wikipedia's rules against censorship. There's no demonstrable threat of harm to these guys, no clear and present danger; nor is there any evidence that the facts are not true; so the BLP arguments for removing the names are invalid. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Again I ask: May we close this please? There was already a clear consensus to keep back when people were still contributing at the top of the thread. This has been up for two weeks; if any admins had an inclination to remove the edit history and felt there was consensus in this thread to do so, they would have done so already. justinfr (talk/contribs) 15:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I'm in favor of closing it. Try convincing the others. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And having failed to pursuade, one of the users has decided to revive the edit war. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you have contradicted yourself. :) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot be allowed to get away with censorship that has no valid basis, nor anything resembling consensus. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm not sure what we can say to convince you. Of course, everybody else has long since lost interest. justinfr (talk/contribs) 16:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, you wrote: "I fully understand that you don't think it's censorship." Actually, I never argued that I don't think it's censorsip. I argued that it isn't censorpship according to wp:not. What you and I personally would define as censorship is not part of the question. I find it kind of hard to understand how you could overlook this during this long discussion and I actually wonder: HAVE YOU READ THE GUIDELINE? ONLY ONCE? EVER? Please, I am actually trying to make an argument here and not just to repeat my viewpoint, it is only you that if forcing me to repeat my argument. POV-PUSHING? Don't you think that this is a little uncivil to speak of that. There simply aren't different viewpoints on whether these people have full names, it can't be a questions of wp:NPOV. To argue that the full names are to be included, because they "could be of historical value to future researchers," doesn't make much sense either. If you would try to pull that argument in an afd debate on a non-notable person, you would be bashed because an argument about possible future notability just doesn't count, for wp:not. And anyway, I argued that it is only the overly popular style of the tabloids that attributes a news value to the names of the people involved. The legal professions really don't care about this. For them all the reports could as well be written about "Suspect A" and "Suspect B". The only ones who have to care about the identity of the suspects or perpetrators are the police. But I certainly don't want Wikipedia to take over functions of the police. So obviously we can't close this discussion yet, although I am again questioning whether this is really worth my time and effort. Zara1709 (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Except we're not a law textbook, we're an encyclopedia. It is exactly correct that some events are notable only because of the people involved. Here, the Sedlmayer case is only notable because he was a well-known actor. Are you suggesting we anonymize all crime-related articles? Or just some? When would it be worth including a name in an article about a crime? justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that we are not a law textbook, but we're defenitely not a tabloid, either. If people want to know the names of all the people involved (in the other tabloid article I quoted they even gave the name of the judge), why do they want to know it? Because it is necessary to understand the topic (Walter Sedlmayr and his murder) or because it is an interesting detail about other people's life? From the legal perspective the names of the murderers are unnecessary, and we don't need them either when we describe the chain of events of the crime. It is possible that I have overlooked a perspective here, but the perspective of the tabloids clearly mustn't be our perspective. And I a not "suggesting we anonymize all" non-notable persons on Wikipedia. This should only be done when their is a clear indication that someone who is non-notable would like to be anonymous; and there can't be a much clearer indication that going to court for this. Zara1709 (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You have no basis for the claim that the names of the murderers are unimportant. And now that you mention it, the name of the judge should be posted also, because he's aiding and abetting these killers' desire to hide their murderous past from an unsuspecting public. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, I agree. They're not "non-notable": They're notable for killing Walter Sedlmayer. Furthermore, with all the effort they've exerted hiding their past, they're probably notable enough to warrant their own articles. This will be my last cocmment here. As I said before, if anybody other than Zara and Lyn had an inclination to remove the names or edit history they would have done so already, or at least have spoken up. Therefore, I don't think there's any more to say. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would assume that many people who agree with each side of this debate have stayed out of it, and have similarly avoided editing the article. I think the names should be redacted in this article as they have been on de:wp.  To do otherwise is to encourage a small group of wikipedians to engage in original assessment of privacy-rights, which we should avoid as a community.  +sj + 08:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless that one user tries to edit-war over the issue again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Woah, Baseball Bugs, if you intented your last comment to be serious, you have now disqualified yourself from this discussion. We don't even know the name of the judge in this case; I brought this in as an example from another case, to illustrate to what extend the tabloids carry the habit of 'name-giving'. You might personally think that in a liberal democracy everybody who is suspected of a crime should permanently be watched; Of course, I have the opposite opinion, but I really don't care what you think about this. The goal of this discussion is merely to figure out how to apply wp:blp and some more of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your strong personal views have become quite a huge obstacle in this discussion. Zara1709 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, so the judge is hiding, too? Small wonder. In the USA, he would probably be hung out to dry for such an outrageous, public-endangering decision. And enough with the "suspected of a crime" stuff. They are guilty of a crime, as far as the law is concerned, and their attempt to hide from it only adds to their "sins", so enough of the "forgiveness" nonsense from that other editor also. There is no BLP issue, because the names are verifibiably known. And they rendered themselves "notable" by committing a notable crime against a notable person. They did it to themselves and they have to live with it. It is not wikipedia's place to coddle either criminals or liberal-gone-wild judges. It is wikipedia's place to report verifiable facts rather than censoring them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs, you're not doing yourself a favor when you're writing in an emotional state like this. Take your hands of your keyboard, switch off the PC, go for a long walk AND IN 2 HOURS READ AGAIN WHAT I'VE WRITTEN. Zara1709 (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Take your own advice. I'm not emotional, I'm factual, I've read what you've written, and you've got it wrong. There is no BLP issue, no privacy issue, no notability issue, and no justification for censoring the facts of the case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't realize that I was talking about a different judge, did you? We couldn't even give the name of the judge in this case, since we just don't know his name. And anyway, the name of the judge would surely be irrelevant here. I am actually going for a walk now. Zara1709 (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed solution
Thank you, Sj for making the effort of looking into this long discussion. I spent yesterday trying to find some more sources one the murder of Walter Sedlmayr. I did not find any that only remotely would confer notability to the murderers. The best available source online that I found is this one: Vor 10 Jahren: Walter Sedlmayr ermordet (a script of a radio feature, 10 years ago: Walter Sedlmayr murdered). For the ARD TV series Die großen Kriminalfälle (The great criminal cases) there is a book, but I checked that out at the library. It only includes 10 cases, and the Sedlmayr murder is not among them. As far as I know, there aren't any DVD editions for these kinds of TV series (it's public broadcasting), but one could eventually check out Youtube etc. if someone uploaded it there. But I don't think that this documentary would devote enough of it's time to a biography of the murderers to make them notable. The situation thus is unchanged.

Meanwhile I've put some more thought into the policy/guideline/editorial judgement aspect.

If you would want to go with Avoiding harm (which is an essay, but should be taken into consideration), 2 of 3 factors would argue for an inclusion of the full names. 1) The information is already widely known. 2) The information is definitive and factual. (Well, there's one source that got one name wrong, but altogether it is.) The 3rd factor is the difficult one: Is the information given due weight in relation to the subject's notability? This can't directly be applied here, because were are not facing an issue of the due weight of a fact in a living person's biography, but one the due weight of a person's name in an 'event' in another person's biography. But since I see no editorial reason to give the name and there isn't a policy or guideline that would argue in favour of that, I hold that this would be undue weight here.

Concerning the last factor, this is basically the same conclusion that I reached when I took a look at wp:blp and wp:not. But there is one aspect that I did not take into account previously. If it was for avoiding harm: The harm is already done, since the information is already widely known. Although the major media outlets don't give the name any more, there are enough outlets that still do. And that's just one thing that you have to accept. In the age of the Internet, once the information is out there, it will be almost impossible to 'delete' or 'censor' it. I took a look at the legal action that was taken to remove the full names from newspapers and webblogs: (you have to scroll down a little) It is not actually well-documented on the site, but it appears as if L. had actually intended that, to really get a completely fresh new start. (Or just to wage some processes.)

Of course, this doesn't have any impact on how Wikipedia should handle such questions. What other people do in their own webspace is their thing. Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons makes clear that articles must be written with regard for privacy. I think that I have shown that this means that the full names need to be removed from the article. However, a deletion of edit histories would only be necessary if the full name being found there would do harm. It does not, since anyone who wants to know it can just as well do an internet search and he will find a few sources.

In conclusion, I think that we should proced here in a similar way as in the Star Wars Kid case. We remove the full name from the article and the article talk page, but leave in the edit history of the article and the talk page. We would even have some sources that mention the full names in the reference, simply because they provide other, relevant information, too. I could still try to argue that this case is somehow different (because there are less sources, or because the legal action to obtain privacy was stronger) but I've grown tired of this, too, and I CAN compromise here. If this is agreed, then we simply remove their last names except the first letter (hey, that are just 9 letters to be removed), make a short note on the discussion page that they aren't to be added back in, unless new circumstances arise, and then we can close this debate.

However, although this discussion was extraordinary long and difficult (it wasn't/isn't the most difficult I've been in, but it definitely is the longest), I really think that it was worth it. It is quite important to point out that, on Wikipedia, regard for people's privacy applies to criminals and former criminals, too. And I not only improved my English writing skills, I also learned a lot about WP's policies. So if anyone thinks that I would be a good idea to have a guideline wp:anonymize that sums up the arguments when to anonymize the name of a person in an article, and that would help to keep further discussions about this shorter, I think that I can write a draft. Zara1709 (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:Anonymize? I think this to be a fantastic idea, as it might also cover the inhabitants of the Portal:Pornography ;) During this and the other discussion over at the Star Wars Kid talk page, I noticed two nice wordings from other users I wish I had used myself. One is "transient notability" (editor Guy on Star Wars Kid) the other one is the idea of "original amplification" by Sj. Thank you for your nice comments, btw! So, Zara1709 GO, GO, GO!! ;) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So, just to be on the save side. You're with me when I remove the names from the article and the talk page, following the solution I proposed. (And after that, when I have time, I write a draft for a guideline wp:anonymize.) Obviously it will not be possible to find an agreement here, that is acceptable to everyone, but I hope that the solution will be accepted by most editors.Zara1709 (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Zara, yes, I am with you concerning the removal. As usual, I can see you've given a lot of thought to your response. We already have a very solid argumentation for discarding the names, while those who still try to argue for inclusion came up with nothing to refute those arguments. Lid's notion that omitting names in such cases might endanger the concept of Wikipedia as a whole has already been disproved. I'd even favor a complete removal including a history wipe on the article as well as the talk page. I think this discussion was worth it as the page now contains enough material to draft a useful guide. Personally I'd like to move on as I'm currently working on something in another language, while this account is more or less dedicated to BLP stuff on the English Wikipedia. However I'd be interested whether you made any progress with this essay or I'll have to start from scratch (which might not be all that bad, two different approaches could be merged after all). I am currently quite busy with some of my projects, so it might take quite some time before I can come up with something like WP:Anonymize. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest getting consensus for the policy first because there is no way there results of this discussion could be construed as a consensus to remove the names. justinfr (talk/contribs) 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * wp:anonymize would not be a policy, but a guideline. We are able to handle such issues with our current policies, but their application is somehow difficult. I did take this serious and looked at all guidelines and policies, I came to a conclusion and a compromised as far as I could. I am not going to repeat all of it, but I am sure that as long as wp:blp says that articles must be written with regard for the subject's privacy, the full names have to be removed from the article. Hey, anyone who still wants to know them, for whatever reason, can still simply click on a weblink and find them mentioned there. We're not going to 'censor' external links. What newspapers and tabloids write is their thing. You should be perfectly aware of WP:NOT and wp:not, and if I would compromise here any further, then Wikipedia would be on a slippery slope towards becoming a tabloid, and I simply can't accept that. This is why I am putting so much effort in this, and if you disagree, you are free to take my argumentation apart or to see how far you can compromise. And there is definitely no way that you could try to construct the outcome of this debate as a consensus to keep these names, if you show now intent to compromise or to discuss the issue on the basis of arguments.Zara1709 (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be censorship, and is unacceptable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no justification whatsoever for censoring the names of the killers. The notability argument is bogus, there is no privacy or BLP issue, and the "doing harm" argument is crystal-ball and thus is irrelevant. And some anonymous German judge has no jurisdiction over wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Woah, there is someone who can't compromise. Baseball Bugs, you didn't have any arguments in this discussion from the start and you didn't learn anything during the debate at all. I really don't care what you have to say (not that I wouldn't know it anyway.) Zara1709 (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What I've learned is that some wikipedians believe in coddling criminals. But that has no bearing on the facts. The names belong, and trying to take them out is censorship. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you've not learned anything here. I would prefer it if you'd stop writing, because that simply clutters up the talk page, but I am not going to force you. Just don't expect any further replies. Zara1709 (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could both stop writing and that would be that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Bugs your "arguments" in this debate have been an incredible case of analysis in regards to logical fallacies being used with no leverage for any opposing view. Any opposition to your view has been painted as criminal coddlers, or bleeding heart liberals, or we are endangering society, or the people saying them are useless, or in other words - appeal to emotion, ad hominem, for the children, straw man and guilt by association. However I must state my agreement with Bugs result, if not for his method. The example used as precedent here is that of the anonymity of the Star Wars kid, however (as I never got around to it) I will state I also disagree with that omission, as I disagreed with the result from another lesser known case (Nigel McGuinness) that has resulted in name omission. The compromise here is an intriguing one to me as its basis is that on edit history preservation while in the current version (from now until... forever?) to omit the names, which seems a little odd to me because the question of now is one of content while the compromise is that of contextual victory of not having the slate wiped clean. I realise those who agree to the right to privacy consider this a great compromise, but I have to be flat and state that as a great compromise it seems a little non-sensical in that it is conceding the names are not to be included in the article on anonymity, but anyone with the remotest of checking can find it which is essentially the same issue I have with the star wars kid name omission. I endorse that the privacy proponents are trying something to end the, largely, ranting and finger pointing demonising used by both sides, however I must disagree that this can be a result that makes anyone truly happy, or any sort of sense in regards to wikipedia policy (or law). –– Lid(Talk) 04:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your analysis of this so-called compromise is right on target. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So basically you're saying, Lid, that it would be hypocritical to remove the full names, since those can easily be found on the internet anyway and a removal of them from Wikipedia would only have a symbolic value. Well, most likely there is a strong subjective element in this question. I feel that it would be hypocritical to have a policy wp:blp that emphasizes the "regard for privacy" and than not to make the symbolic effort to remove the full names. Zara1709 (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no privacy issue here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As you yourself have stated it is simply symbolic in a case that goes against several wikipedia policies and near as I can tell is to appease no laws whatsoever with jurisdiction. The "regard for privacy" was instituted during a period of wikipedias time where a massive war raged over internet meme and "flavour of the week" articles between deletionists and inclusionists which was meant to put into writing that people could not have notability pushed upon them and thrust into the public spotlight through no fault of their own if they did not wish it. However it has been also one of the most abused policies in wikipedia, people stretching its meaning to mean people who actually want to be notable but are "annoying" (see: Corey Worthington) however I don't want to soapbox here about the flaws in the writing of BLP. I will re-state, however, that "regard for privacy" used in a case such as this does have the potential to be a slippery slope in deciding which countries laws and rulings we abide by (as in this case, Germany) or don't abide by (for example, wikipedia does not strictly adhere to England's libel laws for they would create a conflict with wikipedia censorship) as well as having to decide, for articles, who exactly is a private individual? Is someone that once was famvous but wishes to leave the public eye forever given the rights to have their wikipedia article simply end when they don't want anyone to know about them anymore? There just seems to me to be so many potential issues for a case that, on its merits, is already only an issue in regards to morality rather than legality, and while I am not saying morality is a bad thing I simply do not see why the name inclusion is an issue of law or policy. –– Lid(Talk) 22:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Lid, but "the potential to be a slippery slope" versus an expert opinion on this particular case by a German judge is a quite weak basis for argumentation. We weigh privacy interest versus public and encyclopedic interest each case a new. This is often not an easy thing to do, so we should be glad whenever some professionals tasked with evaluating social concerns have already looked into it. The more I think about it, the more I like this WP:anon guide idea, where we could specify that court decisions in respected democratic countries are not to be overturned. We may also give a framework to check whether or not someone voluntarily gave up privacy rights and cite some examples where public interest and notability clearly outweighs such a right. Reasonable editorial judgment does not mean we wait for Jimbo to apply it. ;) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I must protest, the criticism of my slippery slope point followed by the phrase "court decisions in respected democratic countries" proves my point entirely. The rest of your refutation of my point is a drawn out appeal to authority rather than a question of substance. –– Lid(Talk) 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also "Lid's notion that omitting names in such cases might endanger the concept of Wikipedia as a whole has already been disproved." I have never said such extremes, at any point, but I have yet to see my notions disproved. –– Lid(Talk) 21:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lid, you are welcome. I hope you don't mind I put a full quote of yours here.

"Every few months we have to have this debate, from Nevada-tan to Crystal Gail Magnum, and seemingly chase in circles around the connection of internet law, local law, vengeance and uncensorship at all costs. For what it's worth I have always objected to the censorship of any material that can be reliably sourced, and in this case I believe no different but not on some ridiculous argument such as "don't protect murderers" but simply for neutrality, consistancy and comprehensiveness of the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia can not be consistant, neutral or comprehensive if facts would be ommitted by an order anywhere in the world (you can't enforce a German gag order, then ignore a Zimbabwean gag order on anti-Mugabe dissent, or a Chinese gag order on Tibetan protestors because you don't agree with what it is gagging)."

The encyclopedia works very well and for the better taking the privacy aspects of WP:BLP into account.

And yes, I can. We can. Even Google can (German regulatory body reported illegal material...). Lid, it was you who tried to compare legal systems that just can not be compared. In my opinion it leads nowhere to argue for consistency once legal rulings completely collide with ethics/morals in "our" (now that's slippery ;)) culture. That's what my African warlord example was for ( I tried to make it obvious ). On the other hand we should respect every European court decision concerning privacy cases.

Also, "The encyclopedia can not be consistant, neutral or comprehensive" is such an extreme view putting the idea of "reliable sources" above privacy interests no matter the circumstances. By the way it's an appeal to expert knowledge rather than the red flag argument that is "authority" on it's own. Of course knowledge should establish authority, just like it does on say scientific articles. That such knowledge is worth more than Wikipedia editors trying to make such decisions on European criminal cases should be a no brainer. I suggest you go back to the very beginning of section three, where I tried to sum up what you don't get ;) You can, of course, come back and say there is no such right to informational self-determination on Wikipedia, but you are wrong, it's there and it's called WP:BLP (and sometimes, when it fails, OTRS).

--3vil-Lyn (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The names of the killers is public information. There is no privacy issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "On the other hand we should respect every European court decision concerning privacy cases." that you can not see why this is a slippery slope troubles me, especially in regards to its bias. –– Lid(Talk) 07:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also find it a little insulting that you think that the wikipedia should not discuss such changes and just defer to the courts because "knowledge should establish authority" as well as simply stating "you are wrong" when at no point have I out and out said that your arguments have no merit, because I know they do, but believe you should show the same respect. I have gathered you are a German national and truly believe that wikipedia should solely abide by this decision in regard to German laws but there is precedent upon precedent in wikipedia that a. wikipedia is governed by wikipedias policies, not domestic state law, b. wikipedia falls under the murky purview of internet law which is still in developmental stages of being crafted and c. that BLP is the be all and end all of every discussion when it is quite evidently flawed as it can be, in this very topic, be twisted to both mean for the names uninclusion, as you yourself have professed repeatedly, or even from my point, as BLP is in regards to articles creation about individuals and their purview, not people mentioned within articles. –– Lid(Talk) 07:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Lid, it's not a slippery slope as every judge in an European country knows more about how to weigh privacy interest versus public interest on a particular case they are in charge of, as any poster on this discussion page (though Zara came very close to legal clarity of thought in her(?) analysis).

No more discussions? I think you got me wrong. As said, repeatedly, Wikipedia editors should weigh privacy interest versus public and encyclopedic interest each case and source a new, however in my humble pov and experience with legal matters NOT in face of expert opinion by an European court.

By the way, I am not a German national ;) I however worked as a translator at a German embassy and I later briefly studied German law. Not that I would work in the legal profession today ;) If you refer to this one awesome picture, I know about the Federal Administrative Court Leipzig because I visited the equally awesome Gewandhaus zu Leipzig. =)

Anyway, it's about time to realize that well thought out privacy rights as granted for example in Germany spin circles around everything an American run of the mill lawyer would subsume under the hype word that is "Internet law" and it's associated privacy laws.

But this realisation can even help us towards improving WP:BLP and it's assorted sub policies. We can transform such ideas in Wikipedia policies and make them better than even the privacy rights granted by American Law! That's at least what I intended to do in this upcoming essay. The idea to use some more sophisticated modern law ideas to draft our policies might appeal even to you Lid. To not make BLP1E suck ;)

One more thing and don't take it as an attack or something, the fact that the community decided to omit the names on Star Wars Kid as well as the Nigel McGuinness case you brought up and on many other cases (like with adult actors complaining via OTRS) should tell you that your personal view on how to apply WP:BLP might be very different from what others "read into it" (sorry for my clumsy grammar today). That said, just like you, I am not to happy with the wordings on WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, WP:Harm, however I try not to criticize these policies (people spent a great deal of thought in) until I can come up with better wordings. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I challenge the notion that allowing criminals to hide their pasts from an unsuspecting public qualifies as "well thought out". In America we call it "out of control liberalism" - coddling criminals, treating them like victims. It's highly offensive. The Star Wars kid was a victim. Murderers are not victims. They chose to kill. Ya dig? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Lid, it's not a slippery slope as every judge in an European country knows more about how to weigh privacy interest versus public interest on a particular case they are in charge of, as any poster on this discussion page (though Zara came very close to legal clarity of thought in her(?) analysis).
 * I have to say this is quite an assumption, as is the deferment to the legal decisions by local courts. I apologise but continuing to appeal to the fact a judge made this decision is not a strong argument that it must be abided by as it prevents any point of contention that is valid by stating no matter what I contend, even if its logically sound and has support, is irrelevant because the decision was made by a judge. It's just plain wrong, and ignores the actual crux of why this debate happened in the first place - jurisdiction of the decision, whether to follow the decision and how the decision clashed with wikipedia's policies of WP:N, WP:CENSORED and even sections of WP:BLP. –– Lid(Talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Because a judge in charge of things is in a waaaaay better position to make such a decision. I would not question it without having in depth knowledge of all proceedings in a case, it baffles me others do based on second hand information. Also every accredited European judge should have learnt a much finer set of tools than what WP policies currently ask for. In case of crass misjudgment a verdict can and will be reversed anyway. So if a German judge comes to the (not legally disputed) conclusion privacy rights outweigh public interest, then who are we to question it? Most editors will face a language barrier with foreign cases, have no clue about the proceeding, no legal education (with a special sensitivity to privacy concerns) and knowledge based on Google translated tabloids. In short, we are better off to accept that there must be a good reasoning to such a decision. Now put all that away, WP:BLP leaves no doubt and demands to weigh sources with regard for the subject's privacy. BLP1E screams caution. No one but ironically Bugs tried to address whether or not the public's right to information can decay, nor if there is any encyclopedic value to the names. Besides no matter how widely a name spreads in the daily news, who will remember it 18 years later? Original amplification via Wikipedia deserves a second thought.

Back to your "who says A must say B" concerns. Even if you say "slippery slope" refers to countries with at least "questionable" legal systems, then what does it have to do with this particular case? Nothing. The law system in Germany of today served quite a few other states as a role model. Nothing slippery there :) We can and should come back to this point in other cases though, but right now we discuss the Walter Sedlmayr case under German jurisdiction. That the Wikipedia encyclopedia "can not be consistant, neutral or comprehensive" because we exercise editorial judgment where people can expect privacy due to reasonable arguments (and such a ruling gives us a broad hint to that) is in my opinion plain wrong, you might want to elaborate on that. The crux of this debate, as I see it, is that some people don't get the idea behind WP:BLP&1E the way I understand it (though I don't work in a daily legal profession I might be routine-blinded here, valuing privacy rights much higher than the policy asks for by the letter).

You said "the event, the murder, makes the murderers notable individuals." I disagree and refer to section 3 (and even 2). Transient tabloid notability at best.

If you can not invalid the arguments (and there are many! besides the obvious notability question) you have nothing left but to ramble about clumsy wordings in WP:BLP or the inconsistency of not wiping the article's history as proposed by Zara for a compromise only. My understanding is BLP policies allow for a complete suppression anyway. You seem determined that you have brought arguments with substance to the discussion I fail to address, however I do not see them (yet). Please understand that I don't want to repeat my points over and over like a broken record in every answer, so I just link 'em. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your argument about the judge is not swaying, no matter how often you repeat it. Your arguments logical conclusion would be that authority is not to be questioned and all they deem must be accepted at face value completely ignoring that the German law and its jurisdiction does not extend here. Arguing it is a dead end and does not bolster your side, as how in the very first section of this debate it was immediately discarded as irrelevant to the discussion at hand. To retroactively state that their entire past is off-limits in a German court in regards to German media only has, even the remotest of jurisdiction, over the German wikipedia. The jurisdiction does not extend to American, English, Australian, Chinese, Japanese, Argentinian, Chilean, Cuban, Scottish, Hungarian, Dutch, Thai, New Zealand or the Antarctic media, neither does it extend to wikipedia so it become a question of does their name omission fall under wikipedias policies and to a lesser extent its guidelines.
 * WP:BLP does scream caution, but as do people using it in debates, and who screams loudest and longest is not the victor. BLP was written, as I have stated above, for the protection of individuals who had "notability" forced upon them through no action of their own (Allison Stokke). It is why a murderer is notable enough to have an article while in most cases their victim is not. This is strangely the opposite of such a case but simply screaming WP:BLP is no more an argument than screaming WP:CENSORSHIP, especially as (I have been forced to repeat) BLP is written so vaguely that, quite literally, you can make arguments for any side of a debate in regard to a living person and the policy will support your side in some way.
 * Wikipedia is not being used for a soapbox, it is not the only place on the internet or in the world that has postings of these mens identities. It is seemingly including all the information available that can be properly sourced to illustrate notability, these men are, for better or worse, notable. Their identities have been known for a decade, and published as such, as well as have been included in this article for a long time now.
 * I don't want to repeat my points anymore than you but you have put me in the uneviable position that any such response is "rambling" when it is obvious I am doing anything but rambling. You have discarded my argument for slippery slope because you have full faith in the German court, but my argument for slippery slope used extremes not because I expected privacy laws instructed by North Korea to be enacted upon wikipedia but because I fear that courts as close to the British or US may place such orders upon the wikipedia if they become liable to them. A slippery slope does not begin with the extremes, it begins with the first step. –– Lid(Talk) 02:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OMG! :P I said (more than once in this discussion) "It is you who joined with nothing but the notion that Wikipedia can't be forced by law, something that was never questioned by me; and something that has already been identified as irrelevant to this discussion unless the editor in question actually lives in Germany."


 * When I referred to German jurisdiction here I implied I was speaking about the fact that the privacy rights were weighed under German Law as opposed to be under one of those govs with a largely non-existent legal framework.


 * To say we can't apply reasonable editorial judgment here using the German court decision as a guide, because doing such a thing leads to problems in other COMPLETELY unrelated "extrem cases" (like privacy laws instructed by North Korea) comes close to a mental blackout. I said probably a hundred times each BLP case has to be decided a new.


 * Lid, how much you already lost touch with reality becomes evident in this post I found today on Zara's talk page. Sorry, it seems there is no common ground and no basis for discussion. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am amused by the irony of the citing of that comment which is in regards to your condescending demeanor along with the phrase "how much have you already lost touch with reality". On a seemingly unrelated note you may wish to read first they came... –– Lid(Talk) 10:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That quote you cited you stated once in the debate (in those terms) was long before I even joined the debate and was aimed at another editors argument, not mine. This is followed by you referring to my mention of hypothetical North Korean judgment then passing it off hand as your argument is that all BLP debates must be discussed one at a time. This misrepresents the purpose of the point as my point is that BLP is fundamentally flawed leading to such debates. You can continue to portray me as a straw man if you wish but it's doing nothing for the debate either. –– Lid(Talk) 10:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "my point is that BLP is fundamentally flawed". Though luck, as it's an accepted and established policy (especially concerning the privacy aspects).


 * My response is more than adéquat given the time of your edit, so maybe we shall read first they came... again? ;)


 * You have done nothing for this discussion, except ignoring all arguments under section 3. But you even managed to top that by questioning the policies which are our current guidelines.


 * If you want a change work on the policies, but do not ignore their intention in current state. (there you go ->WP:HARM, WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS ) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My questioning of the policy is that it supports both sides because of its poor writing, saying I'm disregarding it because it makes my arguments null is simply incorrect. Here is a comment I made back in June 2007 in regards to Allison Stokke: "The recent rush for deletion of articles on this type seems to be that people have taken WP:BLP to be the be all and end all of all articles and the fact is a lot of these arguments simply don't follow BLP and scream BLP as a deletion reason rather than its actual reason for existing, to maintain biographical articles neutrally and sourced." The same has happened here. To say I have done nothing for the discussion is ignoring my original contributions way way way back when "two individuals did a notable act to a notable individual" thus they are notable. The argument has shifted to personal attacks by you on me when it began as a question of notability v privacy, blaming me for this turn and backhand accusing me of trying anything malicious with sarcastic condescension isn't doing anything other than causing unneeded emotive investment. –– Lid(Talk) 11:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I should have replied to this earlier, but I am NOT spending more than two hours a day on Wikipedia any more. Lid, what really set off 3vil-Lyn here was your comparison of a court decision in a European country with one in, say, in current Zimbabwe. To compare a (largely) working legal system with a (largely) failed legal system will just be offensive to everyone who is proud of the fact that the western legal systems are (largely) working. On the other hand, though, I would probably have to criticize 3vil-Lyn for overstating the legal aspect. To imply that Wikipedia would be bound to follow a court decision, from Germany or anywhere else, is misleading. The internet is some sort of transnational space, and we're not bound to follow a juridical decision anywhere; Theoretically we could even move the server out of Florida, U.S., so we're technically we're not even bound by Florida and U.S. law. However, despite Wikipedia not being legally bound to anything, it is not unregulated. Since common sense and editorial judgement alone often are not sufficient to deal with a controversy, we have all those policies and guidelines. And we just have to come to a consensus what the imply for cases like this. And I spent a lot of effort an arguing that a removal of the full names would NOT clash with wp:N or WP:Not, of which you, Lid, have apparently not taken notice.
 * If you scroll up to my comment from August, 30, you will see that I wrote a longer reply concerning wp:N, and I also voiced my views concerning 'censorship' repeatedly. Of course, we can go through the arguments again, if you like, which also goes for wp:blp. I have argued that concerns about censorship do not apply. If you think that "regard for privacy", as in wp:blp does not apply, please give me your arguments. I don't know most of the discussions that went on about this. This discussion is already long enough, two more weeks won't hurt. On the other hand, a broader consensus on this would be useful anyway, which is why I though of bringing this under a GUIDELINE with a name like wp:anonymize. On the other hand. I wouldn't have the nerve to start working on a draft of such a guideline immediately. This would be one of the issues at Wikipedia that I would tackle when I have the leisure, and there are already several of those (An article Nazi occultism for the German Wikipedia or several article about political activists on the English one, not to mention the whole issue of religious persecution and Islam.) This issue would be of the highest priority, though.
 * So, this is the other solution I can propose. We close this debate as undecided, but when I or someone else proposes a guideline to take care of such issues, we will continue the debate there. Alternatively, we can just go though all of the arguments here again. Zara1709 (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First - I was not comparing the German legal system to Zimbabwe's, I was stating that the logical conclusion of abiding by one nations decision does not give us merit to ignore anothers just because we do not like the nation. I could've chosen a more simple example of say... Australia but I would've felt the purposeful hyperbole would've been lost.
 * Secondly - I did take notice of your essay of them not clashing but I did not agree with their conclusions that WP:CENSORSHIP did not apply, however your query to me about my arguments of WP:BLP not applying is incorrect. I have said BLP applies, but my point of contention is that BLP is worded so poorly that it applies to both sides arguments and can prop up both thus making it a useless exercise to cite one part of BLP because it supports your side, while ignoring the part that contradicts it and supports the opposition but this falls under a much wider argument on wikipedia that BLP needs to either be scrapped or be greatly re-written for coherency. –– Lid(Talk) 10:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What does WP:BLP say?
Lid after your initial comment on my talk page I though that you were what other editors on this talk page were not; polite and interested in actually figuring out how Wikipedia should handle such issues. But what you have written in the meantime on this talk page has given evidence to the contrary. Neither 3vil-Lyn nor me argued that Wikipedia should abide some nations legal decisions; we argued that a developed legal system does have some provisions to protect the privacy of individuals, and the Wikipedia needs such provisions, too, and that I does have them, in the form of wp:blp. I mean, you asked me to take a second look at your arguments because you felt that I had overlooked something. I did that, and I would expect you to do the same. And I am well aware of the difficulties of applying wp:blp. if you want, take la look at the revisions of the article Troy Southgate. He is some kind of political activist/musician and several editors are of the opinion that an interview he has given an English newpspaper about his political strategy should not be included because that would violate wp:blp. Of course, I disagree, but I can't continue the issue there because me time is completely adsorb by this issue here. The political views of political activists need to be included in there article, even if it is potentially doing harm to them (like in that issue). This is why Avoiding harm is an essay, and not a guideline.

But this issue here is different from that one. Firstly, as I have argued, the former, convicted murderers are not notable, which is demonstrated by the fact that we don't even know their birth dates. Secondly, although their names are verifiable, that alone is not a sufficient criteria for the inclusion thereof. And thirdly, here is what Biographies of living persons says:

"Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. 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. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."

We have the responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications, and we did that. And since there is no editorial reason to give the full names here (as opposed to other issues), Wikipedia would be sensationalist if it did that. It is not wp:blp that is hard to understand, some editors are simply not making the effort. Zara1709 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The murderers are notable, insofar as they murdered a notable person. So their names are facts of the case and should be in the article. That doesn't mean they warrant their own articles, and that's where the "notability" red herring comes in that you keep playing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I move for argumentum ad nauseum in this debate in this specific sub-page. The topic, if it ever needs to be properly done, requires a larger input of ideas by the community as a whole - not just back and forthness. I would reply to your arguments Zara, but honestly this debate now just gives me a headache and in its current state will not further enhance, or illuminate the debate. –– Lid(Talk) 22:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The presumption in favor of privacy is relevant only to information about incidental details of peoples lives that may in consideration of their entire career reflect poorly on them, and the private lives of private individuals. Its application to the names of convicted murders is the height of absurdity. That they may not be notable enough for an article does not mean their names are not relevant content in an article about the crime.  The removal of these names may be either the law or custom in Germany, but this is a world-wide universal coverage encyclopedia and we are not bound by their laws or customs, or we would have no content about anything that any one country found improper. BLP is based on common sense, it does not revoke it.  DGG (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see that this is absurd. Take the Star Wars Kid case: When some teenagers think that I would be funny to upload a hilarious video another teenager made one the internet, that is understandable. When several Wikipedia editors don't see that we should respect that persons privacy and then they call for an inclusion of his name on the article talk page, that is not understandable, since I wouldn't want to assume that so many Wikipedia editors are teenagers. It appears as if many editors don't understand what "regard for privacy" means. Most murder cases actually aren't notable, since Wikipedia is not a news site. This case here marginally is, since there is ONE documentary on it (and Walter Sedlmayr is notable, anyway), but the case itself can completely be described without the names of the perpetrators, about whom we don't know anything that is not related to the murder anyway (other then their names). If your common sense argues for an inclusion of their names, well, then you are confusing an encyclopaedia with a tabloid. The investigations and the trial are of interest to the public and are to be covered (and currently they actually aren't covered), but the names of the perpetrators themselves are just not interesting. If you find this hard to understand, then you simply have grown too accustomed to the pseudo-public that is created by the tabloid-style media. I mean, when the former terrorist Brigitte Mohnhaupt was released from prison, they didn't talk about her political views and the historic background of her crimes. They talked about how she would look: The tabloids even tried to get current pictures of her. That is why the prison officials scheduled her release in a way so that the paparazzi couldn't find her. That court decision that made me initiate this debate stems from a similar situation. The public doesn't need to know this; the reason people want to know such stuff is that they confuse the private life of others with the public life. And if after 15 years in prison someone is released, he should be able to get back into a private life, and should not have to see his name in the newspapers, and not ON WIKIPEDIA EITHER. Zara1709 (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You continue to regard these murderers as victims. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to put it that way, yes, everyone can be a victim of the tabloids (just read the last chapter of Brave New World), of too much public interest in private aspects. And the perpetrators actually are in some sense the victims of their own crime (assuming that they actually did it). They did lose 15 or 17 years of their lives in freedom, and they will have lost most of their material existence, too. Of course, your moral view of this will very likely be different, but these moral standpoints are secondary anyway. The point is that there is a good reason for "regard for privacy", and that Wikipedia can't treat criminals differently from everybody else. Zara1709 (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They chose to kill, and they bear the consequences for it. They are victims only of their own foolish decision. They lost 15 or 17 years? Big deal. Their victim lost his life. The facts of the case are publicly availabe. There is no privacy issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For all your suggestion that this isn't a moral issue, you're still using emotive phrases, and differentiating between people because they are murderers. Which is fair enough in real life, but surely an encyclopaedia shouldn't be based on emotive statements such as "They lost 15 or 17 years? Big deal. Their victim lost his life.", whilst you're denying that this is a moral issue. Also, technically, they have served their time - a sentence imposed in a fair trial. Do you consider the purpose of imprisonment to punish, or to rehabilitiate and ensure something doesn't happen again? Just because someone is a murderer does not exclude them from also being a victim, no? They aren't mutually exclusive terms, and it would be a mistake to claim that they were. Bradley10 (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was originally a life sentence that was shortened. It was the other user who brought up how these poor boys had lost 15-17 years of their lives, as if they were somehow innocent - which has not been asserted in the legal proceedings as far as anyone has demonstrated - and as if their victim, who lost all of his years, somehow doesn't matter. It's not a moral issue, it's a public safety issue. The desire of two murderers to hide from the public has to be weighed against the public's expectation of safety. I don't know where you get the idea that these guys are in any way "victims". They are not victims like the Star Wars kid, they chose to murder. And being "watched" after their sentence is over is not punishment. In any event, the names are facts in the case and are publicly known. There is no privacy issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The arrogance of disputants who don't stop trying to impose their views
Namely, 3vil-Lyn and Zara1709, of course. Zara1709 raised a policy issue, and 3vil-Lyn has joined forces to argue the case. They are arguing for the adoption of a policy (or perhaps we should say the adoption of a refinement to an existing policy) which in fact would involve, not merely applying an existing policy, but propagating to English Wikipedia a legal practice largely limited to Germany. For a month now, they have made their point, but they haven't convinced about half a dozen other editors. Zara1709 and 3vil-Lyn have collectively presented their case with great skill and with tedious relentlessness -- and with relentless tediousness -- and the opposing editors have collectively made the opposing case with equal solemnity and equal erudition. Even if we charitably don't hold it against 3vil-Lyn and Zara1709 that they won't accept defeat, they are still behaving badly by repeating themselves and taking up 20 times the space they need to. PS: the convicts invoked a court ruling, not evoked, and the gedanken in "gedankenexperiment" should be translated into English -- when cited in a forum like this one. Hurmata (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In case you haven't noticed, I didn't write anything more on this discussion page for two days, so I was somehow willing to let this rest for some time. What kept me going until this point was the sheer ignorance of the critique against me. Just read what I have written: "Neither 3vil-Lyn nor me argued that Wikipedia should abide some nations legal decisions; we argued that a developed legal system does have some provisions to protect the privacy of individuals, and the Wikipedia needs such provisions, too, and that I does have them, in the form of wp:blp." I've never hold the standpoint that you are accusing me of. I admit, that the lines with which I started off this discussion probably gave a different impression, and I would approach the issue differently If I'd get a second chance, but quite fast it became clear to me that this is not a legal issue, but a blp one. Yes, the debate on this page as long ago reached the point of ad nauseam, but I would hold that it is not me or 3vil-Lyn who is to blame. We've been running up not only against the prejudice that 'criminals don't have any rights' but also the prejudice that 'following an outside request would be censorship. This became clear to me when I read a recent article at wired: Pirate Bay Boycotts Press After Television Ambush Someone had uploaded at The Pirate Bay pictures of the autopsy of two children that had been the victims of a cruel murder. They were requested by the father of the children to remove the pictures, but refused, "based on their anti-censorship policies."  Now they might have a point when they ask why the media is now focussing on them (and not on the uploader or the legal aspects involved) but that is secondary. If you provide the infrastructure to disperse information, there is some responsibility involved, and if there shouldbe some sort of common moral sentiment that the grief of a family should be respected.
 * But some people are apparently so afraid of being censored that they lose a basic respect for human dignity. I would like to explain this based on a quote from the user page of an editor who helped me clear some other issues at Wikipedia: "Wikipedia: "free" as in freedom, "free" as in beer, but not "free" as in free-for-all." User:Dbachmann
 * I consider free speech a great achievement in modern societies. Everybody should be able to voice his or her political opinions in the public, restrictions should only be made for blatant lying or advocacy of terrorism. I am personally also concerned about the stronger options in Germany to censors books or the Internet. But - freedom does not mean free-for-all.


 * Free speech does not imply freedom to participate in the private activities of others, even if it is something as remotely as the social rehabilitation of a former criminal. I would concede that the necessity of "regard for pricacy" is more difficult to see in this case than in that of a kid who makes a private Star Wars video, but if the privacy of someone is to be regarded, do not confuse that regard with censorship. You're not being limited in the exercise of you free speech by others, you are limiting yourself. If you don't want to set yourself a limit of this kind, then you are playing into the hands of those people who oppose free speech, because the public will abuse it anyway. We wouldn't be following a court decision because that court would have any power about wikipedia. We would just come to the same conclusion as that court. There is simply no public interest in knowing their names that would outweigh the regard for that persons privacy. Zara1709 (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The names are publicly known, so there is no privacy issue. And while you claim it's not censorship to hide their names, it is exactly that. And your claim that there is no public interest in their names being known, is blatantly false. The public safety is more important than the desire of murderers to try to hide their identities. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Zara1709's wordiness reminds me of that leading German reformer of the 1980s, Petra Kelly, who tended to express herself in great heaps of words spoken at top speed and slightly loud. Hurmata (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So what. I made the point that this discussion is complicated for - among other - the reason that some people on the internet have become so scared by the despicable attempts to censor it that they view every limit to content - even a self-imposed one - as a form of censorship. Now you could say something about this, but all you do is criticize my writing style and bring ad hominem arguments.  Zara1709 (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The main problem is that it's the same arguments over and over (from all sides). This is all an endless loop. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)