Talk:Gustl Mollath

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Sources and references for the paragraph "Turn in News", sentence starts with "The so-called "turn in news" is however..."

[edit]

B. Lakotta replies to critical voices http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/spiegelblog/fall-gustl-mollath-beate-lakotta-ueber-die-zweifel-an-der-opferrolle-a-873836.html

She responded to: http://www.internet-law.de/2012/12/fall-mollath-alles-nur-heise-luft.html

http://blog.delegibus.com/2012/12/14/fall-mollath-wenn-die-welle-des-journalismus-bricht/

Her article was also critisized in http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/8/153373

Her reply to the 4 parts written by the retired chief prosecutor is awaited.

internet-law replied to her reply on http://www.internet-law.de/2012/12/spiegel-autorin-antwortet-auf-meinen-blogbeitrag-zum-fall-mollath.html

there is also carta.info: http://carta.info/51989/gustl-for-help-darf-man-den-fall-mollath-allein-der-justiz-uberlassen/

In the meantime, many media proceed with reporting, not really provoking readers to see a "turn" on the media landscape.

Like, for example http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/38/38228/1.html

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/chronologie-zum-fall-mollath-schwierige-suche-nach-der-wahrheit-1.1542305

And others.

Martha Mitchell effect

[edit]

http://blacklistedwikii.e/index.php/Gustl_Mollath

I really think that it is necessary that the truth will arise on the horizon. But this truth does hurt.--87.156.89.58 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is close to WP:TF. First the Martha Mitchell effect in German popular knowledge is not very common. It may have occured cause the forensic psychiatrists had no or no official knowledge in Mollaths talk about money shifts was true. One of the psychiatrists denied to investigate Mollath and declared himself for biased. --Hans Haase (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you really mean targeted flagging. English for de:WP:TF is WP:OR. Hans Adler 17:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Gustl Mollath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A vision for dealing with this topic

[edit]

I'm a German but have my wiki-home here at the English Wikipedia. (27,000 edits since 2007; just back from a 4-year wiki break; never ran for admin because I didn't want confusing extra buttons – if I need an admin job done, I know how to ask). I am familiar enough with the German Wikipedia to know that there are significant cultural differences.

I also followed the Mollath affair very closely from when it first became publicly known until a year or so after Gustl Mollath was released. (Obviously there wasn't much public information at that point.) Of course I did not root for Otto Brixner. However, due to my (at least attempted) practice of WP:WFE on contentious articles, it may feel that way to some of you if/when this voice is otherwise underrepresented.

I can see that there is a lot of drama around this topic at the German Wikipedia. I would like to help that we don't get the same situation here.

Some things from the top of my head that will almost certainly be relevant and may be surprising to editors coming from the German Wikipedia:

  • It is not customary here to do large amounts of content work on the talk page. Especially for the biography of a living person this is highly problematic because it makes any violations of our WP:BLP policy very easy to find from the subject's article. The alternative is for one editor to make a subpage in their user space and invite the others to cooperate there.
  • If a person is notable only for one event, it is customary here to name and organise the article after the event, not the person. See WP:BLP1E. In the case of Gustl Mollath this rises the question whether this never-ending affair (as it felt at the time) should be considered a single event. I admit it may be a borderline case, but I tend towards thinking it is.
  • Much more clearly, the subject of the related article Otto Brixner does not seem to satisfy our general notability guideline WP:N. He certainly does not satisfy WP:JUDGE, and the only thing he is notable for is having convicted Gustl Mollath. This makes him a case of WP:BLP1E. In his case, we can see why this rule exists: Either we write excessive details about his career unrelated to the Mollath affair, possibly hard to source but in any case not very interesting to anyone. Or we don't, and the Mollath affair gets excessive weight in his biography.
  • The German articles already contain a lot of detail. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of every scrap of information that has been published anywhwere. I don't think it is excessive as it is right now, but it really shouldn't be much more. For English speakers the entire topic is generally of less interest, so they will be better served with a shorter account that people will actually read.
  • For the reasons stated, I think it would be best to merge the two articles Gustl Mollath and Otto Brixner into a single article entitled "Gustl Mollath affair" or similar. This will also reduce the danger of anyone being accused of libeling Brixner – hopefully without having to tone things down unreasonably.
  • If things should go seriously wrong during work on this topic, please note that on the English Wikipedia, blocks are intended for persons, not accounts. If your account is blocked, you are not allowed to create a new one or edit while logged out, and if you already have a second account, you are not allowed to use it even for the most innocuous and uncontroversial edits. Let's hope that this will not become relevant, although given the topic this will probably require a lot of restraint from everyone.

I am prepared to help with getting a good and stable article (or articles) into the English Wikipedia, and to hopefully get it to Good Article status (see WP:GA). Here is why I think that's a good goal:

  • I think this is an interesting topic that deserves to be more widely known.
  • The goal of Good Article status tends to mitigate conflicts a little bit because both sides are part of a team that fights against the intricacies of the Good Article process.
  • The GA version is usually one that both sides are proud of. In case conflicts flare up later, it is a good version to revert back to while sorting things out.

OK, this was a big wall of text and probably quite unexpected. Now I'll try to shut up for a while to see what happens and give everyone a chance to be heard in this section. Hans Adler 18:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hans Adler: thx for your commitment in this case. I fully agree to your suggestion. I think it will be important -as has been pointed out at deWP several times- to note, that it wasn't Brixner who sentenced Mollath buth a chamber of at least 4 judges. Brixner was only presiding this chamber but wasn't even the rapporteur who drafts the verdict. Anyway I think that the suggested article Gustl Mollath affair or something like that would be the best solution. Since I have not had any experience with the English language for years I do not feel capable to write such an article für enWP but I could give some advice and hints. --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]