Talk:Cases of Stübing v. Germany

Unequal prosecution

What's the deal with only Patrick being twice convicted of incest, but Susan never being charged? -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because of her age.

and her mental disorders. Jim Michael (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Incest under German law

What is the status of Incest under German law? The lead section of this article suggests that the criminal status has changed, because it talks of the crime in the past tense. But the rest of the article makes no mention of this law changing, nor does the relevant section of the criminal offence article about Incest in German Law indicate it has changed. Although there is comment that the law ought to change, if criminal code has not been changed yet then it is speculative to talk about the crime in the past tense. In any case, the facts in this case suggest that Incest was just one of the criminal offences that could have been committed in this relationship. The age difference and mental disability of the sister indicates there is also a matter of the ability to consent to the relationship that is also a consideration in this case, too. There is little or no discussion or legal analysis covered in the article about the facts and legal considerations of the various Courts for the offences concerned, so to suggest the legality of Incest under German Law has changed, especially if it hasn't, is misleading and suggests an editor has introduced a particular point of view into the article. By misusing tense in this way, the whole article is contaminated for the sake of a couple of words. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Focus of article

Per the guidance in WP:1E avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people and The general rule is to cover the event, not the person this article should be about the case and its aftermath rather than a biography of a person. I'm struggling to think of a good name for the article, but one possible candidate could be "Stübing and Karolewski Case". The name of the article could be changed now, and it can always be changed later if someone comes up with a better name Tristario (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly something to think about doing. On the other hand, if news stories start appearing about him campaigning to change the law then we’d have to change it back. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Even in that case the primary notable thing would still be the case, so it would still be better not to have it as a biography. If no one objects to changing the name to "Stübing and Karolewski Case" I'll change it in a few days Tristario (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The content seems okay though? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it seems mostly okay actually, not much needs to be changed now that I look at it more Tristario (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Tristario, if the title is changed to describe the case, then I think the usual custom at Wikipedia is to use the official case name that the court uses. I see such a case name here:

Stübing v. Germany. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Stübing had multiple trials, and that case name might just be referring to the third trial, or maybe just the appeal to the ECHR. So I'm not sure. Does that name apply to all the trials/appeals? If it doesn't then we probably shouldn't use that title Tristario (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, there were multiple trials, multiple appeals, various other proceedings, separate incarcerations, et cetera. Some involved just him (e.g. in 2002), some involved her too (e.g. 2004). So if we change this BLP title to a case name or names, then it should be plural instead of singular. Or we could conclude there was more than one event here. The next decade, we again see emphasis on his name rather than hers in the case names: Stübing v. Germany (no. 43547/08); judgment of 12 April 2012 and likewise CASE OF STÜBING v. GERMANY (Application no. 43547/08). So my inclination would be to leave this BLP title as-is, or alternatively change to something like “Cases of Stubing v. Germany”. There are similar articles at Wikipedia that each covers more than one case, e.g. Legal tender cases and Insular cases. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

If we are discussing new titles for this article, I would support the "Stübing and Karolewski Case" suggestion, or even more specific event-descriptive variants like "German Adult Sibling Incest Case". Other suggestions along these lines are welcome too. I do know the current title is problematic, even if you ignore my complaints about the 1E, it makes no mention of the sister whose participation represents 1/2 of the case. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:LAWMOS. It contains relevant instructions for us, such as: “Articles on cases that are primarily notable for the legal precedent they set, or are primarily discussed within legal scholarship, should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily see this article about the strict legal case, per se, but more about the specific controversy and aftermath of the case of the incest (using case in a non-technical way). But I don't have a significant issue with "Cases of Stubing v. Germany", I think that's still a decent title, though probably less preferred. I would also be fine with "Stübing and Karolewski Case". I'm not sure about "German Adult Sibling Incest Case" - seems too inspecific, but something along those lines might work Tristario (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It is counterintuitive, but the scope of this article would be broader if the title includes him but not her. That’s because he was involved in some legal matters that she was not involved with, whereas she was not involved in any legal matters without his involvement too. And besides, not just court case names, but also numerous reliable sources, mention him but not her. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm struggling to come up with a different word than "case", but the article is currently about a lot more than the criminal cases and related lawsuits. Event doesn't really work, but that's what we ultimately have here is an event in history to cover. If names are to be used in the title, Karolewski should be there too. The sources I've seen, including all of the original ones from the beginning of news coverage, all mention both of them. If we want to make this article only about the legal cases then we would need to trim a great deal. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 01:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The legal cases are arguably the main focus of this event here, and the article can still be about the legal cases while still including related information, background and aftermath, I don't think we would need to trim the article (in any sigificant way at least)

I think Anythingyouwant does have a point that Stubing has been the main subject of coverage, and you also have a point that Karolewski is usually mentioned too, so we could go either way in terms of just including Stubing in the title or having both their names. Could you live with "Cases of Stubing v. Germany"? (I think it's a decent name in terms of being informative and roughly reflecting what the article is about) Do you have other suggestions for names? Tristario (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm out of suggestions, but Cases of Stubing v. Germany seems fine. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, WP:BLP says, “Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.” It may be that her severe personality disorder qualifies her as a victim to some extent. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that any reliable sources have referred to her as a victim and if the courts had determined she was then Stubing probably would have been charged with rape instead. While a couple mention a personality disorder, taking another step of calling her a victim is WP:SYN. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

She was born in 1984 and had her first child in 2001. So people can do the math and make inferences. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. It needs a source. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 23:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s not OR for several reasons, among which is that I’m not suggesting that we put “inferences” or “victim” into this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the paragraph you posted here that begins "Incidentally, WP:BLP says", in which you go on to infer she "qualifies as a victim to come extent"? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

To heighten awareness here at the talk page of a potential BLP issue. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What BLP issue are you talking about? The personality disorder is cited to RS and at least one RS also notes that she has been convicted of the same thing as Stubing on one occasion, though her sentence was less. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said, WP:BLP requires this: “Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.” If you don’t think there is any possibility that anyone has been victimized here, then please feel free to ignore what I said. However, in my view, it’s a potential issue here because of the age of the sister when the incest first occurred, in addition to her personality disorder throughout the incest. Cheers! Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's something to keep in mind Tristario (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Title

@Tristario: @Anythingyouwant: So are we agreed on Cases of Stubing v. Germany for the new title? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

OK by me. Maybe a couple dots above the “u”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me too, with the ü Tristario (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice work. I think the new title and lede are an improvement Tristario (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Alternate spelling of name

I see that many reliable sources spell the name as “Patrick Stuebing” so perhaps we should give that alternate spelling in bold in the opening sentence? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I assume that's to do with transliteration from German to English. Wikipedia:Manual of Style has some guidance on things relating to this. Maybe we just add an IPA transcription per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation? Other articles I've checked of subjects with names that have non-English alphabet characters either just have the name (no alternative) or have an IPA transcription Tristario (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know. It seems like search engines might like having both spellings. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe add a footnote with the alternative spelling? You can add the alternative spelling in bold if you want, but it doesn't seem that consistent with what other articles do Tristario (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, a footnote would work. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Verification

This removal of material seems a bit odd. Here's the edit summary: "the bit about the 5th child is attributed to Speigel Online by the BBC, but no attribution or link is given so fails verification. I tried searching for the original article but cannot find it". Here's the removed material:

“ During his third imprisonment, Karolewski reportedly had a fifth child by another man; the couple resumed living together on Stübing's release.

staff (20 February 2007). "Incestuous German pair fight case". BBC News. Retrieved 25 March 2023.

”

BBC is a reliable source, and BBC attributes it to Der Spiegel, so it's not our place to argue with BBC about it, regardless of whether Der Spiegel is a reliable source or not (it is). I'm not sure the removed material is particularly relevant, so this is not an objection to its removal, I don't have any opinion about whether it should be in this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The removal was completely within existing guidelines. Sourcing things in that manner is inappropriate, we need the original source, which is Der Spiegel. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on whether this should be in the article, but I'm not aware of anything inappropriate about using something one reliable source reports another reliable source saying, as long as we attribute appropriately Tristario (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It fails verification. We need to verify the original reference made the statement as even reliable sources (as the BBC certainly is) can and do make errors. I don't have a strong opinion about the paragraph either, but if we want to include it we need to cite it to the source that actually makes the statement. If anyone feels strongly enough about it I can bring it up at the RS noticeboard for additional opinions. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's a correct interpretation of WP:V, sources are often used on wikipedia that are reporting what other sources say. That Spiegel said that is stil verifiable to a reliable source. As it is I'm fine with not including this so it probably isn't necessary to do that unless anyone else cares about this Tristario (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree 100%. If BBC reports “Boris Johnson says the Earth is flat” then Wikipedia can use it because BBC is a reliable source. Boris is not a reliable source, but that doesn’t matter, nor do we have to confirm somehow that he said it. Now just swap Boris Johnson with Der Spiegel, or National Enquirer, or whatever. That said, I’m fine not including this info. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It appears using the BBC as the source in this case would be ok, but the recommendation was to note the Spiegel reference by way of the BBC in the text [1]. Someone else was also able to find the original Spiegel source. Just an FYI. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)