Talk:Bettina Wulff

book

There is no need to mention this book twice in the article. Mootros (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a substantial use in a seperate section "Books" or "Further Reading" if one pleas3e4s so that anyone who is interested in the subject can easily find reference which he or she may want to have a look into. Therefore, the rationale of the section "BOOKS" is the convenience for the reader and it shall remain, thence. Akolyth (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The book itself is not notable enough to feature in such a section. There is no need to mention it twice. "Convenience" is not a sufficient argument. Others could construe this as advertising. Mootros (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I knew you'd come up with this... you ought to adhere a little more to etiquette rather than to resort to slander (advertisement)! Now, in your first remark you have implicitly agreed that the book should be mentioned at least once and is notable, thus. Apart from that, media coverage of the book is tremendous and the references given are only a very few from a large sea of reports of the book. The ongoing discussion about it is indeed controversial but this is merely because of its relevance. Therefore, to mention the book is absolutely necessary and to provide a seperate section which can be filled up with more books in the years to come is most adequate. In particular, as books are not "one click away" as many of the online references they needs to be treated accordingly. Akolyth (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Try to be careful with your words, especially with legal words: See WP:LEGAL. The book is important in relation to some accusations. So its important to mention it in this respect. The book itself as a literary endeavour is not relevant to this person, because she is not known for writing books but known for being someone's wife. Articles about established authors usually have this book section. I still don't see why you need a separate section and an isbn. Mootros (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The book has been written by Bettina Wulff and a ghostwriter so it is extremely relevant w.r.t. this person. And now that she has written a book, she is an author, indeed. Akolyth (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's why we mention the book once. She is not known for being an author. Mootros (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, now that she did write a book she finally has become an author. Akolyth (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The book has been mentioned in its context once. It is fully cited in a footnote. Why do you insist on this duplication? Mootros (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you are referring to footnote #7. But mind you - that reference refers to an article rather than to the book itself. Therefore, there is no duplication. And as a contents contributor, I consider it important to provide information to the reader such that he or she will find easily the information that he or she seeks. To that end, a distinct section "Book" or "Further Reading" is most appropriate. Akolyth (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Book publisher

It looks like Akolyth you don't know much about the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bettina_Wulff&diff=513656564&oldid=513654999 The book is published by RIVA Verlag and not by herself. Please undo this nonsense you put in the article. Mootros (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

An author writes a book and has it puvblished (by proxy, ie. a professional publisher). Mind you, there are many books written which have not yet been published by an author. Akolyth (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot - I shall add riva Verlag as you request. Akolyth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wulff has not published this book. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Mootros (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Third party opinion

I'm dropping in to offer an additional opinion here, in the hopes of quelling this burgeoning edit war. Two issues appear to be at stake; firstly, whether the book merits a separate section or should simply be mentioned under the "Lawsuit" header, and whether Wulff should be listed as author, co-author or publisher of the book.

Regarding the first point; to the best of my knowledge, we don't have a specific criterion to decide whether or not someone is "officially" an author (and thus merits a list of works in their article). The nearest we have is the notability guideline for authors. Applying this, in the hypothetical instance that Wulff's only claim to fame was the publication of this book, would she then meet this guideline? Since she doesn't meet any of the WP:AUTHOR criteria, I'm inclined to surmise that she is not notable as an author. As such, there is no need to include a list of works in the article. However, since the book is not (as far as I can tell from the sources) directly related to the lawsuit, it would make sense to include it under its own heading. I'd suggest something like this (based on the current article text):

Lawsuit

In 2012, Wulff undertook action against Google, Günther Jauch and 34 German and foreign bloggers and media which lead to cease and desist orders. The centrepiece of the associated lawsuit is Google's autocomplete feature because the search engine would suggest terms such as "escort" and "prostitute" when searching for Wulff's name.[6] In that course, Wulff fights back rumors that she had worked as a prostitute before her marriage with Christian Wulff. These rumors have been circulating since 2006.
Book

In September 2012, Wulff published an autobiography (co-authored by N. Maibaum) titled Jenseits des Protokolls (English: Beyond protocol).

That's far from a final version, but that's how I personally would structure it.

With regards to whether she should be described as author, co-author or publisher, RIVA Verlag use the word veröffentlicht on their website blurb, which does translate as "published", unless my German's gone a bit rusty. However, although I've never dealt with RIVA in a professional capacity, it does look to me as though they have borne the publishing costs and editorial processes themselves, making them, as a company, the "publisher". In the book trade, the convention with autobiographies is generally to regard the subject as author and the ghostwriter as co-author, although this depends to some extent on the way in which the book is attributed under the ghostwriter's contract. In this case, the title page (which can be viewed via Amazon's Look Inside feature on this page) shows Maibaum as a secondary co-author ("Bettina Wulff mit Nicole Maibaum", not "Bettina Wulff und Nicole Maibaum"), so I'd describe Wulff as "author" and Maibaum as "co-author". Thus, the article text should be something like:

In September 2012, Wulff wrote an autobiography (co-authored by N. Maibaum) titled Jenseits des Protokolls (English: Beyond protocol).

or

In September 2012, Wulff authored an autobiography (co-authored by N. Maibaum) titled Jenseits des Protokolls (English: Beyond protocol).

That's my 2¢, fo what it's worth. Hopefully it's helpful. Either way, I'd strongly suggest the two of you work out any proposed changes to the text on this page, since at the moment you're both on the express train to blocksville with your article edits. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your opinion. I am happy with these proposed changes as it removes the obvious duplication. I see the keeping of the separate section as a sensible compromise. Your suggestions regarding author, co-author and publisher looks like an accurate description of the facts. Mootros (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yunshui, do I understand that you suggest, firstly, the section "Book" is being kept, and secondly, that the sentence in question shall be re-phrased "Wulff authored an autobiography (co-authored by N. Maibaum)"? Regards, Akolyth (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Roughly, yes. My main thoughts are that the book should have a section separate from the lawsuit, and that Wulff should be described as "author" rather than "publisher" or "co-author". The actual text beyond that isn't something I've considered in any detail, and I'm happy to suggest and discuss potential ways of phrasing the section here. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with both of your suggestions. I shall adapt the article accordingly by tomorrow unless any objections have been raised. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, and I'm glad that we're coming to a solution here, but can I just counsel restraint for a little longer? It would be sensible if we could all agree on the precise wording to be inserted into the article before the changes are made, just to avoid any misunderstandings.

My proposed text (assuming that we cut off the Lawsuit section after the first paragraph and then have a new section for the book) would be as follows:

In September 2012, Wulff wrote an autobiography (co-authored by N. Maibaum) titled Jenseits des Protokolls (English: Beyond protocol). The book was published by RIVA Publications of Munich.

with the same sources as are currently in the article. I slightly prefer "wrote" to "authored" for readability, and I'm not really fussed over whether RIVA get a mention or not. Obviously more can be added if the book gets decent press coverage in the coming weeks. Any thoughts? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, let's leave the article until next Friday. And I also see no added-value in an express mentioning of riva Verlag but I have my heart neither here nor there. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no real reason to mention RIVA (the fact that they publish the book isn't especially noteworthy). Let's lose that second sentence and captalise "Protocol", and then I think we're sorted. I've dropped Mootros a note asking him to comment here; if he's happy with the above as well then we can go right ahead. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this forward. Looks fine to me; I have no objections. Mootros (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks to both of you for your cooperation. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Early Life In the 5th sentence: "Hans and Bettina Wulff each have a child..." Who is Hans? Is this Hans Wulff? Who is Hans Wulff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.124.73 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)