Jump to content

Talk:Franz Josef Strauss/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 Done - consensus below seems to me to be in favour of a move to Franz Josef Strauss. I note that both sides of the discussion are citing WP:UE in different ways. Neıl ☎ 10:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2007/2008

[edit]

Basically this is a second try of the one posted on December 18, suggesting a move to "Franz Josef Strauss". Same reasons apply as above. This time however, people who aren't involved in the topic won't come across the discussion. I won't comment one way or the other because I'm one of those people. James086Talk | Email 01:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • It goes like this. WP:UE says: "If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but names from languages which do not use a Latin alphabet, like Chinese and Russian, do." There is no commonly used English name for this man, just his German name. German is a Latin-alphabet language so there is no need to do a transliteration. Easy as eins-zwei-drei. Haukur (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • English practice, and therefore English usage, is to use "ss" more often than not, particularly when the subject's common name in English is Franz Josef Strauss. What have you to say about all of the provided sources? Can you show where in English the subject is most commonly known as Franz Josef Strauß? It is not a mistake or incorrect in English to not follow German orthography. Charles 03:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Books gives me plenty of English language hits for a search for "Franz Josef StrauB" and that's just one erraneous OCR reading of the name.[1] There is ample precedent for referring to the man with the ß intact and that's most consistent with general usage on Wikipedia. Beyond that I don't have much to add and refer to my comments here over the last three years. I don't think we have large differences of opinion on the facts - I think we just don't assign the same value to the same things. I don't think your point of view is invalid, it's just that I have a different one. Haukur (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

How did he actually write his name, with an "ss" or an "ß"? --203.94.135.134 (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did Catherine the Great of Russia write hers? What matters is what the individual is called in English. Charles 03:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well she probably would have written her name in Cyrillic script, which is somewhat different to the Latin script we and Germans use, hence transliteration is needed, and therefore an English spelling is also needed. But because Germans use a Latin script (which is slightly modified to include ß, ä, ö, etc), I wouldn't have thought a re-spelling into English was necessary. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be necessary when one has knowledge of the pronunciation, however, it is necessary when common English usage calls for it. The difference though is just what you mentioned: The modified Latin script is chiefly used by the Germans and not by the Anglophones. Whether "right" or "wrong", that is how our language has developed. Charles 05:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "right" or "wrong" about it. That is why we have redirects, so "Franz Josef Strauss" redirects to "Franz Josef Strauß" and a hatline explains the different spellings and a pronunciation guide shows, well, pronunciation. Therefore with all that information in the first few lines, knowledge of "ß" is not necessary, it's all there and so there shouldn't be any problems. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should be have an article on English Wikipedia which does not reflect English usage? Remember, we are not an academy of the English language like the French. Charles 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would an Indian newspaper or CNN USA write that name? I think article titles should be in 7-bit ASCII only, for English WikiPedia. The "proper" name can go in the first line of the article. ß is in no way English. This is not the German Wikipedia. I fail to see why people are so hot over Arabic titles, if we allow this non-English stuff in German. It smacks of prejudice where German is allowable but Cyrillic is not. 70.51.10.206 (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides in this debate keep talking past each other. I'm all for debate, but I want everyone to understand where everyone stands, and it's clear that many on both sides do not. In our last incarnation of this discussion, I posed some points that were ignored cut off by the closure of the debate. I'm not going to bring those up now, but it would be nice to have some respond to these points sometime. What I want to address right now is something that I think that most of us Anglophones only tangentially grasp. It infuriates many of us to be told that "Strauss" is not English, or that "Strauss" is a misspelling. When the ß-advocates say such things, you lose many on this side of the divide instantly. But over the past couple of years, I've tried to absorb your arguments; let me express what I take your argument to be. I'm also going to explain why I believe you to be mistaken.
WP:UE says, If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Now common sense, to most of us Anglophones, says that he did have a commonly used English name: Strauss. But those who have in the past successfully pushed the spelling "Strauß" onto these pages have argued that "Strauss" is not an English name, its a misspelled German name, which should be spelled "Strauß". The argument, as best as I understand it, stems from an extremely technical distinction between what constitutes an Actual English Name and a Transliteration. If a word as expressed in coloquial English is clearly different in almost everyway from the German spelling (e.g., Munich vs. München), then the English usage is an Actual English Name, and should be used in en.wiki. However, if the word is merely a transliteration—that is, where you can exchange letter for letter from one language to the other—then this is not an Actual English Word. For example, "Berlin", as many times as you see it in English-language publications, is not an English spelling or English name. It is German. Why? Because that's how it's spelled in Deutsch. If it's spelled in Deutsch that way, then ipso facto, it's not English.
Why is this important to the whole Strauss/Strauß debate? Because a little addendum to this rule of what is and isn't English comes into play when words are almost the same. Advocates of Strauß assert that "Strauss" is merely a transliteration. You see, there is a letter-to-letter correspondence here: S to S, t to t, r to r, a to a, u to u, and ss to ß. "Strauss"? That's not an English spelling of his name, they tell us, its a misspelling of his already-German name. So our desire to use "Strauss", our claims that Strauss is the English form of his name—these sentiments are viewed as the wishes of an inadequate Anglophonic education. If only we knew what they know, we would realize that Strauss is an abomination, and would rid our encyclopedia of it out of hand.
My response to this has many facets, but I'll stick to just two. First of all, by telling us that "Berlin" or "Strauss" are not English wordnames, you set yourselves up in a position of authority that does not exist in the English-speaking world. There is no Académie anglais, no Real Academia Ingles, and no one who could ever create an "English spelling reform of 2007". Of course, you already know this, which is why you feel emboldened enough to tell us here on Wikipedia how we need to spell names that we have already been spelling for decades and, in some cases, centuries. But the absence of an official authority does not give yourselves the right to substitute yourselves as said authority. In point of fact (and this is my second point), the only authority there is is generally accepted usage, as is reflected in the publications of the day. WP:UE implicitly recognizes this point, by saying that we should use commonly used English names. The spirit of this wording is clear to all who are willing to see it: On Wikipedia the ordinary reader of English should find articles written and titled with the forms to which he is most likely to be accustomed to seeing. And the ordinary reader neither knows, nor cares to know, nor needs to know the difference between a translation and a transliteration. It is simply beside the point. If you were to accept the spirit of the policy in your heart, and then review the fact that 99.999% of the time the former Bavarian leader is unquestionably referred to in English publications as "Strauss", then you would recognize this as a simple matter. It never occurs to Germanophones (is that a word?) that, by the mere fact of its regular and historic usage in English, that the German wordname "Berlin" becomes the English wordname "Berlin". Instead you chide us for our ignorance—as if we are simply too uneducated to understand that "Strauss" is a misspelling (rather than the English form, which it is). We may be ignorant of German spelling rules (I know I am), but that doesn't make us ignorant of English spelling. And Strauss, my dear friends, is the English spelling of his name. Unschool (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor addendum, but to British English there is a sort of form of 'Academie Anglais' in the form of the OED, which is regarded as the bastion of the Queen's English. More a 'just so you know' than an informed addition to the debate. Narson (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the non-English supporters hijacked English Wikipedia long ago. It's useless to resist, sooner or later (regrettably) this article will remain as it currently is. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OED is not now particularly British, if it ever was; it now makes an effort to report all of English. More importantly, it is not prescriptive; it does not, like an Academy, attempt to decide what English should be; it records the evidence on what English is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following was originally a reply to my post in the Survey, above. It is moved here, since it has generated a long thread. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per my comment immediately above yours, this is not an orthographic convention for representing "ss", but a distinct letter. What "English usually does" is ignore the existence of anything not found in English, whether it be additional Latin letters like ð or þ or letters with diacritics. That is not the policy in Wikipedia. We can argue more generally as to whether this policy should be changed, but while it remains ß should be shown as such and not as ss. Vilĉjo (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully submit, Vilcxjo, that you have just made the argument for excluding ß. You say, What "English usually does" is ignore the existence of anything not found in English. I will grant you that point. But then, what is the policy of Wikipedia (or at least, en.wikipedia)? It is to employ conventional English usage. I realize that my diatribe below is simply too much to ask anyone to read, but I'm going to do so anyway: Please read my comments below. Yes, you are quite correct about the fact that "ss" does not equal "ß". I'm sorry that not everyone understands that; it must be frustrating for you. Nonetheless, if you follow my comments below, you may realize how even though you are correct about what is "correct", you may be mistaken about what belongs here. At least, that's my humble hope. Unschool (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I just ask what policy we are talking about that promotes the use of diacritics? My understanding and reading of the various policies is that there is no community consensus on their use and that such consensus should be reached on an article by article basis where it becomes a point of debate? Narson (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Unschool, there is a strong case to be made for excluding ß, ð, þ, diacritics etc. But that is not what generally happens on Wikipedia. I admit I overstated how normative this was, but practically every article I see uses native spelling for Latin-script names. Even though I can't recall ever seeing English-language newspapers referring to Joey Gudjonsson as "Guðjónsson", nor to Slobodan Milosevic as "Milošević" (just two examples out of thousands), the names of the articles here use the native spelling. While we can argue about how appropriate that is, I see no good reason for this particular article to buck the trend. Vilĉjo (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should one article "buck" the trend? Well, for starters, this one is amongst the most prominent of the articles employing ß. JSF was an extremely prominent politician, and therefore the evidence of the English-normative use of "Strauss" is immense. Secondly, if those of us who desire to respect the spirit of WP:UE wish not to lose this argument forever, we must make our stand on such articles as this. If we yield on articles like this one, how will we be able to later argue that Staßfurt should be Stassfurt? Meaning no disrespect to the fine denizens of Stassfurt, I think we all recognize that this article will be read many more times than will be Stassfurt. Thirdly, it is simply easier to get a discussion going here, again, because it's a more frequently visited page. Ultimately, I would like to see policy clarified to preclude the use of ß except perhaps in the extraordinarily rare case when English usage including the ß is actually more common than without. But right now, such a policy would not have a snowball's chance of passing, because—despite the fact that the vast majority of people who read en.wiki are certainly Anglophones—there are more non-Anglophones than Anglophones hanging out on the relevant project pages; they have and can block any attempt to create a consensus to depricate the use of ß. Most Anglophones don't even realize that these issues are being debated; if they did, there would be a 95%+ consensus to end the use of ß and Þ immediately. Unschool (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a 95%+ consensus for your position, there's just no way to demonstrate it? That's a silent majority theory which would put even Nixon to shame :) Needless to say, I think you are wrong. When I encounter a random Anglophone there seems to be about a 50% chance that he'll be fine with using those letters. But in any case the important thing isn't the preference of people who never have occasion to visit these articles. It makes more sense that our spelling of Staßfurt should be determined by the preferences (and needs) of the people who actually want to read (or edit) the article on Staßfurt. Each article should cater to its readers - not to its non-readers, however much you think they agree with you :) Haukur (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say that there is a 95%+ consensus that these non-English characters should not be used. I said that there would be such a consensus if every Anglophone who visited these pages was cognizant of the issue. The non-demonstrable yet obvious fact is that the people who frequent article talk pages are not representative of the people who regularly read this—one of the most visited websites in the world. There are probably less than 20,000 editors who contribute regularly to talk pages, as opposed to hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people who visit these pages regularly. Editing alone sets one apart from the casual reader, and discussing changes sets one even further apart. Accordingly, the "random Anglophone" with whom you discuss these matters is hardly likely to be a typical Anglophone. The typical Anglophone has no idea that Wikipedia has policies which are debated by its editors, nor does he understand why anyone would spell a German name with a capital "B" at the end.
  • You don't have a lot of faith in those poor confused Anglophones. The first sentence in this article gives a link to an article on the letter and gives a transliteration for it. Haukur (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We get this point thrown at us all the time: There's a link to ß at the beginning of the article, they can figure it out! Or, the English spelling will be shown right afterwards, so that they'll understand. Sure, but it works both ways. If the article is entitled "Strauss", but in the opening sentence we put "Strauß" in parentheses, won't that take care of those Germanophones who you believe will be reading these obscure articles? And since this is the English Wikipedia, shouldn't the foreign spelling be mentioned parenthetically? Or do you lack faith in the Germanophones to be able to handle the spelling "Strauss"?
  • You make a second point, Haukur, which you have made a few times before, but which I have never gotten around to answering: That these obscure pages are more likely to be visited by non-Anglophones, and should therefore be in a condition more recognizable to said non-Anglophones, when they seek information on the topic. Poppycock. This presuppposes that people seek in encyclopedias information on topics about which they are already acquainted. This is ridiculous. The whole idea of an encyclopedia is to have information at the ready for the reader seeking to learn about topics that he may or may not already know about, with the latter being the more important. The fact that you or I cannot come up with a scenario in which some Anglophone needs to look up Vossstrasse does not mean that we do not need to have the article ready for him in a condition which he will be comfortable reading it. If you want an article called Voßstraße, so that a German speaker will be comfortable reading something that he regards as spelled correctly, then by all means, do so, but please place it in the German Wikipedia. Why are there Wikipedias in other languages, if not for that reason?
  • There isn't any article on Voßstraße in the German Wikipedia or in any other Wikipedia except the English one. When it comes to a huge number of subjects, English Wikipedia is the only game in town. It's just no good saying that people who aren't native speakers of English should go to the Wikipedia in their native language and stop bothering you. No other Wikipedia has as much information. Haukur (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC
        • I've never assumed any such thing, you just made that up. As for that policy quote, my point has always been that the general audience of article X isn't the same as the general audience of article Y. We make allowances for that all the time in all sorts of subjects. Give Klee's measure problem to a random person on the street and ask them how well they think the article is optimized for them. As for writing an article in the German Wikipedia - to indulge a red herring long after you have chosen to ignore the point it was originally attached to - my German isn't really up to it. My contributions to the German Wikipedia are limited to minor corrections and the addition of interwiki links.[3] Haukur (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean. An Anglophone is someone who speaks English - what's a non-Anglophone? Someone who doesn't speak English? Why would they be using English Wikipedia?
  • Okay, okay, you got me. :-) What I meant, and what I think was clear to most readers (that is, if anyone is reading this exchange), is that I was referring to Anglophonic monoglots. Clear?
  • In any case, people looking for information on relatively obscure German subjects are highly likely to be already somewhat familiar with the German alphabet.
  • True, but irrelevant. Not just because of policy (WP:UE), but also because an Anglophone Anglophonic monoglot should be able to follow one link to another and retain the comfort level that is supposed to be provided by WP:UE. I also spend time reading Wikipedia. I follow link after link and often end up in places that I never intended to go—that's the greatest joy of Wikipedia. In fact, that's how I first came to this whole ß/ss debate over two years ago. I never intended to check up on the spelling of JFS's name, I just was following links (though I hasten to add that I had known quite a lot about him before that day).
  • Haukur, the accuracy is actually not the point. WP:UE does not speak of accuracy. It speaks of common English usage. And maybe you're right; maybe it's not about "comfort". I use that as a metaphor for how I believe most Anglophones feel when they come across ßs and such, but regardless of the reason for it, WP:UE is about using English forms. And Strauss is the English form (though I know that many on your side of this issue try to tell us that there is no English version; I have addressed that elsewhere on this page.)Unschool (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For one thing it's confusing because Franz J. Strauß and Franz J. Strauss were two different people. One was a musician, the other a politician. Your method, whatever its advantages, relegates this distinction to a parenthesis on one article. Haukur (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also object to the bloody-foreigners-can-have-their-own-bloody-Wikipedias sentiment. The English Wikipedia is for anyone who can speak English, whether they happen to be German or not. Haukur (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the extent that such sentiments are the result of xenophobic sentiments or other prejudice against certain people, then I condemn comments stating such. But Haukur, let me ask you: Why are there Wikipedias in so many languages? I presume that there is a Swedish Wikipedia so that the average Swede can find information in a format which is comfortable for him to read. I presume that there is a French Wikipedia so that the average Frenchman is also so convenienced. Is it so much to ask that the average Anglophonic monoglot receive the same courtesy? Of course this is for everyone who can read English. And given the great tragedy for the world that English has become the dominant language of the world, yes, of course there will be more people reading this than the other versions of Wikipedia. But none of that changes the fact that this is supposed to be the English Wikipedia. Why is it so much to ask that that be respected?
  • I don't think the English Wikipedia should cater more to monolingual English speakers than to other types of English speakers and there is no policy which says that it should. I don't feel at all sorry for the putative monolingual English speaker "whose" encyclopedia has been "hijacked", to pick the most offensive description you've offered.
  • Mmmmmm. Yes, I suppose technically you are correct, there is nothing that says to cater more to monoglots. But WP:UE does have that effect, if it is sincerely applied. I mean, if I am doing research on FJS, and I look at World Book and Britannica, I should expect to find the same spelling in Wikipedia as I do in those, should I not? Unschool (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think monolingual English speakers are at all at a disadvantage when it comes to obtaining information, from Wikipedia or from other sources. Do you think the Swedish Wikipedia has as much information as the English Wikipedia? Do you think the average monolingual Swedish person is in a better position when it comes to obtaining information from Wikipedia? What do you think is the ratio between the number of articles in the English Wikipedia to the number of articles in the Wikipedia in my native language? I'll tell you - there are a 113 times more articles over here than over there. You seem to be implying that we shouldn't worry about the needs and sensibilities of Icelandic readers of English Wikipedia because they can always use the Icelandic Wikipedia. I strongly disagree with that. Haukur (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry that, at the present time anyway, other Wikipedias have fewer articles. That is the result, as we both know, of centuries of history which has brought us—for better or for worse—to where we are today. But if en.wiki is so important and valuable to persons of other language backgrounds, might it not be worth the effort to endure our spellings? You wouldn't pick up a World Book and express outrage over the fact that this man's name is spelled Strauss, would you? Well, maybe you would—I dont' know. But you speak of the Anglophones in whom I supposedly have so little faith. But do you not show an even greater lack of faith in the persons of other languages? Hey, the English monoglot is going to be confused by Voßstraße, and wonder what is going on. But the German reader of en.wiki is not going to be surprised by Vossstrasse. He may be annoyed, but he'll understand what's going on (it's those damn Anglophones and their stupid spelling system). It just seems to me that if someone has to come to en.wiki and find unfamiliar spellings, it should not be the Anglophonic monoglots.Unschool (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have I ever expressed "outrage" over the ss-position? Have I ever expressed a lack of faith in German readers? I don't think I have so I don't see why I should respond to these questions. I do, however, strongly object to the idea that everyone who isn't a monolingual English speaker is some kind of second class citizen here - someone who can tag along if they want to but whose needs and preferences are unimportant. Haukur (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, I only put that point about faith in the German-speaking readers because you—on two occasions, I believe—have equated my objections to your desired policies as standing on the premise that I lacked faith in the average Anglophonic monoglot to be able to handle the use of ß in en.wiki. That was your tactic, and assuming that you now recognize it to have been a distraction from the facts, I withdraw the comment. Secondly, I agree with you that it is not desirable to treat anyone as a "second class citizen", but then again, somebody is going to get their way and someone is not. All I'm asking is that, on en.wiki, the people for whom this encyclopedia was presumably created can have it in the language that they recognize. And if you serioiusly question that en.wiki was primarily (I said primarily, not exclusively) created for Anglophonic monoglots, then first answer the question you have sidestepped: Why are there other Wikipedias in Russian and Japanese and Icelandic and all these other languages? Is it not clearly for the use of the Russian monoglots and Japanese monoglots and Icelandic monoglots? (Assuming that there are any—is your impressive language facility common in Iceland?) Do not Anglophonic monoglots deserve the same respect as these other languages, to a Wikipedia on which they will easily recognize the letters in which words are written? Unschool (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said: "The typical Anglophone ... does [not] understand why anyone would spell a German name with a capital "B" at the end." To which I responded: "You don't have a lot of faith in those poor confused Anglophones". I'll note that at the time I wasn't aware that you were using the word to refer to monolingual English speakers only. Anyway. Why are there other Wikipedias? Mostly so that we can present information in more than one language. Why is that useful? Well, the biggest reason (but not the only one) is that not everyone can speak English. None of this implies that the Icelandic Wikipedia is specifically for Icelandic monoglots or that the English Wikipedia is specifically for English monoglots - I just don't see how you arrive at that conclusion or why you think it's self-evident. The Icelandic Wikipedia is for everyone who can read Icelandic - as it happens we do have a number of non-native contributors and a very high number of native speakers who are also proficient in English or other languages. I've never heard anyone suggest that our specific priority is to cater to monolingual Icelandic-speakers. Haukur (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not everyone can speak English. Of course not; that's why other Wikipedias exist. But those who can, or prefer to, or cannot read other languages, deserve an English Wikipedia, written in language they can understand. (As it happens, I do understand Klee's measure problem, and consider it as clear as we are likely to achieve; Haukur's approach, however, would make it Klees Maßproblem, which helps nobody.) 02:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That's completely absurd. In no way, shape or form would I support a move of Klee's measure problem to Klees Maßproblem. Nor would any "approach" I have result in any such thing. My point was that I, too, think that article is perfectly fine - but I don't think it can be reasonably said to have been written for a general audience. It has been written for the typical person likely to be interested in it - which is exactly my position. Incidentally, what "self-pity" are you attributing to me in your edit summary? Another invention out of thin air? Or your best effort to advance the debate in a collegial way? Haukur (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which brings me back, by the way, to the point that the ß-pushers ignore every single time I bring it up. The points that Haukur raises above are distractions from the real issue. You see, even if Haukur's alleged experience that 50% of Anglophones are okay with the use of ß—an experience which runs completely opposite of my own experience—it still isn't okay to routinely use ß on en.wikipedia. Why? Because it violates, if not the letter (and I do actually think it violates the letter, but I'll grant that there can be some semantic arguments made here), then it at least violates the spirit of WP:UE. I've brought this up on at least three or four occasions on this page or pages like it, and it never gets an answer. As I say below, the spirit of WP:UE is intended to assure that on Wikipedia the ordinary reader of English should find articles written and titled with the forms to which he is most likely to be accustomed to seeing. It is irrelevant whether or not they can "handle" an eszett, policy says that we don't use it unless that's the most common way that it is found in English. But the ß-pushers are not interested in the spirit or intent of WP:UE; their interest is to find each little hole in the dike that will allow them to slide non-English characters (But they are Latin characters!, they'll say, even if they evolved over a thousand years after the fall of Rome) into this English-language project. Well, we all know that a small crack in the dam soon grows; if we hope to keep the English Wikipedia from being morphed into the International Wikipedia, we need to be prepared to discuss this issue wherever and whenever it comes up. If the ß-pushers want to be honest about this, they need to persue a change in WP:UE. And in the meantime, I know I for one would be very appreciative if they would respect the spirit of the policy we already have in place. Unschool (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:UE is, as you mention, rather vague. You want to interpret it in a way that puts it in conflict with actual practice on Wikipedia because that is its "spirit". That makes no sense to me. Policy is as policy does. A policy forbidding the use of ß would, I think, not get consensus. Yet, you think that we already have a policy the spirit of which does exactly that. Why should we act on a supposed "spirit" which doesn't have consensus behind it? Haukur (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't here when the policy was created, nor was I here when these articles came into existence with their non-English speaking forms. But it isn't hard to guess that the current conflict stems from the historic European tendency to seize territory that they claim to be vacant without checking with the natives first. You say that "actual practice on Wikipedia" is to use these foreign characters. Well, naturally, since the policy is decided on an article-by-article basis. Polyglots with their anti-English POV have come in here and created who knows how many articles that use non-English characters, and how can we even know of their existence? There are over 2 million articles on en.wiki; how those of us who oppose the use of ß track them all? Policy is as policy does? Well Haukur, you yourself have in the past argued against creating a universal policy on the use of ß, stating that it should be done article-by-article. This was ingenious, because it makes it impossible to change policy in one fell swoop. We are forced to fight article-by-article.
  • And, by the way, I don't expect you to "act on a supposed 'spirit'", if you really don't see it. If you genuinely, in your heart, believe that most Anglophones Anglophonic monoglots are just as comfortable with "ß" as with "ss", then by all means, keep up your efforts. I could be wrong. But I have yet to meet one single person in my life whose native language was English and who had no training in German who agreed that ß should be included in an English-language project. Unschool (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This demonstrates that Haukur has misunderstood the position. There are three positions here:
      1. One would indeed forbid ß absolutely;
      2. Another, equally extreme, would use it whenever German does (as written in Germany since 1996; the Swiss differ).
      3. The third position would use ß whenever English usually does. This is the position endorsed by WP:NAME (and, for article text, by WP:MOS). I support it; I believe Unschool does; and it is the overwhelming majority here against either of the others. Attempting to present the words of WP:UE as opposing it is, at best, a regrettable misunderstanding, which should be clarified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (left): To Haukur: I don't see that #1 and #3 are functionally equivalent. They agree here; where English uses eszett #3 will agree with #2, which cannot agree with #1. What has Unschool said differently? (And since the same schools of thought exist on diacritics, but English uses them more often, #3 will agree more with #2, as Unschool indeed does.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unschool has made it clear that he wants to "depricate the use of ß" and "end the use of ß and Þ immediately". He's said that he would "perhaps" be willing to make an exception in (what he thinks is) the "extraordinarily rare case" that ß is more commonly used. Incidentally, if you don't think #1 and #3 are functionally equivalent, could you give me a handful of examples where you want to keep an ß in an article title? Haukur (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not Unschool though, I am no /huge/ lover of using diacritics when there is a common name in English without them. The exceptions, to me at least, are for things like (to use annother proper noun) the German navy ship Frederich der Groß (my apologies if the spelling is off on that, that was just off the top of my head). Besçanson (Spelling again might be off, my apologies in advance) is annother case of using diacritics (though admitedlsuch characters. Just so it is clear there are people who do think non-English standard characters have a place in wikipedia but that place is currently poorly defined and is a tad too large (and random) at the moment. Narson (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For me it is a question of fact: It seems plausible that the Friedrich der Große is usually so spelled, and if naval histories in English spell it thus, we should too. Similarly, it is likely that Groß Gerau has no usual form in English. But what is the evidence? And in the second case, is a hamlet too obscure to be mentioned in English really notable enough for an article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This all seems a bit hypothetical and I have still to see you come out in support of ß or þ on any given poll. What about Þingeyri? Did you find my evidence there at all persuasive? Personally I think I had a much better case there than here - I admit Strauß is closer to the borderline. Haukur (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I found your comment moderately persuasive, but not dispositive. I do not see that you supplied any evidence at Talk:Þingeyri, and what evidence there was was against you; please add a diff. The only argument for Þingeyri is that it is too little spoken of in English to have an English name, which may be true; certainly there are many places in Iceland where it is true. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • My position is that thorns and eszetts which do not seem odd to an English speaker should stay (as the umlaut in Göttingen stays). These are unlikely to be challenged; but when they are, I will defend them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vilĉjo's argument is self-defeating. If (as he contends) ß were a "distinct letter", not a way of writing ss (or sz), then English almost invariably uses Strauss, not Strauß, a different word, as different as Straub or Straun; and to insist on Strauß is as contrary to English usage, and therefore to naming policy, as it would be to insist that this English Wikipedia use maße instead of mass, or Nürnberg instead of Nuremburg (or the other way around, that the German Wikipedia use California instead of de:Kalifornien). This would be plainly contrary to practice and to policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ladies and Gentlemen, I can only tell you of my personal experience with non-English letters. When I first came across them in 2005 (upon discovering Wikipedia), I was confused & frustrated (due to the fact I couldn't read swiggly lines & cubes), my only salvation was an Enlgish translation being near by. It was only after constant stalemate (of over a year), that a compromise was reached on Hockey pages (though IMHO, not a 50/50 compromise). I'd recommend accept the consensus reached here & change to Strauss. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide us with a link to that compromise, so that we can become familiar with it? Unschool (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey, Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format and Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format and all there archives. We decided there to have diacritics in non-NHL pages and no diacritics in NHL pages. Not sure how it can apply here though. Another option would be allow each article to decide it's own style. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after a (very quick) glance, I don't see how this can help us. It deals with the issue of diacritics, and not all the people who are opposed to using ß are also equally opposed to diacritics. Unschool (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's best to allow each article to decide for its own (an umbrella solution won't do). When does the 'polls' close anyway? So far desire for 'Strauss' seems quite evident. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When the activity dies down. If nobody adds a support/oppose for 2 days that's a pretty good sign that it's ready to be closed, but that's by no means binding criteria. James086Talk | Email 22:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, how many of the support votes are from those who only came by here in the first place due to Unschool's canvassing on the previous vote? James, in closing the previous vote you asked that "in about a month somebody restart the move discussion when it's no longer at the front of everyone's minds … Perhaps even less than a month." You then instigated it less than four days later. Is that a proper way to proceed so soon after a vote which was abandoned due to improper actions (though we all accept Unschool's good faith?) Why is it so urgent? I'm just asking, you know. Vilĉjo (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that there was a consensus (how appropriate) that people did not wish to wait a month before another proposal. Of the people who have voted so far Charles, Masterhatch, Christopher Parham and GoodDay were notified by Unschool (of the first discussion). James086Talk | Email 04:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, James, but I think Vilcxjo makes a valid point. I think what's happened here is that you realized, upon further reflection, that you probably erred in closing this discussion when you did. Whether consciously or not, you appear to be trying to make amends with the clear majority on whose toes you so firmly stepped. I appreciate the sincerity of your efforts, but the ß-advocates are going to dismiss your reopening of this move as flawed. You did say a month, and that clearly did not happen. I don't care if this gets moved right now or not, though I do think we have a consensus for moving. But I still expect to hear much complaining about it. Unschool (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have made quite a mess of the situation here. I apologise to all parties for their time that I have wasted. If I can be of further assistance then I will be happy to help, but unless requested I will not be participating in this discussion any further. James086Talk | Email 07:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to close this. I presume this is a declaration you will not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[edit]

Citations of English language works which use Strauss:



Exhaustion

[edit]

Is it any wonder that new editors, wondering what goes on behind the scenes on these talk pages, might be scared off after glancing at the leviathan that this page has become? Unschool (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a bemused observation, not a call for archiving. I think archiving needs to be held off until after the issue of this proposed move is settled. Unschool (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some issues will seemingly never be settled. Like Talk:Duchy of Oświęcim (ongoing), Talk:Gdańsk (no idea, best not to touch it for now), Talk:Free City of Kraków (worth revisiting) and so on... One side wants English for English Wikipedia and the other wants to apply non-English spellings and standards to English Wikipedia. It seems like it will never end and when people get worn out with it, coming to it later is faced with accusations of beating a dead horse. Sigh. Charles 04:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circles

[edit]

There is an element of appreciation for the argumentation offered on this page. I just wish, however, that we could just get back to one thing: WP:UE. Strauss is the English usage, Strauß is the German. The overwhelming evidence brought forth on this page (in the forms of all of these links) is being ignored. Unschool (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UE makes it quite clear that languages using the Latin alphabet do not need to be transliterated. Therefore, according to WP:UE, Franz Josef Strauß is the correct and policy-compliant name of the article. Using Franz Josef Strauss, on the other hand, would violate WP:UE. Strauss is not "the English usage", it's a kludge used when ß is unavailable, but here at Wikipedia, it is available. I do feel sorry for the various publications listed above under "Evidence" that either (1) they can't figure out how to make a ß, or (2) they assume their readers are too stupid to know what ß means, but fortunately we don't have those problems here at Wikipedia. There's even a note at the top of the page pointing readers to our article on ß, so that if anyone has never seen it before, they can quickly learn what it is. We can (1) teach our readers something about a famous German politician, (2) teach our readers something about the German alphabet, (3) present our readers with a correctly spelled article title, and (4) avoid insulting our readers' intelligence, all at the same time, by using the title with Strauß. Changing the article to Strauss would achieve only the first of those goals. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 12:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) This is an article about the politician, not German spelling conventions. 2) This article is not about the German alphabet (if you're going to use that terminology, how about we use the "English alphabet" here). 3) Strauss is the correctly spelled title in English. 4) It would be an insult to English readers to say that Strauß is the English form of this name. Using loaded phrasing like we are assuming that people are too stupid is ridiculous. Knock it off. It's an English spelling convention. Charles 14:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be an insult, please Charles, your somewhat zealous approach to this acctually hinders rather than helps your cause as it turns people off. It doesn't matter whether Strauss is the anglicised version of Strauß. Accuracy is not what we look for in article titles. Common useage is. That is all this should be about. Is Strauss or Strauß the common name within English for this specific person. Let everyone leave the broad debates for the policy pages. Now, I believe (and I believe the evidence shows) that, in English, Franz Strauß is mostly ignored in favour of using the form Franz Strauss. Perhaps we should all confine ourselves to that debate first? Narson (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds an awful lot like you are objecting to and trying to change common English usage. You may think it's insulting or somehow inaccurate, but it's what most English speakers expect and use. Wikipedia should follow that, as its policies make abundantly clear. On a tangentially related note, would you similarly argue that the German-language article Carl Friedrich Gauß should be respelled Gauʃs, with a long-s short-s? --Reuben (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
URLs should be in ASCII only... this reduces problems across the board with ill handling of anything that is not 7-bit ASCII with older software and equipment. 70.55.84.14 (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Josef_Strau%C3%9F, which is in ASCII only. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 12:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Angr, this interpretation that WP:UE requires Strauß would only apply if their was no English version of his name. Yes, yes, I know, you and others say that he had no English name. But by virtue of its use over the course of decades, Strauss has become his English name. That is standard English usage, as this plethora of sources demonstrates. And if I might add, I think it more than a little arrogant for us to "feel sorry" for these publications for their ineptitude or patronizing behavior. You know better than all of the magazines and newspapers and encyclopedias? All of them are incorrect; only a small dedicated group of Wikipedia ediors possesses the truth? For pete's sake Angr, did you even notice that Der Spiegel spells his name Strauss in its English language version? Are you going to tell me that Der Spiegel is also unable to make a ß? Unschool (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 *shrug* Here are a couple of der Spiegel articles which do have the ß "This is how former Finance Minister Franz Josef Strauß..." "Defense Minister Franz Josef Strauß reviled the treaty" Haukur (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so sometimes this German-language publication uses "ss" and sometimes it uses "ß". Hardly an overwhelming endorsement, methinks. I mean, if even the German-language publication Der Speiegel can sometimes use "ss" when writing in English, it doesn't seem to be so offensive that this project—what is supposed to be an English language production—can use "ss" as well. "Strauss" is overwhelmingly the most common English-language usage. Incidentally, do you actually deny that "Strauss" is more commonly found in English-language sources? Unschool (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to tell, lots of confounding factors. Let's try a simple Google Books search for the ss-version: "Franz Josef Strauss" Lots of hits. Let's look at the first one, Modernizing Bavaria: Hey, that one has ß right on the cover! It's a false positive. Then if we try the other version, "Franz Josef Strauß", we get more hits but clearly, many of them are in German so you have to pick an English word alongside to narrow it down. Then you have to account for OCR-errors and search, at least, for "Franz Josef StrauB", which gets a bunch of hits. My best guess is that the ss-version outnumbers the ß-version in recent English language books by a factor of about 4.[4][5] But in the Beneš-case I also get the s-version outnumbering the š-version by a factor of 2 or more. Haukur (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erudy went to considerable trouble to cite "encyclopedias and works of general reference" as WP:UE says; they are unanimous. Hairsplitting about Google results having false positives (almost all will, on both sides) is another red herring. Please stop. I do not care for a fish diet on Sylvesterabend. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think my post above, where I come to the conclusion that the spelling you prefer is four times more common, is an offensive red herring which must stop? I don't know I how could possibly satisfy you here. I've gone out of my way to point out that your position is reasonable while what I get back are accusations that I am trying to "obstruct consensus" or "hijack Wikipedia". Haukur (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe that was my self-pity? :) Anyway, hope you had a good fish-free New Years Eve and a happy 2008 to you all. Haukur (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is this post and its companions, I see as collective self-pity. If it was poorly phrased, or I have misunderstood it, do rephrase. What good is the eszett to the Icelanders, to whom it is surely as foreign as it is to us of the English-speaking countries? (I don't remember seeing one all the time I was in Iceland.) The only effect will be to misinform them on what is clear from this discussion: that using Strauß when writing English is unwise, since many English-speakers will simply fail to recognize it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:UE actually says

[edit]
If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. For example: Christopher Columbus, Venice; often this will be the local version, as with Edvard Beneš.

This applies here. The English names are Christopher Columbus, Venice; but Edvard Beneš, Besançon. In this case, Franz Josef Strauss, so spelled, is the English name of the subject of this article, and we should use it. It may be useful to add the result of this discussion, or, say, Stanislaw Ulam (where we use the English, not the Polish spelling), to further clarify, but the intent is plain.

If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but names from languages which do not use a Latin alphabet, like Chinese and Russian, do.

This applies when there is no commonly used English name, and therefore not here. It states two subcases: Chinese, Russian, and other non-Latin languages must be transliterated in all cases (even if there is no English usage of the name at all); in Spanish, French (and German and Icelandic), the local name is to be used "if there is no commonly used English name".

To some extent, the claims about WP:UE may be the result of confusion; the second paragraph would be clearer if the subcases were stated in the order I have just done, and it may be worth rephrasing. But the meaning is not really doubtful, and the position maintained has always been consensus. A couple of vehement editors citing loosely and out of context should not be permitted to change that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there have been some changes here since last I checked - Edvard Beneš definitely wasn't there. I think the addition somewhat changes the tone - the man on the street knows who Columbus was and where Venice is but Beneš is a lot less familiar. I'm trying to do frequency estimates for Beneš and I don't think it's at all clear that š comes out on top.[6] [7] I'm fine with the š-form, just curious whether it doesn't bother any of you guys. Haukur (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's like PM said earlier—what's the most common usage in English language sources? If the most common form is Beneš, then I'm okay with it. Unschool (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And do you think it is? Did you follow my links? What does your intuition tell you? Haukur (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beneš really was once usually spelled Benes in English, but it is not usual now: for example, all three encyclopedias cited for Strauss use Beneš. This is therefore another irrelevancy; if we switched to Benes, the case for Strauß would become weaker, not stronger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have come a long way if Beneš is now uncontroversial and even enshrined in the "use English" guideline. I'm all for using the Beneš-form, I just don't think it's accurate to call it a "commonly used English name". Even if the š-form turned out to be more common in recently printed English works (and that's possible, OCR-errors probably make my observations yesterday useless, now that I think about it) it just isn't intuitively an "English name" or even really "commonly used". Haukur (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And so the battle for Linguistic control of English Wikipedia rages on. Or should I say Multiple Language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attention readers and authors!

[edit]

There are certain circles in Germany regularly beautifying the Strauß topic in favor of the late politician. This includes suppressing and whitewashing his illegal as well as uncleared actions during his lifetime which resulted in numerous political scandals in Germany which have been documented by the press and are an important part of the political life of the late Mr. Strauß. These circles (which could be the same driving forces behind the purchase and destruction of the GDR Stasi files about Mr. Strauß) do their work not only on the German language Wikipedia but on the English language issue, too. Under any circumstances, do not let these individuals take away your freedom of speech as the English language Wikipedia is out of reach of the German jurisdiction. Please spread this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.165.231 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive?

[edit]

This talk page now comes out to exactly 50 pages on my machine, using Microsoft Word (Times New Roman, 12 pt font). Might I suggest someone could archive it now? Unschool (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know. It's probably good to keep it for a while to show people the lengths certain editors will stoop to in order to create hoax articles like this one. So what if we're lying to Wikipedia's readers? At least we got those damn furrin squiggles off the title! —Angr If you've written a quality article... 13:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, we have ceased to lie on what the subject is called in English, and we state plainly what he is called in German. That is an improvement on both points. But I do not support archiving; if we archive, we will only have this discussion again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have certainly been persuaded, by advocates on both sides of this issue, that archiving would not be a wise idea. Suggestion withdrawn. Unschool (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if we had a subpage on naming? Are we allowed to do that? Charles 09:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who forbids it? That's a reasonable idea, as eventual disposal: Talk:Franz Josef Strauss/Naming, with a plainly visible link. But I don't see any rush. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If not now, when? The page has been moved, the discussion marked as "Do not edit". I too want a plainly visible link. I think centralized discussion on this topic needs to be formed, like a WikiProject or something. Charles 16:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because without this massive demonstration of consensus visible, there will be a RM to move it back to the "correct" form by March. I also intend to discuss the possibility of tweaking WP:UE in response to this decision; some of the phrasing discussed above could use work. But if everyone else wants to bury this decently, fine; just add a link to any discussion at WT:UE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I tend to agree with what you said earlier, Pm, I think archiving this right now is not a good idea. Essentially, what we have here is the history of three discussion moves—very little else was ever discussed. And this history demonstrates the growing consensus for "Strauss". Inevitably, someone who thinks it should be Strauß is going to want to move this, and seeing this huge discussion should make them realize how much work has gone into it, and therefore, how much work they would need to expect to put into this to change it. Is this discussion page "pretty"? No. But it serves a purpose. Unschool (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive, again

[edit]

I notice this page has been archived, despite the discusion above. I've restored the Archive section, as it's worth having the reason; and I've added a "Move history" section to explain the background. The (interminable) discussion is in the archive if anyone want sto read it. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move history

[edit]

It took me the best part of a day trying to fathom out this page in January; now it's been archived I’m adding this to help anyone else in the same predicament.

This page was written, as "Franz Josef Strauß" ("-B") on 11 July 2003
It was moved, without any discussion, I have to say, to "Franz Josef Strauss" ("–ss") on 30 Aug 2005
There was a RM in October 2005 (-ss to –B) which was rejected.
It was moved anyway in December 2005, after an allegation of sockpuppetry, here: moved 10 Dec 2005
There was a RM from –B to –ss in December 2007, which was rejected following an allegation of canvassing, here.
It was resubmitted (-B to –ss) in Dec/Jan 2008 and accepted, here: moved 3 Jan 2008.

This covered 58 pages of argument (164 Kb), but boiled down to:

The –B camp argue that:-
  • the –B is correct in German
  • the –ss format is offensive to German-speakers
  • WP:UE sanctions the -B use
The –ss camp argue that:_
  • the –ss is correct in English
  • the –B format is offensive to English speakers
  • WP:UE requires the -ss use

(I may have missed some of the subtle nuances here, but that seems to cover it, for me. I hope this is of benefit... Moonraker12 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prename

[edit]

Could anybody provide a source, he was born as "Franz" and added a second name "Josef" after 1945. Never heard about that and German WP does also NOT mention it.HerkusMonte (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't actually correct, he just did not use his second name until after WWII. I've modified the article and added a (german) source from the Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung: [8] --Cyfal (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the current version of this article does not appear to be supported by the source provided by User:Cyfal. I'm going to change the wording of the article to something completely neutral, avoiding this issue altogether; there are other issues with its current form as well, but it will be simple to avoid the problems with different wording, that I hope will make everyone happy. Unschool (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't understand why you think the previous version was not supported by "my" source. Maybe I give a translation of the relevant parts, plus my comments:
His birth certificate from the registry office Munich states his name is "Franz Joseph Strauß". During his childhood, as student and during his army days he used only his first prename, and also after 1945. The last time his first prename was used was in a passport of 1957. Already in 1953, a member-of-the-parlament identity card used both prenames. After 1958, using both prenames was established. Why Strauss started to use both prenames is not clear, there exists more than one explanation.
So far with the source, what's confusing me is that it doesn't say anything to explain why it is "Josef" instead of the "Joseph" from his birth certificate. So, actually, the present version of the article is not quite correct when saying "he starts using his middle name", because it's a spelling variant. Therefore I made this modification of the article, which you now deleted again...
Anyway, at least your deletion avoids the nasty "ß" stuff – Either we say that in the birth certificate it's "Franz Joseph Strauss" which is plain wrong, or it's "Franz Joseph Strauß" which is not consistent which the rest of the article.
Nevertheless, I must admit I would prefer this version. Ok, I leave the decision up to you or the other native English speakers around...
--Cyfal (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The correct statement, to be found in the first line of the article, would be that it is "Franz Josef Strauß" auf Deutsch. Quoting a German birth certificate as saying Franz Joseph Strauß is not a problem; if there is a reliable source that that is what it says. Note that birth certificates have been in error - especially when the clerk was hurried - before now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franz_Josef_Strauss/Archive_2&oldid=1090558654"