Talk:Franz Josef Strauss/Archive 1

Not neutral
This article is not neutral because it expresses the POV that the symbol ß should be added to the English alphabet. Chicheley 14:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this article is not neutral because for instance it alleges Strauß had been labelled "Strong Man of Europe", a quote I, having lived in Germany for more than forty years, have never heard of. He would have certainly liked that label, but he never really lived up to it.


 * I don't care if his name is spelled "Strauß" or "Strauss" or if he only added the middle name "Josef" or "Joseph" to become more popular in Bavaria; in my opinion Strauß was just a populist, sometimes even disputing the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany ("Wer der Meinung ist, man könne den Kriegsdienst durch einen zivilen Ersatzdienst ersetzen, der soll doch SPD/FDP wählen!" - lit.: Those who think it is right to become a conscientious objector should not vote for me but for the social-liberal coalition.).


 * His political agenda was always something of a "plat du jour", consisting of his standard bashing of social democrats and liberals while catering to the right but never following through on his bloated and sometimes preposterous campaign slogans. Most of the time he reminded me of the German proverb "Dogs that bark won't bite". "Strong Man of Europe"? That was just a title he craved, but never really deserved. Sam Golden (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is not neutral because it expresses the POV that the symbol ß should be added to the English alphabet.
 * Huh? How do you reach that conclusion?  Un  sch  ool  22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * it alleges Strauß had been labelled "Strong Man of Europe", a quote I, having lived in Germany for more than forty years, have never heard of.
 * Personally, I don't care if this is included in the article or not. It does have a source (though right now, that link won't open for me), so if it can be documented, Sam, then it doesn't matter if you've heard it or not.  Sorry.   Un  sch  ool  22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That link won't open for me either. Enough said? Believe me, I am German, I have studied the life of FJS, and I know what I am talking about. Strauß was of course a man with some power; he was chairman of the CSU and allegedly ran the CDU behind-the-scenes as well, but in his political career all he could officially call himself was minister of defence, finance, atomic or special affairs, or later prime minister of the State of Bavaria. He made an attempt to become Chancellor in 1980 but ended up losing the general election, which prompted him to retreat to Bavaria, finally surrendering leadership of CDU/CSU to Helmut Kohl - who intellectually, I think, was no match for Strauß but was more adept at getting votes. I merely want to point out that this article is not quite correct in making the statement that Strauß was really and unmistakenly labelled "Strong Man of Europe". I know that he was sometimes called "Idi Alpin" though. Sam Golden (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed this sentence now for various reasons:
 * The source is not accessible, so we have no proof whether it really existed once.


 * Both the Wikipedia article The Philadelphia Trumpet and the Waybackback machine shows that the cited source is by no means a neutral and common one. ("The Trumpet seeks to show how current events are fulfilling the biblically prophesied description of the prevailing state of affairs just before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ")
 * A google search for "strong man of europe" franz josef strauss shows only hits for Wikipedia or Wikipedia clones.
 * --Cyfal (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good call, Cyfal. Thanks to User:Sam Golden for bringing the matter up.  By the way, Sam, what does "Idi Alpin" mean?  Sounds like a cross between the late Ugandan despot and the beautiful Swiss horizon.   Un  sch  ool  01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Move
Shouldn't this be att "Strauß"? I believe "ß" is allowed in article titles. WhisperToMe 02:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this be at "Strauss"? That's how his name is typically spelled in English-language texts.  I mean, we don't have Munich at München, or Deng Xiaoping at 邓小平. --Delirium 08:01, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move, 2005
Tidied, summary added, archived, by Moonraker12 (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This was a requested move from Franz Josef Strauss to Franz Josef Strauß.

Request not fulfilled due to lack of consensus. Closed by Rob Church Talk 19:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I know this debatte about using the "ß" can be tiring. However his name was written with an "ß" and not "ss". This does make a difference in Germany, as there are family-names written with an "ß", but not "ss". Same thing goes for Umlaute, but that is another topic. Gryffindor 23:01, 22 October 2005
 * This is not the German Wikipedia, so it should not be written in German. CalJW 21:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support, see above. Gryffindor  23:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep with ss &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. – Axman ( ☏ ) 06:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Transliteration is not necessary for names written with the Latin alphabet.- Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "ß" is not of the Latin alphabet, nor even part of the English alphabet, as I have pointed out many times. OPPOSE. Quintusdecimus
 * Oppose the creeping expansion of non-English characters in the English Wikipedia.
 * So what? Does it bother you to have correctly written names in an encyclopedia? --C.Löser 23:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, what bothers me is to see names that have a correct english-language spelling highjacked by foreign-language fetishists and presented in a manner that is unintelligible to the majority of average English-language readers. older≠wiser 01:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "unintelligible to the majority of average English-language readers" the pronunciation could be easily explained in the article itself. other than that there is nothing to misunderstand in my eyes. --C.Löser 10:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * btw: what about Motörhead or my surname? Am i C. Loser now just because you guys don't know the "ö"? ;-)
 * No offense, but yes, for most average English-readers, your name would be read as "Loser", regardless of whatever pronunciation guidance you might present. If you expect average English readers to be able to pronounce a name that in any way approximates the original, it needs a transliteration. So if you really wanted average English readers to know that your name is pronounced as something other than "Loser" you would need to spell it in English as something like "Loeser". As for Motörhead, that is an example of the Heavy metal umlaut which has no real meaning other than marketing and vanity. 192.77.198.12 13:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose and move for policy debate at Wikipedia talk:naming conventions. This applies to a number of articles and we might as well settle whether we use ß or ss. (Given that it means 99.999% of searches will go via the redirect, there is a server load issue as well as the perennial correctness-vs-usage issue.) Rd232 talk 17:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. We should use all of the Latin alphabet. The server-load should be a very minor issue, but of course we should make sure that all links direct to wherever the article is. Edinborgarstefan 18:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Schubbay 18:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support no question. Darkone 20:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose: current name is most common in English. Jonathunder 06:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support; therfore UTF-8 was introduced ... Sicherlich talk 08:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. "Use English" does not mean "misspell foreign names". --Angr/undefined 09:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support as Sicherlich wrote: Therefore we have UTF-8, and therefore we have Redirects (BTW: Páll Guðmundson, Lech Wałęsa - indeed: why should Strauß be handled different!?) --Reinhard 10:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Keep it at the English version of the name. Tree&Leaf 16:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE Not English, if someone who only knew conventional English alphabet were to encounter ß, they would not know what to do with it except maybe turn it into a "B", if they knew β at all. So it's German, so what? Next we should be using Greek or Russian for proper naming, because they have the same base alphabet in their historical roots or some such nonsense. 132.205.45.148 19:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what Redirects are for, nobody needs to know what an "ß" is - and, please: you should also change all the Icelandic, Polish, Hungarian names (if you know how - "Páll Guðmundson" is definitely not "Pall Gudmundson"!) --Reinhard 20:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * in case of Russian transliterations are common. Transliterations are not common in latin alphabets. Stern 21:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ß is not latin, not even latin modified by accents. Transliterations are common, since anything you can't type on a standard ASCII keyboard is transliterated. Names are commonly transliterated, because North Americans are not European, and a Mr. Stauß who emigrates to say the USA, will be called Strauss in his employment records. In any case, if we accept to keep non-English characters, it is patently unfair to not use proper Arabic or Russian, or Korean in the naming of people articles. 132.205.45.148 17:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Those redirects work quite fine for sending the foreign spelling to the English spelling. There is no reason to go the other way around.  Furthermore, this article does have a redirect because of all the moving that has already gone on.  But there are, right now, some Strauß articles on Wikipedia—and likely hundreds of other articles using ß—which do not even have the redirect from the proper English spelling.  Furthermore, there are still a huge number of Wikipedia articles using an ß in the article's name which might not be found because they are missorted in their categories.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, since the name is Strauß and proper names do not have English translations. Stern 21:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Every single Chinese, Arabic, Japanese etc name is translated. CalJW 21:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly and permanently oppose as contrary to policy and nonsense. He is always called Strauss in English. Septentrionalis 23:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Often? Yes. Always? No. I get around 15,000 English Google hits for the ß-spelling. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 08:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Strauss in English --Henrygb 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Strauß is his name, Strauss is different and wrong. --Denniss 10:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Ack Stern. -- Carbidfischer 14:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support move. He had no English name. u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 09:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly and permanently oppose nonsensical arguments which are contrary to policy. He is widely known as Strauss in English, that makes it his English name. CDThieme 17:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Vehemently Oppose I have been following the comments, and I am unpersuaded by those favoring the change. This is an English-language encyclopedia, all of which that I have surveyed spell it "Strauss". Unschool 05:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC).  If the English Wik yields to this silliness, next we'll have to stop calling the language spoken in Berlin "German", and be forced to call it "Deutsch", because "that's what the name of the language is, and that's just a 'fact'".  And, truth be told, I'd have far less objection to that than I do to this Strauß nonsense, because at least in English we have all the letters needed to write "Deutsch".  So, Loser, is that your ultimate objective? If not, why not? Unschool 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In general, adding diacritics to a name when it is not normally done in English is no problem as long as the letter is still recognizable, as people who don't know the diacritic can easily ignore it. In this case, someone who does not speak German (after all, it's not the German wikipedia here) will probably read this name as Straub. Eugene van der Pijll 18:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is not incorrect in English, I think. Via Egnatia
 * Quote: "It is not incorrect in English" you should vote for support, then. --C.Löser 23:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. His name ist Strauß, not Strauss. You may like that or not, but it's a fact. --C.Löser 23:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a fact, and one that no one here, as far as I can see has contested. But that's not the point being discussed here. What's being contested is how his name should be listed in an English language encyclopedia.  More comments below. Unschool 02:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So you are saying just because some people do not know the "ß" it would be wrong to redirect to the correctly spelled article and easily explain the pronunciation there and rather have a misspelled article about a person ("Franz Josef Strauss") that never existed? --C.Löser 10:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I find your attempts to stop use of Franz Josef Strauss as a "person that never existed" amusing. In any volume written in English, Franz Josef Strauß is a name that has never existed, because "ß" does not exist in English, and does not belong in any English work.  Again, this is a matter for native speakers of English.  You obviously believe that we don't get it, but it doesn't matter, because this is our turf.  I promise never to tell the German Wikipediasts what to do with their encyclopedia.Unschool 00:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is the English language wikipedia. We do not write Russian names in Cyrllic. CalJW 03:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You can't compare that. Cyrilic letters are transliterated. For "ß" there is no transliteration. --C.Löser 10:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That is simply untrue. If you don't like the transliteration which is used that's just tough. CalJW 21:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * btw: what about Motörhead or my surname? Am i C. Loser now just because you guys don't know the "ö"? ;-)
 * Oppose. Franz Josef StrauB is not English. Longboat
 * Keep with ss. No Account 23:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

(late additions)

 * Support: this is a German name, not an English one. (By the way, I'm not German, but Italian.) If there were an English adaptation, all right: but Strauss is NOT an English adapted form, it's a spelling mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.93.111 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 25 April 2006
 * Support This is the English Wikipedia and the Germans have no right to try to amend the English language. How many native speakers of English are there on the academy that controls the German language? If the Germans are going to manipulate things like this, I suggest that people with German ISP addresses should be banned from editing the English language Wikipedia. Chicheley 14:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The English wikipedia is for English readers who know Strauss as Strauss and not as Straub; see also Naming conventions.--Supparluca 08:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

While I'm all for using ß I'm not sure listing a bunch of Straußes and Gaußes at WP:RM is the right way to go here :) It would be better to establish some sort of general policy, especially since WP:RM can feel a bit invasive to the people actually editing the article. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My preference is to keep it "Strauss". This is the English Wikipedia, and "ß" is not an English character.  Most English speakers cannot even type it.  Unschool 05:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * However, if it is changed, is it safe to say that a redirect would take the people typing "Strauss" straight to the correct page? Unschool 04:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course this is the English WP but a German name. I've just tested Andre Malraux and Hors d'oeuvre. Both redirects to the correct writing. Regards, Rainer Zenz (de.wikipedia) 18:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't be as they aren't written in English. I strongly object to this distortion of the English language by non-native speakers. CalJW 21:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no question about it that spelling Strauß with "ß" is the correct way of spelling it. So where's the problem using a redirect? BTW: Did you ever see incorrectly spelled articles in an encyclopedia? No. So what do you want to create here? shaking the head, --84.169.62.75 18:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:King)


 * What sort of encyclopedias would spell the name "Strauss" rather than "Strauß"? How about Encyclopedia Britannica, The Columbia Encyclopedia, or Encarta? Not that WP should feel obligated to follow their lead, but you seemed to imply that respected encyclopedias would not do such a thing and that is simply false. Using "ß" may be correct spelling in the German language, but this is the English language Wikipedia. It is sufficient to provide the German-language gloss in the first sentence of the article. older≠wiser 19:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Franz Josef Strauß is the correct german language Name. Look: http://www.munich-airport.de or Biography here: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/biografien/StraussFranzJosef/ or here the Franz Josef Strauß Award of the Hans-Seidel Stiftung: http://www.hss.de/1759.shtml. But i can accept Franz Josef Strauß with a redirect to Franz Josef Strauss for the english wikipedia, because the Hans-Seidel-Stiftung use the in the english version the name Franz Josef Strauss Award, http://www.hss.de/4544.shtml. But not forget the original name "Franz Josef Strauß" in the article.(de:Benutzer:St.Krekeler)
 * it´s a bit a strange discussion; due to the chances of UTF-8 a lot of moving was done to put persons, cities ... under theire correct name e.g. for polish cities it´s often with ł ó ę ą for germans with ö ü. ä ... so why is Strauß that special? ... Sicherlich talk 08:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

For anyone in doubt about the "ß" in his name, look at the picture with his signature. It's a bit difficult to discern, but that is an "ß" not "ss" that he signed with. Gryffindor 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There is little doubt that "ß" is correct for the German language. But this is the English-language Wikipedia. There is no need to have the article title use non-English characters or to have the readability of the article destroyed by using non-English glyphs throughout. It is sufficient to note the German-language spelling in the first sentence. 192.77.198.12 12:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The spelling with "ss" is definitely wrong in German as Lech Kaczyński with n instead of ń is wrong in polish. Since Wikipedia uses UTF-8, there is no need to use this archaic transcription of the ß. In languages using latin lettres they should be used, although they are not common in English. The pronunciation of ß and ss differs in German in many cases. I wouldn't say, that Strauss is the English spelling of German Strauß, since Strauß is a proper name that cannot be translated. Stern 12:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (from Germany :-)

... and another Hun, who is really anal about that ß-shit: Also Lech Wałęsa is listed under his proper name in the en.wikipedia. You won't find George W. Bush as de:George W. Busch in the German Wikipedia, although we always create the sound sh with the letters sch. It is not a big harm for English speakers to learn, additionally to reading this article, something about the German language. Writing it Strauss could lead to confusion with people called Strauss (not Strauß) - maybe not so much in that case but in others, if you should decide to change the whole name policy. It is necessary of course to mention how to pronounce the name but that is done in one sentence. ß is indeed a Latin letter – that doesn’t change only because the English don’t use it. de:Benutzer:Hoheit (writing this with my non-German, ß-leß ;-) keyboard)


 * This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Latin alphabet Wikipedia. In English the name is nearly ALWAYS spelled Strauss. The German language may make some finer distinctions in pronunciation, but that is a German-language matter--NOT anything of concern to most English readers. We can best encourage people to learn about the German language spelling by providing a clear gloss in the first sentence, not by making the article unintelligible and off-puttting to average English readers. older≠wiser 01:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * so do you want to change similar cases (e.g. Wałęsa) aswell?--81.218.230.234 10:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * dont forget the polish cities, writer, musiacans .. oh and please have a look on all other slavik nations! ... dont forget the french with the é and ... guys ... it is a name... there is no english name; he has one name and as he is german it is not a surprise that it is a german one ... Sicherlich talk 10:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would not care a bit if all such diacritics were disallowed from article titles and were only allowed in foreign language glosses in the first sentence (or in parenthetical glosses as needed in context). However, there are differences. For something like Wałęsa or é or other such characters, most average English readers will simply ignore the squiggles and parse the names as having the English letter that looks most similar, so Wałęsa would be read as Walesa. However, I think the use of ß, and other such non-English glyphs beyond isolated glosses makes the text unrecognizable and rather offputting to average English readers. It also has connotations of elitism and intellectual pedantry which I think runs counter to the aims of a general purpose encyclopedia. 192.77.198.12 12:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it has to be Strauß for the article’s name. Or why on earth do you find Seyðisfjörður at its present location? What difference is there between the—to English eyes—illegible Icelandic ð and þ, and the equally illegible German ß? I hate it, when two similar things are treated extremely differently as in this case. By the way: This is not a possiblility offered by UTF-8, but one existing already during the preceding ISO 8859-1, which included both ß and the two Icelandic glyphs. – Another potty German user, who’s to lazy to start an en:-account 84.150.234.5 13:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The distinction is that there is no established English form of Seyðisfjörður, not even Seydisfjord. The Strausses are consistently so spelled, including the English plural. Septentrionalis 04:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Article titles should be restricted to ASCII only in the English Wikipedia. The correct original language spelling should be glossed over in the article, or even used in the article, with an explaination in the first paragraph. 132.205.45.148 17:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In an informal survey of English lanugage natives around me, most said that this is "StrauB"/"Straub", or "Strau-Beta". 132.205.45.148 17:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Diacritic/accent marks don't really make English only latin alphabet readers unable to read things, since they usually just drop the marks and read it without them 132.205.45.148 17:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Which in most cases is as wrong as reading Strau-beta. Müller is not Muller, and Seyðisfjörður is not Seydisfjordur. I'm strongly for a move to Franz Josef Strauß, allowing Franz Josef Strauss to be a redirection to that page (and not the other way round). Cf. also Gerhard Schröder. And the article could explain that Strauß is Strau-ss and not Strau-beta where it says "German: Strauß" at the moment. -- till we ☼ ☽ | Talk 14:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, regardless of the intentions of the Germanophiles posting here, the objection raised by Eugene van der Pijll and others above is the key one:  English speakers will read "Strauß" as "Straub".  Is this what you want?  Because what you would win would essentially be a Phyrric victory.Unschool 19:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Just because someone knows English doesn't mean that she can't possibly know other languages :) I'm fine with those unfamiliar with German identifying ß as a form of b. Those who aren't familiar with a language will indeed hopelessly mangle the pronunciation of names from those languages. That's not a problem we can somehow define away. And in German words written with 'ß' and with 'ss' in many cases have different pronunciation. And there have been Germans named Strauß and Germans named Strauss. Rendering both names identically destroys information. Accuracy comes before accessibility.


 * I'm not saying we should use Chinese characters for article titles but for Latin alphabet languages like German we can tolerate a couple of unfamiliar characters that appear to be variants of familiar characters (even when they aren't really).


 * As far as I can see we currently use ß in many German names. We use þ in all Icelandic names where it belongs. So there's ample precedent. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Despite your excellent language skills, Loser, you are nonetheless a native speaker of German. While this grants you a great deal of expertise in what is "correct", it also means that you lack the perspective that is needed here.  Frankly, while the comments of Germanophones are critically important here, the ultimate decision needs to be made by the Anglophones.
 * Look, like any language, English changes. The very word "encyclopedia" used to be spelled "encyclopædia".  Well, now it's not, because convention has limited what characters we use in English.  And that, quite frankly, is the business of those of us who speak English as our native or primary language.  People from other countries may deem it ignorant; indeed, it is their right to do so.  But just as we are not obligated to introduce Korean or Sanskrit graphemes into our language, neither are we obliged to use "ß", regardless of its origin or current usage.  As much as I get a laugh out of the French trying to expunge English-origin terms from their language, at least they don't walk around telling me that I as an English speaker need to place an acute accent on "cliche/cliché".
 * At the risk of being accused of being a xenophobe (which I am not), let me just ask that non-English speakers allow us to make decisions about our own language. Some of us are on your side, some of us are not.  But it is our discussion. Unschool 02:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I need to clarify some of Unschool's comments. With regards to the word "encyclopedia", nearly all non-American (Commonwealth) English speakers will spell it with either the ligature <æ> or the two separated letters . The latter is by far the most popular vesion used, so Commonwealth English speakers will spell the word as encyclopaedia, whilst a minority will spell it encyclopædia, but hardly anyone will spell it encyclopedia. Regarding the word "cliche", the majority of English speakers (American or Commonwealth) will spell it without an accent, but a minority will spell it with one. Mark 04:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yet another example of how we are two peoples "separated by a common language". Thanks for the clarification. Unschool 02:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Denniss, thank you for preserving my comments, even as you edited my improper multiple voting. That was very gentlemanly of you. I had mistakenly believed that I had seen others doing the same. Now I realize what is happening is that people (including myself) have been abusing the voting section by placing their diatribes there, instead of here. I propose that everyone clean up their contributions accordingly. Unschool 20:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Request not fulfilled due to lack of consensus. Rob Church Talk 19:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

recount the vote
I have been informed that apparently User:CDThieme has chosen to "overrepresent" himself in the voting procedure, please refer to Wikipedia:ANI#CDThieme_sockpuppetry. Gryffindor 18:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The article was moved from its original name by User:Arbor at 10:23, August 30, 2005 without prior discussion (see history). I have reverted this move, also in light of the manipulated voting that took place above. Gryffindor  19:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Gryffindor, even if what you are saying is true (and it may well be; I have no idea what your sources are), that does not give you a right to unilaterally change the title or text of this article. Consensus for change needs to be exist before we can change.  I am no sock puppet,and I resent your inference that everyone who opposed the change was.  I have perfectly valid and sincere reasons for opposing the change, just as you have for supporting the change.  I have many times in my short time (four months) editing Wikipedia resisted the urge to make unilateral change.  You have been around long enough to realize that you have no right to do this, no matter how strongly you feel, since it is absolutely clear that there is NOT a consensus for change.  The one time that an admin weighed in on this, it was to deny change.  Now if you feel the matter needs to be reopened, fine.  But you do so starting with the status quo, not with the World According to Gryffindor.  Unschool 04:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously I'm out of my league here; I've never "moved"/retitled an article before, so I can't undo Gryffindor's unilateral change. But I wish that someone else would. Unschool 04:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you discount the sockpuppets in the vote above then a 60% majority emerges for using the 'ß'. That's Gryffindor's reasoning. That you disagree about the spelling does not, of course, make you a sockpuppet :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello Unschool. I have reverted a move by Arbor that was done without prior discussion. Again, please refer to the history of the article the link of which I have provided above already see history. Insofar I don't see how any rules were broken from my side if all I did was to revert an undiscussed move. Gryffindor  18:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When I came in, the article was already "Strauss", so my presumption was that the debate was about whether to change it from "Strauss" to "Strauß". It was on that that I based my comments.  In any event, could you clarify for me how it was ascertained (or where I can learn about) the exposure of the sock puppets?  I am ignorant of these things. Unschool 06:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The relevant link is here WP:ANI#CDThieme_sockpuppetry. It was discovered using something called checkuser (which I think exposes the IP addresses behind edits). It is used very sparingly, only very few have access to it. It was used to check on the impersonator Jguk. (note the dot) and the whole mess came down with that. David Gerard is an expert in identifing IP addresses and their uses, I couldn't tell you how he does that, but I believe he does a good job. Stefán Ingi 14:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, I've looked at the link, read the discussion, and am totally dismayed. First of all, I am upset because it does make everyone suspect everyone (though I guess I would be naive not to have anticipated that); and secondly, because now I've LOST this argument and you guys on the StrauB side are so completely and totally wrong and now I'm stuck with a non-English title in an English-language encyclopedia!  Arrggghhhhh! :)
 * Someday, when I have time, I will spread the gospel of Anglicization and we shall take on this issue again! (I just hope I don't find myself grouped in with the rednecks and xenophobes.) Okay, now I have to go lick my wounds. Unschool 05:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Very gracious - not to mention funny :D - Haukur 09:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Consistency
If we are going to be consistent (which I assume we all agree is a good), then an article entitle "Franz Josef Strauß" should not contain refences to Munich, Cologne, or Bavaria. All names need to be rendered in their original, native spellings, or none at all. What is the point of transliterting Strauss to Strauß if we're not going to write Munich as München? 65.80.244.202 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is the following. We intend to use English words, such as Munich, Germany etc., but when there is not a commonly used English words we use the local word in the native spelling, thus Strauß. Stefán 00:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes zero sense. There is a commonly used English word for his name, it is Strauss.  When he was alive, it [Strauss] was commonly found in newspapers, I still have (very old) textbooks from college that call him Strauss, etc.  So your arguments holds no water whatsoever.  This needs to be consistent—you are being inconsistent.  I shall revert it to its correct form. 65.80.244.202 02:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that Strauss and Strauß are two transliterations of the same word, and then we use the local one, whereas Germany and Deutschland are two different words, and then we use the English one. Stefán 06:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see your distinction at all. Maybe I'm just ignorant (I will admit to being very confused right now.) But the way I see it, in Germany, they write "Strauß" and "München".  How can you arbitrarily change some names to English and not others?  Look, I read the discussion on this, and the German-speakers, who clearly understand this stuff better than most of us, pointed out that "Strauss" is just wrong, because his name is "Strauß".  One of them pointed out the photo, and said, "look, he signed his signature "Strauß", not "Strauss".  Well, I submit that, as a leader of Bavaria, when he wrote out his address, he didn't write it "Bavaria", he wrote it "Bayern".  Do I have proof?  No, but I think it's pretty obvious that he never wrote "Bavaria".  Your "argument", if you want to call it that, is completely inconsistent and illogical.  65.80.244.202 04:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This Wikipedia is written in English so we use English words when they exist and are in common use. The large country in Europe which was recently united does have an English name, that name is Germany. In other languages it has different names, among others Deutschland and Allemagne. Similarily, the region called Bavaria in English is called Bayern, Bæjaraland etc. in other languages. On the other hand, many things related to Germany do not have commonly used English names, say eg. Karlsbad which would probably be translated as Charles's bath but this is not used. This is also the situation for the politician which this article is about. He is referred to by the same name in English and in German. The only question is a question of transliteration, should we avoid ß because it is not one of the 26 letters which appear most often in English text. The decision above was not to avoid it. Stefán 06:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments at Talk:Konrad Adenauer; I feel the same argument is applicable in both cases. 65.80.244.202 08:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strauß is not a transliteration as nothing has been transed. It is the German spelling. Compare Johann Strauss II here with de:Johann Strauß (Sohn)--Henrygb 12:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, Henrygb, but I'm fairly uninformed in these matters. Could you explain to me exactly what your point is? 65.80.244.202 04:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ammunition Stockpile
I figure the ss and ß wars will one day flare up again, and although I personally don't want to restart the whole circus now, I'm not above building up a little cache of evidence for the partisans of ss. So here's a pile of evidence that ss is the convention in English. All these sources use ss rather than the evil ß:
 * New York Times Obituary
 * Britannica Encyclopedia
 * Columbia Encyclopedia
 * Encarta
 * UXL Encyclopedia of World Biography —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erudy (talk • contribs) 21:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Der Spiegel Online
 * BBC
 * International Affairs (Scholarly Journal)
 * And on the cover of TIME  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erudy (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:UE
WP:UE states, If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Well, as the sources assembled by the above editor clearly demonstrate (and as anyone who was honest already knew), there is a commonly used English form of this man's name, and it is Strauss. I mean, when even Der Spiegel uses "Strauss", I think that the argument is pretty much over. Time to move this puppy. Unschool 04:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move, 2007
I have ended the discussion as no consensus because canvassing was involved which distorts the result. This means that the article retains its current title. The discussion before canvassing looked as though it would have resulted in a move to "ss" however, there may have been interested editors who had not yet commented (it was only up for 5 days and discussion was still in progress), therefore I am unwilling to close as "move". The current discussion can't simply be continued (to see if editors like that will show or not), ignoring the opinions of those who had been invited as they too may have seen the discussion and commented later without being informed. Considering all of this I think that postponing the discussion to a later date, when only those who are interested enough to see the discussion will comment is the best solution. It may not make everyone happy, but I'd just like to remind everyone that this title doesn't hurt and the proposed target currently redirects here. I encourage Erudy (or someone else) to renominate the article to be moved again, but please wait about a month (i.e. end of January/early February) so that this can all blow over. Please nobody make a point of waiting for another move proposal just so that you can have your way.

I would also like to applaud Unschool for his apology and openness about an error he made. That is all too rare today both on-wiki and off. James086 Talk &#124; Email 05:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to take the plunge. I'd like to propose that this article be moved from Franz Josef Strauß to Franz Josef Strauss, on the basis of English usage. From the lack of counter evidence in previous discussion and some of my own research, I take it as a given that English usage is overwhelmingly in favor of Strauss over Strauß, as detailed in "Evidence" below. The most common rendering of the name past, present, and perhaps in the future, in reference works, world-wide English media of record, and English language academic discourse has been Strauss. As far as I can tell, the only book-length work written by Strauss, translated into English, and published during his lifetime, uses "Strauss"

I think the current title in inaccurate and incorrect in that it misrepresents English usage to be Strauß, which I think the evidence shows is factually incorrect. German speakers writing in English are poorly served by such a title, which suggests that the best way to communicate with English speakers is to use the ß. This goes both ways: for instance, as an English speaker theoretically communicating in German, I would have never know that the UK's Elizabeth II is spelled "Elisabeth II"   unless de:wiki helpfully informed me

Please note, I am not arguing that all or many ß's are inappropriate...only that this ß is. If we aim for consistency, it should be that we consistency describe English usage, not that we "consistently" use either exclusively "ss" or exclusively "ß" wikipedia-wide according to some othographical coin toss/talk page grudge match. There are legitimate uses of "ß", and legitimate uses of "ss" (for instance, see Carl Friedrich Gauss). It is entirely reasonable for a name to be tranliterated, or not. The decision isn't really with us, it's with the larger English speaking community, which I think in this case has made a clear, decisive, and verifiable choice. It's now our turn to describe reality, rather than decry othographical "injustice". Erudy (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that User:Unschool invited some 34 people to participate in this poll and of those who have done so they've all turned out to agree with him. I think this is not consistent with the Canvassing guideline and greatly reduces the validity of the poll. I am, however, sure Unschool acted in good faith and without realizing that this sort of mass-contacting selected people is frowned upon. Haukur (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is because most editors agree with him on this issue; for example, I do, and he did not notify me. There are a half-dozen editors who defend ß at all cost (feel free to notify them); there is a (perhaps somewhat larger) minority who abominate it, for various reasons including Gene's quite reasonable concerns, and there is a majority, reflected here, who agree with Erudy's position to use eszett where English does. The second and third groups both support this move; only the first faction, who oppose our naming conventions, object. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Go away for a couple of days and the world just about passes you by.  Okay, a couple of comments.
 * Thank you to Haukur for his assumption of my good faith. He is correct; I was unaware of the canvassing guidelines.  As I look these guidelines over, it is clear that the level of my transgression is of the least egregious type, if, indeed, it is a transgression at all.  Since I am only now learning about this guideline, I have yet to formulate any kind of opinion  about it.  Right now, I have mixed feelings, but the point is, it is a guideline, and I will respect it.
 * I would like our fellow editors who feel that Strauß should be used instead of Strauss, to please note the following. When you tell us, on this side of the issue, that "Strauß" is how he signed his name, and that "Strauß" is the proper spelling in German, please understand, no one is contesting that.  We know that those are true statements.  So you don't need to keep arguing those points.  What we are saying goes beyond those points, and I ask that you (almost all of whom have indicated that you are at least familiar with German or are even native speakers of German) not only assume good faith, but to also allow for some intelligence on our part.  Try to consider the point of view of people who speak no German at all. Try to understand how we can agree with you on the above points, and still not think it correct to use "Strauß" in en.wiki.  Please address our points, not the points that you wish we were making.  Unschool (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that one invitation read; Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC) This is hardly tendentious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unschool's acknowledgement of which editors he contacted (I can hardly call it canvassing) has been reverted; it can be reconstructed here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey, December 2007

 * Support. Erudy's last paragraph, on using either ss and ß, depending on what English does, is spot on. For what it is worth, that is also both guideline and policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support As he is known in English and known mostly as Strauss. Narson (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. English encylopedia should use English spelling. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I have seen it argued that Strauß is justified by the fact that he just isn't all that well known in the English-speaking world. Balderdash!  Unschool (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support ß should not exist in article titles, 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not convinced, although I acknowledge that the reasoning provided for this proposal is valid. Still, I think that Strauß is still the most accurate form of his name. Usage of diacritics of the Latin alphabet do not necessarily interfere with the most common usage in English. The name is still the same, just written with a not so uncommon diacritic. Mentioning on the first paragraph that "Strauß" can be written as "Strauss" should suffice for informing any English speaker unfamiliar with "ß". Furthermore, some support comments above are just baseless. Hús  ö  nd  14:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Accuracy" is not our policy, because the test for "accurate" English is, and always has been, what English speakers actually do. We Anglophones have no Academy; Wikipedia is not qualified to become one, nor is there any consensus to do so. This oppose is exactly as baseless as the "never use ß" sentiment, and should cancel with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eszett is simply not a diacritic. Although it's been pointed out again and again that diacritics and eszett are not the same, for some reason it doesn't seem to sink in - perhaps because it's difficult for a German speaker to see things from the point of view of an ordinary English speaker. It's either a ligature or an entirely separate letter not used in English, depending on your point of view.  And your "most accurate" claim needs support, and may not be entirely well-defined.  Surely accuracy is defined by usage, both the man's own usage and that of careful writers.  Based on his own work as translated into English and other sources, the most accurate rendering for an English-language article is "Strauss."  --Reuben (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to second that point. Eszett is not a diacritic.  I have no objection at any time to the use of ć, ĉ, ç, č, or ċ, or Ĺ, Ļ, Ľ, Ḹ, Ł, or Ŀ; these simply do NOT affect the ordinary English speaker the way that ß does.Unschool (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Beyond that, this move is required simply because of WP:UE. It is simply a fact that the vast majority of English language sources spell his name Strauss.  Therefore the ostensible innaccuracy of this spelling, the supposed lack of difficulty for the native English speaker—we can argue these points forever (especially the one of ease).  But WP:UE says to use the most common English spelling.  That is Strauss, as has been amply demonstrated by the evidence below. Unschool (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support for all the very good reasons given above. older ≠ wiser 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support — per WP:UE.  Strauß can redirect to Strauss for all instances, no?  Therefore Franz Josef Strauß can redirect to Franz Josef Strauss.  (I might change my mind if we have consensus to rename China to 中国, or Tokyo to 東京.)--Endroit (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as this is the most common usage in English. ß is transliterated as "ss", even in German in some cases. --Itub (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per LordAmeth, Erudy, and others. I have nothing more to say. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's no compelling reason to avoid using ß. That someone may mispronounce the letter is not a compelling reason, they may also mispronounce the 'z', the 'j' and the 'au' but we still shouldn't spell it Frants Yosef Shtrows. For comparison people may also mispronounce the 'ł' in Lech Wałęsa as 'l' - there's nothing special about 'ß' in this respect. Also see my note about the canvassing above. Haukur (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that this is English wikipedia and the most common spelling in English should be used, not the most common spelling in German or any other language. Masterhatch (talk)


 * Support - Reason: not possible for english speaker to type ß without character map or knowing the combination by heart. The best example is for me Fyodor Dostoevsky, in German we would say Dostojewski and the original russian spelling is Достое́вский. If we keep it like this, change into Strauss and in the article, put in brackets behind (german:Franz Josef Strauß), additional redirect Strauß to the Strauss page if a German wants to use it in en.wikipedia. Since proper names and proper nouns do not fall under grammar rules ß is not an obsolete letter and has to appear at least in the article in the explained manner --Panth (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the German spelling should appear in the first line; it is a notable fact, and should be clearly stated. If it occurs after that, it should appear in italics, as a foreign word being discussed in English; for example, his baptismal name might be so treated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - per common usage in respected sources in English, which is the criterion that matters according to Wikipedia policy, common sense, and usefulness to readers. --Reuben (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - Using ss for the Eszett is not incorrect or wrong, especially if a name or word is appearing in another language where the Eszett is generally not used and especially if English usage mandates the use of ss for common usage. On the matter of less common names, again, using ss is not wrong... It is simply another way to spell the exact same thing where a letter is generally unavailable. I wouldn't call the Eszett unavailable inasmuch as I would call it inaccessible to most English readers. The top of any article can and should indicate any native spelling. Charles 03:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: The German Wikipedia can use whatever letters they please. This is the English Wikipedia, however, and the 'ß' character is not used in English, nor would 'Strauß' be a usage familiar to the overwhelming majority of readers.  I rather doubt, for instance, that the German Wikipedia article on Strauss would change to the common English usage, just because a vocal minority of language warriors piled on over there.  (As, in fact, it has not.)    RGTraynor  04:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: common English usage. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. English Wikipedia uses English spelling.  I agree with Charles, however, that the introductory paragraph should include the German spelling, as is done for Carl Friedrich Gauss. JamesMLane t c 05:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support "English Wikipedia uses English spelling." It's not rocket science. Avalon (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support English wikipedia must always use the most common usage in English. Considering that ß isn't even a letter in the English langage, the choice is obvious. Masterhatch (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support — Aside from being wholly unfamiliar to most English speakers, ß is a German letter not even used in all forms of German. Totally inappropriate for English Wikipedia. --Tysto (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support The very first edit for this page says it all "Dr. h.c. Franz Josef Strauß (spelled Strauss in English)" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as most common in English. He is known in part because of his writings. Library of Congress Card Catalog lists him as "Franz Josef Strauss" (maybe also Frans Josef Strauss in one case).  According to the article itself and the Library of Congress listings, it would appear that it may well be spelled "Strauss" even in the titles of works about him written in German. Especially if any part of their intended audience is going to be English speaking, and especially if the works by or about him are written in or translated to English, most publishers will have enough sense not to get their readers thinking and talking about Franz Straub.  In any case, the  ß is almost totally nonexistent in English usage.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Erudy's point about demonstrating how to spell the name in English is a good one, and one I'm surprised to have never come across (or come up with) before. If this were a more obscure topic, one which was simply not commonly referred to in English, I might take the opposite stance, but for this case, it really is a matter of following WP:UE and using the extremely commonly used and well-known English spelling. After all, Munich is not spelled "München" in English, and as fun and pretty as the eszett is, Strauss is not spelled Strauß in English. LordAmeth (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I read his name as Straub, and had no idea who was meant. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support as this is the English Wikipedia and he's known more commonly as Strauss. IMHO, English Wikipedia should use only the English version of foreign names. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Strauss is the most common spelling in English. --mav (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I am pro diacritics such as ć, ĉ, ç, č, or ċ, or Ĺ, Ļ, Ľ, Ḹ, Ł, or Ŀ, as they don't really make a difference in how an english reader views a word. However, this is a different case as it can affect how a name is read. I didn't realize who the person was till I read more into it. I completely read it as Straub. -Djsasso (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They might not make a whole lot of difference to the human eye. They do, however, have a significant impact on the electronic eyes, needlessly hiding a lot of information from various types of searches including both search engine searches, such as the one in the box on the Wikipedia page, or Google or Yahoo! or whatever, as well as the find on this page searches.  For the search engines that is especially true for the ones not normally used in English; an é or ñ might not cause a whole lot of problems in that regard, but most of those you mentioned will have a significant effect. And in any case, they certainly are confusing to some extent in English, not generally giving much of anything in the way of useful information to an English reader, and making the encyclopedia in general look like a foreign-language publication with no respect for the English language.  The find on this page searches are affected by all of those foreign letters, of course. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. This is English wikipedia, for English readers, and must follow English orthography. Even in Germany this letter is deprecated. `'Míkka>t 23:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's not deprecated in Germany, that's just not correct. There's no compelling reason to avoid using ß. That someone may mispronounce the letter is not a compelling reason, they may also mispronounce the 'z', the 'j' and the 'au' but we still shouldn't spell it Frants Yosef Shtrows. For comparison people may also mispronounce the 'ł' in Lech Wałęsa as 'l' - there's nothing special about 'ß' in this respect. Also see my note about the canvassing above. Haukur (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral leaning toward Oppose. I'm tired of these constant move requests that don't help their respective articles at all. Franz Josef Strauss redirects here, so I see no problem here at all, and there is a note at the top of the article saying:
 * The title of this article contains the character ß. Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as Franz Josef Strauss.
 * I don't see any hatline in Category:Government ministers of Germany. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing you need to ask yourselves, is how did the man write his name? If he preferred using 'ß' in his name then we should use 'ß', otherwise if he preferred 'ss' (which I doubt) then we use 'ss'. – Axman (☏) 08:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How do Germans write Germany? Do we need to have an article called Deustchland for that? It doesn't matter what he called himself, really. In this case, ss and ß are interchangeable. In English, ss is used far more. Charles 08:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it matters how he spelt his name, would you like it if someone spelt your name incorrectly? Your comparison between a country's name and a personal name has no merit, this article is about a single person not a collective such as Germany, and we should follow how the individual spelt their name. Of course 'ss' is used far more often in English, but that is due to the fact that many English typesets in the past did not have 'ß', and it was easier to use 'ss' and it still is. – Axman (☏) 10:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrectly? Strauss is not an incorrect spelling. Also, I happen to have a full name which has been recorded in Latin and can be translated, spelt different ways, you name it, and none of it really bothers me at all as long as any of the given forms is spelt correctly (like Strauss is). It is easier to use ss, yes, but also realize it makes much more sense to English readers and it is much more common than the Eszett. Charles 12:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Note: This was moved by some editor and it left the comment without any context
 * It's so wrong to declare that what's correct in German is also correct in English. By that logic, Germany should be Deutschland, Austria should be Österreich, and Prussia should be Preußen.
 * It's so against WP:UE. Strauß is German and Strauss is English, just like 東京 is Japanese and Tokyo is English.  It's a matter of how much foreign script a Wikipedia reader can tolerate vs. what is correct in the native language.  Of course 東京 is more correct in Japanese, big deal.--Endroit (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence
Citations of English language works which use Strauss:
 * Article in International Affairs by "Dr Franz Josef Strauss", 1965
 * Citations from Journal of Cold War Studies (2005) and The English Historical Review (2002)
 * Citations from Central European History (2006) and German Politics and Society (2003)
 * Article in Party Politics (1995) by the German Dietrich Thränhardt. Page 5 of article for citation.
 * Article in Comparative Politics (1990) by the German Hans-Georg Betz. See page 49 for citation.
 * Scholarly English language review of German language book in English Historical Review (2007)
 * and so forth....


 * Britannica Encyclopedia
 * Columbia Encyclopedia
 * Encarta Particularly notable, as Encarta tends to be more inclusive of "foreign" characters/diacritics
 * UXL Encyclopedia of World Biography
 * Library of Congress Authorized Heading
 * Example of British Library citation

Erudy (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * New York Times Obituary
 * Der Spiegel Online
 * BBC
 * CBC
 * And on the cover of TIME
 * According to The Economist's style guide

Apology
Sorry, everyone, for my disruption of this talk page. In response to Haukur's comments on the effect of my canvassing (which I had not realized was depricated), and not wanting to have an unfair negative impact on Erudy's attempt to effect some changes here, I thought I would just separate the votes of those who had voted without being contacted by myself from those whom I had contacted, so that we could get some idea of how this issue would have played out without my canvassing. I also attempted to move comments so that they retained their continuity from the original discussion, but in at least one case I clearly failed.

Anyway, I am willing to bear the brunt of ridicule for my clumsy actions here; acting in good faith I know that I will sometimes make errors. But I am not willing to allow my mistake to keep this issue from being decided. My mistake has been made, acknowledged, and rectified. There is no longer any cause to doubt the validity of this survey. Unschool (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While you may have canvassed, you did bring me into it. I do have a vested interest in the topic of English spellings and foreign spellings and there are many other people that you have brought in that also have a vested interest. It is not right to only include people who have Josef Strauss on their watchlists in the voting. I see no problem with canvassing people who actually would have an interest in the subject, like me and many other people unschool informed. Look at my history on the subject. Without Unschool informing me, i would never have known about this particular vote. I believe that as many people as possible should be contacted with not only this vote, but all votes throughout wikipedia. That being said, i strongly disagree with people who don't give two shits either way voting because their "friend" asked them too. Canvassing should be encouraged to get as many people in on the discussion as possible. Masterhatch (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I commend you on apologizing for an honest mistake, Unschool, but this proposal will have to be deemed void. Canvass disrupts a discussion to a point where consensus can no longer be determined. I will not close it as I don't want to be accused of conflict of interest in doing so (after all, I opposed the proposal), but I will request another admin to close it at WP:ANI. This proposal may be restarted when the dust settles. Hús  ö  nd  04:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why on earth should it be deemed void? There's a clear consensus both "above the line" and "below the line" of editors who were notified of the poll by Unschool.  Voiding a clear consensus because of a procedural misstep that doesn't affect that consensus looks like a silly move and possibly wiki-lawyering to me.  --Reuben (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I have given a reasoning for my closure at the top of the section "Requested Move, 2007" which may answer some questions, however I will answer this question here. It should be deemed void because there may have been more editors that had not yet seen the discussion who would later wish to participate. It may seem unfair to those who commented before the others were notified, but I cannot see another solution. The discussion was still underway (I would have expected more people's opinions) when the canvassing took place, and because some of the people who were notified by Unschool may also have commented later, their opinions should not be ignored. It's impossible to tell whether they would or wouldn't have commented however so their contribution to the discussion is in limbo. By putting off the discussion until later, those who are not really interested will not voice their opinions. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 05:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If I took things on the internet as seriously as some people do, I'd be furious with your opinionated closure of the move, James. I, for one, keep WP:RM in my watch list and am involved in moves like these. Therefore, for you to discount my vote on the basis someone mentioned it before I would have seen it anyway offends me as an editor. You know, I am looking now at a few opposed votes and they are "I am not convinced" or "it is spelt this way in German" or "it is more accurate this way". Really though, did you consider at all the reasons given for the move? The fact that overwhelming English usage dictates the use of ss over the Eszett? You have a chance here to right a wrong. Maybe what Unschool did was wrong, but I would have been here anyway, and to me, it is wrong for you to discount my vote, and the overwhelming opinions and votes for the move. I've seen things make it onto the German Wikipedian's noticeboard before and "that" was never canvassing. Charles 06:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

← Yours is a case which means I cannot discount all of the editors who commented after notification because you would have commented anyway. However, if I were to include everyone who commented after notification I would be counting the opinions of those who weren't particularly interested. The problem is it's impossible to tell who really would have found this discussion and who wouldn't have, so I can't select which to count/discount either. With this in mind I decided not to close it one way or the other and I ask that in about a month somebody restart the move discussion when it's no longer at the front of everyone's minds and your opinion will be counted when you comment. Perhaps even less than a month. Also my decision was not opinionated; if I were to comment on the move I would suggest it be moved to Strauss because it is the English version and this is the English Wikipedia, but I did my best to remain neutral when making a decision so that my opinion would not over-rule consensus. I think that when it is renominated for a move it will go to the "ss" title, because consensus probably is present to move, but it could not be reliably determined in this discussion. James086 Talk &#124; Email 07:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it should be at all difficult. Unschool provided a list of all those editors he invited. Without them it was 10-2.
 * If one counts Axman alone of those he invited, it was 10-3. If one includes some but not all of the !votes he invited, like Charles, it goes back up above 80% support. If one includes all of them, it's a landslide.
 * Any of these results would have been more than sufficient to move any other page.
 * I regard this closure as disappointing for other reasons, as I have said on James's talkpage: I really would like an answer to Unschool's comment:
 * When you tell us, on this side of the issue, that "Strauß" is how he signed his name, and that "Strauß" is the proper spelling in German, please understand, no one is contesting that''. We know that those are true statements. So you don't need to keep arguing those points. What we are saying goes beyond those points, and I ask that you (almost all of whom have indicated that you are at least familiar with German or are even native speakers of German) not only assume good faith, but to also allow for some intelligence on our part. Try to consider the point of view of people who speak no German at all. Try to understand how we can agree with you on the above points, and still not think it correct to use "Strauß" in en.wiki. Please address our points, not the points that you wish we were making.
 * Signed Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerning the above plug pulling? I'm speechless. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also very disappoint with the decision of James086 to close this discussion as no consensus. First, there is no evidence that there was any clear abuse of WP:CANVASS. Certainly nothing to the extent to void the discussion. Not that it makes much difference and I don't know if this is applicable to anyone else, but Unschool contacted me after I had already expressed my position on this page. older ≠ wiser 02:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that so few people opposed it is also interesting. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just curious, are we gonna have another go at this, or not? GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it, I'll vote of course. Charles 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply everyone; I was away for christmas celebrations. It seems that people would rather not wait to have another discussion so I have made a new one below. Also I did not close the RM on the quality of the arguments, it was because it's impossible to tell who would have come across the discussion without notification. I predict that this new one will result in the page being moved, but you never know. James086 Talk &#124; Email 01:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)