Talk:Josef F.

The German article is using this page as interwiki, the reason being that it is still disputed if the last name of the person may be used on Wikipedia or if this is illegal. This is also why the reason given is incorrect, in Germany "Josef F." is common among certain people/media. --NoCultureIcons (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not at all our problem. They have to use the correct and valid interwiki link, Fritzl case. This article serve no purpose at the English Wikipedia. Please don't create articles at the English Wikipedia which are only related to disputes at other projects. Also, what you are saying is absolutely rubbish. All major German media are using Fritzl, it's not illegal and "Josef F." is something invented by the German Wikipedia alone and apparently enforced by one administrator there against consensus. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude, fuck off if you can't argue in a civil way. You obviously have inferior knowledge about German media, please stop pretending. --NoCultureIcons (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I shouldn't have written the above. Only afterwards I realized I was takling to a nutjob. --NoCultureIcons (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from your personal attacks, should we remember, that interwiki links on redirects are not regular. Removing interwiki links is vandalism, and this happens in the German Wikipedia on an administrative level, as far, as I can oversee it. -- Arne List (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is that I agree that not mentioning the name is silly. What I can't stand is how aggitated some people who are sharing this opinion become; no sane admin would enjoy joining Johnny in his fight for his right to bandy after reading statements like the one I linked above or, generally speaking, seeing what he is doing on other projects. --NoCultureIcons (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * However, the English Wikipedia should block any attempts of interwiki vandalism and their legalization through elsewhere useless redirects. There must be a clear frontier, in order to help the German Wikipedia to solve the problem at the root. Otherwise, interwiki vandalism will affect the rest of Wikipedia, while the Germans say they are "discussing" basic rules, which cannot be discussed. It makes no sense, to concentrate on personal aspects in this very serious case. -- Arne List (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that this is a case of interwiki-vandalism. The English wikipedia-version engourages the creation and maintenance of tons of useless redirects anyway (see i.e. Category:Redirects from other capitalisations or Category:Unprintworthy redirects). I also do not see the problem that has to be solved "at the root", mostly because I don't care too much about "problems" that will cease to exist in the long run anyway. There's not a grain of doubt that the surname will be used in the German version sooner or later, all the fuzz is created by people who think that it has to be right now, despite comprehensible legal concerns. --NoCultureIcons (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care, if they name the surname in the German Wikipedia either. Sooner or later they will do. But: My point is the deletion of interwiki links in the German edition of Wikipedia. This is in any case vandalism. If this is tolerated, there will be many other cases in the future, where single users think, they have the right, to censor the existing interwikis according to his own taste and limited legal understanding. They may go wild in the German Wikipedia, until the doctor comes, but please not touch valid interwiki links and play chief attorney. -- Arne List (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There are several Josef F.s, suggest compromise solution
9 users voted to delete this redirect completely, while 7 users voted to keep it. It does NOT seem fair that the minority are getting it their way. As there is still no consensus to redirect this article to the Fritzl case, I suggest, as a compromise, it is made into a disambiguation page, as there are articles on several people called Josef F., including Josef Fahringer, Josef Fares, Josef Feistmantl, Josef Felder, Josef Fendt, Josef Ferdinand, Josef Fessler, Josef Fiala, Josef Fischer, Josef Fischer (cyclist), Josef Florian, Josef Foerster, Josef Forster, Josef Franc, Josef Frank, Josef Frank (architect), Josef Franke, Josef Frantisek, Josef Frings, Josef Fritzl, Josef Fuchs and Josef Förster. -- Johnny from Bronx (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry dude. "No consensus" means the redirect stays. That's way things always work, and there's no reason why we should treat this case differently. I know you think the German speaker are being totally ridiculous, but you're just going to have let this one drop. Yilloslime T C  17:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There is no consensus to redirect the article to the Fritzl case. There is a majority against, and we need to find a solution that is acceptable to the majority. Even if consensus to delete this article was not reached, it does not mean the current content is agreed on. Several people pointed out that there are several Josef F.s, there's no reason why it shouldn't be a redirect to any of the other Josef F.s instead . Johnny from Bronx (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but that's how it works. No Consensus defaults to keep. I agree that at times it's doesn't make much sense, but thems are the rules, and this isn't the appropriate forum for getting them changed. You really need to stop beating this dead horse. Maybe give it few weeks and try RfDing again, but for now I suspect any further efforts to remove or break this redirect will just be a frustrating waste of your time. FWIW if de.wiki stops using this redirect I'd be more inclined to support deletion, though there's still the issue that "Josef F." is a very plausible search term for Fritzl, but a very unlikely search term for Josef Fahringer or anyone else you've named above. Yilloslime T C  22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I do see a non-disruptive way for you to continue this little crusade of yours: re RfD it, but rather than propose deletion, propose (as you did above) that it should be disambig for all the Josef Fs listed above instead of redirect to Fritzl. If we can agree to put Fritzl on the top of the list, I'd probably support the proposal. Yilloslime T C  22:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will think about this for a couple of days. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A compromise is possible and indeed always welcome. However I should point out the following:
 * In German-language media the perpetrator is still frequently (even if not "always") referred to as Josef F. Just Google it.  Or, for instance, look at this: "The suspect, named only as Josef F, was arrested on suspicion of incest...".  It is a perfecty likely search term!
 * It is therefore possible that at least some (or indeed probably quite a lot) of users may search for "Josef F." to get more information about this case.
 * We, the Wikipedian community, should always assist users in finding relevant information. We should never do something that would have the effect of actually hiding information.  Now that would really be censorship.
 * The argument that having this redirect is somehow about "censorship" is invalid. While the actual article should always reflect the real name of the subject (and nobody proposes to change that!), there may exist many redirects as long as they are useful -- that is, they help people find information.  That is not censorship.
 * -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is censorship to assist a different project to suppress a name the entire world knows. See the comments by Arne List above. Would we allow similar useless redirects to be created if the Chinese language Wikipedia censored information to please the regime? No, we wouldn't. Redirects should be useful and meaningful here. This redirect is neither.
 * It is completely untrue that Josef Fritzl is widely referred to as "Josef F." in German. The claim will not become true just because you keep repeating it. When even the state Austrian Broadcasting (ORF) mention his name on thousands of webpages, one can imagine how many times his name is spelled out by papers like BILD and how everyone has seen his picture numerous times. No westerner able to read will have escaped the name of Josef Fritzl. It is more likely that most people don't know who this "Josef F." is, and would easily confuse with with Josef K. from Kafka's novel. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (no need to imagine: a search for Fritzl site:bild.de gives 31 200 results. And "Josef Fritzl" site:de gives close to a million results. Papers and channels using his name extensively include BILD, Der Spiegel, Die Welt, ORF, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and many, many more. It should also be pointed out that Fritzl is now convicted and the rest of his family have changed their names). Johnny from Bronx (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't put it in the category of censorship but the reason this redirect page controversy emerged was clearly because of the German WP "legally-or-not?-hysteria" as I would call it and of course editors where getting aware of the existens of this page at this point. In response to user:Ekjon Lok: It is very unlikely for most readers to look up "Josef F." unless they're German speaking and would search on the German WP anyway. Now, for the few non-German speakers who might search by this phrase we could keep this redirect although only as a disambargation page as it was newly proposed by user:Johnny from Bronx here Redirects_for_discussion. I agree in the fullest with his rationale (as I commented over there .)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)