User talk:FortunateSons/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Re: Diet culture

See also: Diet culture

I'm going to make a brief, but detailed roadmap of how this DYK can pass. I will update it in an hour or so. I'm doing this because I think my last attempt was too ambiguous. Viriditas (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I’ll try to fix grammar/style issues during, I hope you don’t mind? FortunateSons (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do so. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to start moving things along and moving towards closure on this DYK. Some questions:

• Why does the first sentence in the lead need three sources? I pointed you to Harrison 2019, which is a single source that describes all of this (and I left you the full quote on the DYK review page). You don't have to use it, of course, but since we have good sources that summarize this info, it doesn't make sense to add three sources. Also, please get in the habit of formatting the sources (author, date, title, publication) so that editors can evaluate them.

More in a bit. Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm fixing the source issues now by adding the authors and publication names. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I just saw that, thank you. I’ll refrain from making any changes for now to avoid an edit conflict FortunateSons (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Too late! I'm done. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing is complete. Given how important intuitive eating is to this topic, you should make an effort to take it out of the see also and move it into the body. Not required for DYK of course, but it looks bad sitting by itself like that when it needs to be merged into the subject. Also, you're going to want to differentiate this subject from others like Health at Every Size. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ll find a spot for it, probably best placed in the history section, if I can find a source? FortunateSons (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I like the Harrison quote as the citation (page 12 in my digital version), and would straightforwardly replace the sources currently used with it. I believe it covers all of the content, or do I need a second citation? (Such as Digital Mental Health Interventions: Differences in Diet Culture Intervention Framing. Von: Fitterman-Harris HF, Davis GG, Bedard SP, Cusack CE, Levinson CA, International journal of environmental research and public health, 1660-4601, 2023 Dec 23, Bd./Jhrg. 21 (on page 1))? FortunateSons (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Do it any way you prefer. One way I personally do this in articles is to bundle the citations using an asterisk or bullet. That way, the material is supported by a single citation with pointers to others if needed. To see an example of this style, see citation numbers 10 and 16 in the article Rooms by the Sea and look at the markup in edit mode. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Note, it might be instructive to lean heavily on a source like Jovanovski & Jaeger, as they are probably the most neutral and authoritative overview on the subject. From there, you can go on to cite the authorities they discuss in more detail if you like. My point is that if you use the Jovanovski & Jaeger framework as your starting point, you will encounter less problems when other editors review this article. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That’s a good idea. Is there a way to have the ref name created within such a footnote, or do I have to do it outside? FortunateSons (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a few different ways to do it, including ones that allow you to use anchors to cheat, but I would just do it on the outside for the moment. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thanks FortunateSons (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding hooks: I like the more nuanced Harrison citation, but I’m not sure how to best hook it, perhaps: “that the 19th-century belief linking fatness to blackness is now considered part of diet culture?” or “that the 19th-century belief that fatness is an indication of savagery is now considered part of diet culture?” I would cite it to Harrison (p. 22), and avoid the citation to Strings. If this hook is acceptable, I would obviously include that content into the relevant section of the article body as well. Thank you ;) FortunateSons (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently thinking about this problem. Before we resolve it, can you take a look at this recent source? Thank you.. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks quite interesting, particularly for a citation in the reception, particularly the benefits of the different framings/names. Is there a particular use that you would suggest?

Unfortunately, I don’t have the right scientific background for any in-depth understanding beyond that of a layman FortunateSons (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood, but that's not what I meant. I meant, look at how they are defining diet culture. They are paraphrasing Jovanovski & Jaeger as I recommended. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

FortunateSons, I would encourage you to play around with it, but try to focus on the subject of diet culture. Some people might look at this and think it is coatrack-y. We know the racial component is tied into the social stigma of obesity and diet culture discusses this stigma. But as Zaragoza 2024 points out, this isn't limited to black women, or even black men, but all men and women, with Zaragoza discussing the men and women of the Latino community in particular and focusing more on the problem of homogenization of diets. Jovanovski & Jaeger frame this overarching problem as as a "moral hierarchy of bodies fuelled by health myths" based on "systemic and structural inequalities". I wonder if your hook would benefit from widening its perspective, to include all men and women, or rather, to focus more on diet culture as a general topic. I just made my way through Strings book and she doesn't discuss diet culture anywhere, so I see this as slightly problematic. This leads me to thinking we should discard the focus on String for the moment and find a hook that zeroes in on the subject at hand. I realize this might not be what you want to hear, and you shouldn't take it as gospel, but just consider what I'm saying for a moment and sleep on it. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that’s definitely a valid view, and I would be very open to it. I would sleep on it (as it’s quite late where I am) and get back to you? FortunateSons (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Quick question: the article is accessible through the wiki library for me, isn’t it for you? FortunateSons (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I needed a hard copy to reference. I don't have access to TWL because I got into an argument with an admin on Wikinews who banned me, thereby invalidating my subsription to TWL. I have a copy of the article now. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry to hear, that really sucks. It’s good that you have a copy now! FortunateSons (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that a potential hook is partially supported on p. 7: For women of colour, diet culture was said to be reinforced through intersecting systems of patriarchy and racism, and further fuelled by capitalist systems that marketed the thin, white female body as a universal ideal. As long as a proposed hook sticks closely to a paraphrased version of this, and it appears in the body, I would support it, as it is tied directly into diet culture by the authors. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, and will write it once I’m awake. Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I do wonder if it is problematic, however, since it is based on the results of a survey of anti-diet participants. I wonder how that could be worded accurately. Let's talk later. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand this concern, but considering the authors are discussing it in their own voice (as well as below: „A focus on patriarchy, racism, and capitalism is often prevalent in the work of feminist and fat activists“ and „We found that diet culture is characterised by a conflation of weight and health including myths about food and eating, and a moral hierarchy of bodies derived from patriarchal, racist, and capitalist forms of domination.”), I would probably characterize it as derived from the survey participants, but as the authors own evaluation. FortunateSons (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Make it so! Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of that both scholars and activists believe that diet culture is often intertwined with racism and other forms of prejudice?” as a ‘safe’ hook, as that one can almost indisputably be cited to Harrison and J&J? It’s a bit less flashy compared to the original, but it avoids the coatrack concerns IMO. Or perhaps something along those lines making an argument regarding a “intersectional” approach to diet culture, as the term is used by J&J? What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you are on top of this, and I'm impressed! Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going offline for a while, so ping me when you have added new hooks to the DYK page. I think we are very close to finishing this up and moving on to the next step. Great job! Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Will do that tomorrow, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas, I have added two hooks (personally preferring the first) and added the two discussed academic sources to the relevant part of the lead. Are those acceptable? Thank you for your time and patience! FortunateSons (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I am finishing up another DYK right now, and will get to yours in about an hour from now. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Don’t worry, it’s past midnight for me anyway, so no need to hurry! :) FortunateSons (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I took you up on your offer to slack. I will return to it later tonight. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Starting to finish review now. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. I copied this discussion to the review page in a collapsed format to preserve the paper trail. Feel free to archive or delete it here. Your choice. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I won’t add a new version of the final paragraph for now, you are right regarding the weasel words and the fact that the section is not necessary. I don’t have to do anything else with the DYK, correct?

I’m aware that this review required more of your time than it usually does, and am very grateful for your help! :) FortunateSons (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure. I was surprised that many of the sources couldn't specify who coined the term circa 2010, but I'm going to have another look as I find that odd. Viriditas (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That’s an interesting question, please let me know if you find something! FortunateSons (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: Stadionverbot Decision

See also: Stadionverbot Decision

Do you also want me to take a look at the DYK for the Stadionverbot Decision? If you want a different reviewer, that's ok. Just let me know. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You were a great reviewer, no objection from me. It is exclusively based on German sources, just as a fair warning, but if you are ok with that, I would appreciate a second review as well! FortunateSons (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Note, you have external links in the see also section. You'll either want to move those to the bottom in an external link section or format them into full citations for a further reading section. Viriditas (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, will do. FortunateSons (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You have a stray "A" at the end of the "Impact" section. Also headings are generally lowercase on en, such as "Legal proceedings", not "Legal Proceedings". Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Please use bullets (also known as the asterisk) before each external link. Like this:

• Link1
• Link2

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Added them FortunateSons (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! FortunateSons (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Try to add page numbers to the references if you are able. It's not required, but it allows reviewers to check your work. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I will do that tomorrow insofar as possible, thanks! I’ll have to check where it’s still missing, as I usually linked directly to the section (usually delineated through a section number (Rn.)).FortunateSons (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, it's not required. Maybe something to think about in future hooks. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thanks; particularly for the hooks, it might be worth the effort to get my hands on a physical copy of the source. FortunateSons (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m concerned about the title, as it’s still at the “old” one, that is slightly different than the new version. Can I just move it, or would that be an issue for the dyk? FortunateSons (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want and let others deal with any issues. I wouldn't worry too much about it. The redirect from the DYK should work fine after the move. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! FortunateSons (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you find the current hooks for Stadionverbot Decision interesting? It may not be as interesting for non-specialists. Perhaps consider adding more hooks that people outside of the legal profession can appreciate. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I do, but I’m a studying law, so that counts for nothing. I think the first one is the easiest for a layman to appreciate, based on the “speed” of the decisions.

The “best hook” would probably be something along the lines of “that a court decision about a 16-year-old’s ban from football stadiums may impact the legal obligations of social media companies in Germany” (cited to something like this, which is a less than great source and the Spiegel article for the age/alternatively the LTO article), but this sort of hook is often dangerously close to OR or weasel words, with everything being basically speculative in regards to the actual practical impact (or too in-depth for a hook). Would that be more interesting? FortunateSons (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure, but if there’s a way for you to explain why the hooks are interesting in the hook, that’s something to consider. I will give what you say some thought and come back to it later. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m afraid that this would be effectively impossible within that length restriction. Would linking to Drittwirkung be helpful? The article is short, but might explain some of the issue decently well that would be a coatrack here. FortunateSons (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of “…that the German Federal Constitutional Court has decided that some powerful private companies cannot exclude customers for arbitrary reasons?” cited to the same source as the second hook? Is that more interesting? FortunateSons (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm taking a look now. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. In case we want a definition (and to not crowd the DYK), I would use the one from Towfigh, which is „Dies lässt indes nicht den Schluss zu, dass Grundrechte im Privatrecht bedeutungslos sind. Mit seiner Lüth-Entscheidung ($ 3 Rn. 31 ff.) legte das BVerfG vielmehr schon 1958 den Grundstein für die Figur der sog. mittelbaren Drittwirkung der Grundrechte. Die Grundrechte haben demzufolge maßgeblichen Einfluss auf die Auslegung und Anwendung einfachgesetzlicher Rechtsnormen (Ausstrahlungswirkung der Grundrechte, $ 1 Rn.41). Vor allem die jüngere Rechtsprechung des BVerfG - mit den Entscheidungen zu Fraport, Bierdosen-Flashmob und Stadionverbot - weitet die mittelbare Drittwirkung der Grundrechte erheblich aus. Vereinzelt wird daher gar von einer Rechtsprechungsänderung hin zu einer unmittelbaren Drittwirkung der Grundrechte gesprochen. Das BVerfG formuliert: Je nach Gewährleistungsinhalt und Fallgestaltung kann die mittelbare Grundrechtsbindung Privater einer Grundrechtsbindung des Staates vielmehr nahe oder auch gleich kommen.“ (p. 54 f.) (Google translate: However, this does not lead to the conclusion that fundamental rights are meaningless in private law. In fact, with its Lüth decision (§ 3 Rn. 31 ff.) the Federal Constitutional Court laid the foundation for the concept of the so-called indirect third-party effect of fundamental rights as early as 1958. Fundamental rights therefore have a significant influence on the interpretation and application of ordinary legal norms (radiation effect of fundamental rights, § 1 Rn.41). In particular, the more recent case law of the Federal Constitutional Court - with the decisions on Fraport, beer can flash mobs and stadium bans - significantly expands the indirect third-party effect of fundamental rights. In some cases, there is even talk of a change in case law towards a direct third-party effect of fundamental rights. The Federal Constitutional Court states: Depending on the content of the guarantee and the circumstances of the case, the indirect fundamental rights obligation of private individuals can be close to or even the same as the fundamental rights obligation of the state. FortunateSons (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Made the changes. I’m not sure about the second one, does that sound better in English? FortunateSons (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi FortunateSons. :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I’m pretty busy right now, but I’ll get to it as soon as I can! FortunateSons (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Diet culture

On 8 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Diet culture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that both scholars and activists believe that diet culture is often intertwined with racism and other forms of prejudice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Diet culture. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Diet culture), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Good job! Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all the help! FortunateSons (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Stadionverbot Decision

Hello! Your submission of Stadionverbot Decision at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I’m currently very busy, but will try my best to get to it asap! :) FortunateSons (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, and thank you both for taking over. I’m happy with the new hook, so no objections FortunateSons (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I’m slightly confused about what I was pinged for yesterday? Is any action from me required? FortunateSons (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Stadium ban decision

On 1 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stadium ban decision, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a German court's decision involving football stadiums may preclude Facebook from arbitrarily banning users? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stadionverbot Decision. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Stadium ban decision), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Times of Israel

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Times of Israel. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you FortunateSons (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed party at PIA5

Hello, I'm notifying you that I have listed your name at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence#Seven proposed parties as being among the most active editors in Palestine/Israel noticeboard disputes, and I have proposed that you participate as a party to the case. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the notification! I have been less than active over the last few months, so either a ping or a response here would be quite appreciated if there is content to respond to; would that be possible? FortunateSons (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Recht auf Vergessen-Decisions

Hello, FortunateSons. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Recht auf Vergessen-Decisions, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Question about your self-declared Conflict of Interest in Gaza genocide article

Hello.

You made an edit request in this article, with the {{edit COI}} template .

I am confused since you also made several changes into this article, including this change in the lead . Middle East Scholar Barometer mentioned in the now-removed content seems to be from University of Maryland, College Park..

Your own use page notes: Anyone is free to assume that I have a conflict of interest with regards to any european high school, college, university, research institution, scholarship network and anything directly or indirectly affiliated with them. This especially applies to institutions teaching law, business, politics and medicine. Does this not extend to US universities?

Please see: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest. Do not provide any personal information per WP:AVOIDOUTING. But I was wondering if you need to bring this issue to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard per WP:COICOIN? Thanks. Bogazicili (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for your question. No, this does not apply to other countries. It’s just that I have “a COI in any sense but policy” for about 10 of the European institutions (+people), but I don’t want to tell which, so this was the compromise. I think that in case of doubt, a discussion (such as this one :)) is a nicer remedy than someone not knowing and thereby getting myself/them into a bad situation.

While being a student or a member of a scholarship network isn’t a technically a COI, the same often does not apply to partaking in volunteer or paid work at those. As I don’t want to out myself by creating a list that can be matched to my LinkedIn, I just picked a broad disclosure. Based on a reasonable half-year cooldown window, I currently do not have a COI to anything outside of Germany within the scope of the article.

Regarding to specific edit: I have a COI regarding one of the people cited (arguably two, but that reading would go significantly further than current policy interpretation does), so that requires an actual policy-level COI disclosure. It does not apply to the article as a whole, or even the majority of people cited in my text.

Don’t hesitate to ask if you have any questions :) FortunateSons (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bogazicili are you still concerned, or is the issue resolved for you? :) FortunateSons (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not very experienced in COI. I basically asked if you need to bring it to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and you said no. Bogazicili (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, alright, thanks. Please don’t hesitate to ask if there are any further concerns! FortunateSons (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello FortunateSons, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC Notice

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the March 2024 AfD on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I am canvassing you...

...to participate in this canvassing discussion, just in case you haven't seen it. Of course, as always, the set of more interesting things to do is infinite. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Technically, you’re attempting to canvass me, because I’m already aware of the train wreck discussion :)

If I find the time to read it all, I’ll definitely contribute (once I’m done with the current section of German civil law and giving PADI excessive amounts of money), so thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello FortunateSons! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Deviant Ollam notability, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment

Hey, I found your accusation of blood libel in this comment to be unhelpful. It is essentially an accusation of antisemitism, completely unfounded, and needlessly raises the temperature in an already contentious topic area. You're free to ignore my comment if you will.

I also found the same comment to be contrary to the spirit of WP:BLP, where you write "Ramy Abdu's indirect ties to Hamas". The article cited attributes the Hamas claim to Shin Bet, and doesn't state it in its own voice nor endorse that claim.

I don't want to make a big deal, but I know you're a rather intelligent and well-read wikipedian, so the comment came across as unexpected.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent, hey, thanks for reaching out. As I have already responded to your comment there, I’ll try to keep this somewhat brief: it’s what I consider an accurate summary of the opinion of a (in the real world, less so on Wikipedia) well-respected source, and directed towards specific actions by the group, not any individual. Would you be willing to elaborate on what the specific concern is? I would genuinely like to understand, and felt like my comment was exclusively descriptive, and not assigning value. For what it’s worth: I personally do not believe that they are invoking that stereotype intentionally, and consider it possible that it’s merely coincidental, but can anecdotally tell you that the ADL’s reaction was roughly aligned with those of other Jewish people I know, so it’s probably not a niche view either. And if you look at many of the less mainstream discussions of this topic, it seems like no matter what EMHRM wanted, that type of story always gets those kind of people crawling out of the woodwork , and that’s just the comments that weren’t deleted. (And I avoided Twitter, but I think we can both guess what those discussions will look like).

Regarding Ramy Abdu, our own article says that he was the assistant director and Palestine Office Manager for Council for European Palestinian Relations, an organisation described by The Independent as "a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government.". I feel like that’s close enough to my statement to be broadly fine, but if it isn’t, I’m open to suggestions for a different phrasing?

On a general note, I appreciate you coming to me with this concern, and you’re very much invited to discuss this (or any other issue) on my talk page anytime! And while I’m not generally a fan of apologies like this, and I’m guessing you aren’t either, but: I hope that didn’t cause any offence, and sincerely apologise if I did. FortunateSons (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent, are you still concerned? I’m happy to rephrase/appropriately qualify the areas of concern if you have a specific suggestion, as keeping the area as non-heated as possible is something I care about :) FortunateSons (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reddit and Antisemitism (April 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ScrabbleTiles was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Reddit. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

There is a controversies section on the Reddit Wikipedia page. I suggest it should be put there.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Reddit and Antisemitism and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ScrabbleTiles (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, FortunateSons! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ScrabbleTiles (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@ScrabbleTiles, I believe that this a WP:Content Fork that legitimately covers a specific area, which is neutral, independently notable and too large for the main article. While I plan to add a significantly shortened section to the (admittedly already pretty large) controversy section, this article, for the same reason as RedditGifts, Controversial Reddit communities, 2023 Reddit API controversy etc., which are also linked in the controversy section, should be moved to mainspace. Now, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a perfect argument, but I do believe that this draft meets the policy requirements. Do you mind taking another look? FortunateSons (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Please also note that Reddit is at 8687 words of readable prose, this article is at 352, and the guidance at 8000 words is May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size., while 9000 states: Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.. FortunateSons (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok then, as the article is well written, if you resubmit it and then ping me, I will accept it. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@ScrabbleTiles, I have just done so, thank you very much! Are there any other concerns about the article? FortunateSons (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is classed as an orphan but I’m not sure there would be any way to fix that so I don’t think there is a need to tag it (but if you want to do so then feel free). Apart from that, I don’t have any concerns with the content of the article. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Great, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reddit and Antisemitism has been accepted

Reddit and Antisemitism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ScrabbleTiles (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia and email addresses

Re this edit where you say The email from which the report was made is linked to my account and would be verifiable to ArbCom. Linking an email address to your account enables other editors to send you email from Wikipedia, but it does not enable anyone (including checkusers) to see what your email address is. If you reply to such an email then your address is disclosed to the recipient (in the From: header) but there isn't a way to get that information subsequently unless they have saved the email. If you included your username in any of the emails then, there might be a way for them to search the archives and find it that way (the systems have changed since I was on the Committee in 2015 so I'm not certain). Similarly, any locally saved copies may be searchable, but this will depend on each individual arbitrator's email client and how they sort their email. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I assumed that the email address was part of the logs that any CU could see, but it makes sense from a privacy perspective that it isn’t. Thank you for the information!

Nevertheless, my email address contains my username, has been used to forward messages received through Wikipedia, and the Arb addressed me by my username, so I don’t think that there are any concerns about the origin of the email. FortunateSons (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Internet Archive

Per your question at RSN, if you have any queries about the IA GreenC is very knowledgeable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

That’s good to know, thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello FortunateSons! The thread you created at the Teahouse, BLP Notability for Noa Fay, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Sorry for letting your message fall through the cracks! I was on a bit of an undeclared vacation. I'm thrilled to see that people are taking up the mantle of making sources accessible, and watching them put in the work has been really a sight to behold. Please accept this barnstar as a token of appreciation :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) FortunateSons (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Bella Hadid RfC

Thanks for creating the RfC. I hope our work together on this contentious topic goes more smoothly this time. Tobby72 indicated that there is new information to consider. We should find that information and determine how it changes the situation since the last discussions.

Regarding the contentious topics alert: I find the documentation unclear, yet they require great care in their use. I'm happy to help if you think you'll be attempting to notify more editors in the future. --Hipal (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope so too!

Sorry about the alert, I assumed that it would be in the system and missed the list on top of your talk page, as it’s collapsed on mobile. That’s on me! FortunateSons (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

You used the wrong alert, and missed that it is no longer required that editors are alerted after receiving any previous such alerts. --Hipal (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure on the alert? Afaik, this one is still very much in use, such as here (matching mine here) and as far as I know, it is common practice to alert for ARBPIA due to enhanced sanctions and harsher enforcement (obviously not to the aware, but as I said, I missed that). If the requirement was fully waived, I’m indeed not aware of that. Could you cite the relevant decision/policy?FortunateSons (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{alert}} begins: Under the contentious topics procedure, there are three types of alerts:

• {{Contentious topics/alert/first}}, which is mandatory for the first time an editor is alerted to contentious topics (or discretionary sanctions) in any topic area.
• {{alert}} (this template), which you may (but are not required to) use to alert an editor (to a different topic area for example) after they've received {{Contentious topics/alert/first}}.
• {{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}, which you may (but are not required to) use when alerting someone who has previously been alerted to discretionary sanctions but not contentious topics.}}

You used alert/first, which should be used only once, and not if the editor has been previously notified of DS topics. --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I assumed that you had to use 'first' for the first one, but not that it had any other impact that mandated it be used instead of {{alert}}. Could you explain how it does? I always just copy-and-pasted the same thing, no matter whether or not prior alerts had been received. FortunateSons (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following. You should have checked if any alerts appeared in the logs. Editors are instructed to do this whenever they attempt to use the alert template for any reason. Then, you should have switched to the {{alert}} rather than alert/first, or not have bothered at all. --Hipal (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I‘m (now) aware that I should, but don’t really understand the difference for the alerted user? For example, the warning template only asks the following: A system filter has identified that you are trying to alert [user] (contribs ·logs · block log) about a contentious topics designation. Special rules govern alerts. Editors should exercise caution before re-alerting an editor to the same contentious topic as a previous alert, as there is a presumption that an editor remains aware. Please now check if this editor has already been alerted to this area of conflict: Search logs: in user talk history • in system log. Search elsewhere (optional): in AE • in AE contribs. Do you wish to alert this user? If so, click 'Publish changes' again. If not, click 'Cancel'., with no warning about differences between the templates. FortunateSons (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the documentation is unclear, and was so even before the contentious topics system came along to make it even more confusing. --Hipal (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Question regarding editing Contentious topics on non-contentious articles

Hi there!

I've been a Wikipedia enthusiast for a little while now, and a talk page lurker, but haven't engaged in editing until now. I was reading the page on Brian Cox (actor) and came across a summary of an open letter he signed, the description of which linked to "Gaza genocide" and worded it in wikispeak as fact. I noticed the same style of wording on the page for the poem "If I Must Die" which was narrated by Cox and is linked on his page. I knew there was an RfC on the Gaza genocide page that ruled against presenting the page's title in wikispeak as fact, to keep in line with NPOV. As such I edited the wording on both pages (without deleting the link of course), and think I did a pretty good job, but also don't know if I was out of line to do so, as obviously it is a contentious topic being discussed on non-contentious pages. I noticed you might be be the only other user who has engaged in talks on both the Brian Cox and Gaza genocide pages, so I wanted to reach out for advice. Should I revert the edits? Not edit going forward? I'm simply trying to honor RfC outcomes, in part because I find wikipedias democratic process amazing. Thanks! GrippingStory (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@GrippingStory, welcome to editing! Getting started is always tough, and I apologize for my late response. I’m also very impressed with your desire to learn policy and the terms used on enWiki, and encourage you to reach out to me and other experienced editors if you need any further assistance getting started.

Regarding your specific question, you should keep the following in mind:

1. Per the text I just placed on your talk page, any editor who isn’t WP:Extended confirmed is not permitted to make edits about the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly constructed. As this is your first account, you would have to reach 500 edits (counting only productive edits not made just to reach that goal) and an account age of 30 days.
2. The specific implication of that RfC is disputed. While you’re not allowed to engage with the discussion, this might be of interest to you.
3. Your specific changes seem acceptable to me based on a very quick look, but others might strongly disagree. I will revert them specifically for your lack of Extended confirmation, and without prejudice to you adding them once you naturally reach EC (which, just as a warning, might take a few months). Alternatively - and just to be clear, I do not recommend this - you could attempt to phrase it as an WP:Edit request, which generally shouldn’t be used for controversial edits. In this case, I will do that for you based on the independent evaluation required to respond to your request, but cannot do so habitually. For your information: this is on the edge of what is permissible, and not something a new user should do due to the risk of being sanctioned if it goes wrong.

I hope this was helpful, and please do not hesitate to ask if you require further clarification. :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. The fact that this felt like it was on the fringe of what I could do was the reason I reached out. Just to be clear, were you planning on reverting my edits or is that something I should do myself? Or, does this conversation serve as bringing the edits to someone who is extended confirmed? GrippingStory (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was planning on doing that, but then got distracted by real life. I will be doing so asap. :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate all of this! GrippingStory (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Attempt (German penal code) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Attempt (German penal code). Thanks! WeWake (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Attempt (German penal code) has been accepted

Attempt (German penal code), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 24% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Toadspike [Talk] 12:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Recht auf Vergessen-Decisions

Hello, FortunateSons. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Recht auf Vergessen-Decisions".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Attempt (German penal code)

Regarding this - I have been promoting two sets per day to the queue pretty much every day for the last two or three weeks. That means checking the bona fides of articles and accuracy/suitability of hooks for up to 20 nominations per day. It's a pretty horrible and time-consuming job, and I haven't had time to do anything else, including doing much follow-up on any noms I might have pulled. Nor do I necessarily consider it part of my job to follow up on problematic noms - the wider community is usually able to do that.

In your case, I haven't yet made a decision as to whether or not to follow it up, but regardless, I have burnout after two weeks of intensive nom checking and am taking a break today. I am also very busy in real life right now and am probably going to have to shortly quit contributing altogether for a while. So I'd very much prefer if you found somebody else to follow up on your nom. If you can't manage that I might take another look when I can find some time over the next few days but unfortunately it's very difficult to find time for anything right now. Gatoclass (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course, if my response below was not sufficient and this needs more time, I would be happy to look for another reviewer. Please do not hesitate to take a break when necessary, and feel better soon! And thank you for all the good work you're doing with DYK, I really wasn’t aware of how tedious it is! FortunateSons (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The website in question insists on registration but won't let me register. Can you post the text of "1. Unsuitable and grossly unobtrusive attempt (Rn. 10, 11)" here? That might help.

Alternatively, please explain to me how to identify this as a "commentary" site (ie secondary source) rather than a primary site - thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, I made an error when fixing the paragraph number in the article:

what you're looking for is probably this source copy? (It was the only one from § 23 StGB, and I missed that) In general — and as Beck can be a bit of a pain — I'm happy to provide copies of any paywalled sources if there are any further concerns.

With this type of literature, the easiest way is to look at the name: legal commentary is usually called "Kommentar" in German. For example, the one from Engländer is here, where you can click on "Bibliographische Angaben" and then look at "Produkttyp Kommentar" to check. FortunateSons (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Weren't you going to run this past the reliable sources noticeboard? What happened to that? Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it’s here. I have added two more sources since the comment by WhatamIdoing. FortunateSons (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but I did ask you for a direct quote from the source which supports the hook so I know you are quoting from the commentary not the law itself. Any chance you could do that? Gatoclass (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the source might be ambiguous here. Just to confirm that my position is accurate (not actually usable due to being written by an expert - a crim law professor at my law school - but not published), here is a copy of script provided to law students at my University: Zurück zur Ausgangsfrage nach der Strafbarkeit des „normalen“ untauglichen Versuchs: Wenn der Gesetzgeber für den (besonders ungefährlichen) Ausnahmefall des grob unverständigen untauglichen Versuchs eine Möglichkeit zum Absehen von Strafe oder zur Strafmilderung schafft, dessen grundsätzliche Strafbarkeit also gegeben ist, dann muss der „normale“ untaugliche Versuch mithin erst recht strafbar sein. Prüfungsstandort: Diese Überlegung („Umkehrschluss aus § 23 III) gehört nicht zum Prüfungspunkt „Strafbarkeit des Versuchs“, sondern in den Tatentschluss, denn unter „I. 2.“ geht es nur um die allgemeine Frage, ob für das jeweilige Delikt (z. B. § 212 I) eine Versuchsstrafbarkeit besteht. (Google translate: Back to the original question regarding the criminality of a "normal" inappropriate attempt: If the legislature creates an option for waiving punishment or mitigating punishment for the (particularly harmless) exceptional case of a grossly inappropriate attempt, which is therefore fundamentally punishable, then the "normal" inappropriate attempt must be punishable all the more. Place of examination: This consideration ("converse conclusion from Section 23 III) does not belong to the "criminality of the attempt" review point, but rather to the decision to commit the offense, because "I. 2." only addresses the general question of whether the respective offense (e.g., Section 212 I) is punishable for attempts.) FortunateSons (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote that might be less ambiguous: Generell strafbar ist in Deutschland gem. Abs. 1 auch der objektiv untaugliche Versuch, dh ein Versuch, der bereits ex ante betrachtet nicht gelingen kann, weil die vom Täter angenommenen tatsächlichen Voraussetzungen nicht gegeben sind; dies gilt ohne Einschränkung auch für den untauglichen Unterlassungsversuch. Untauglich ist angesichts von Abs. 3 insbesondere der Versuch am zur Tatbestandsverwirklichung untauglichen Objekt (zB Mordversuch an einer Leiche, aber auch Anstiftungsversuch bei einem omnimodo facturus) oder mit einem dazu untauglichen Mittel (zB Abtreibungsversuch mittels harmloser Schmerzmittel). Untauglich ist nach der Rspr. auch der Versuch eines Diebstahls bei Einverständnis des Bestohlenen mit der Wegnahme („Diebesfalle“), nicht hingegen der Versuch einer Vergewaltigung bei unerkanntem Einverständnis des Opfers. Weil der Täter vom Vorliegen tatsächlich nicht gegebener Tatbestandsmerkmale ausgeht, beruht ein untauglicher Versuch stets auf einem „umgekehrten Tatbestandsirrtum“; dieser „positive Irrtum“ kann sich auf deskriptive wie normative Tatumstände beziehen, wobei bei einer irrigen Annahme normativer Tatumstände allerdings auch ein strafloses Wahndelikt in Betracht kommen kann; umgekehrt kann aber auch die Abgrenzung zu einem fehlgeschlagenen, tauglichen Versuch nicht allein anhand des Gegenstands des Irrtums vorgenommen werden, wie die unterschiedliche Behandlung des verkannten Einverständnisses des Opfers in der Rspr. zeigt. Hierher gehört daher auch der Versuch eines Sonderdelikts durch ein dazu untaugliches Subjekt (zB Vornahme eines Amtsdelikts durch einen Nichtamtsträger), sofern sich der Täter irrig rechtliche Umstände vorstellt, die seine Täterstellung begründen (zB die Wirksamkeit seiner Ernennung als Beamter). Das gilt ebenso für die irrige Annahme von Umständen, die eine Garantenstellung gem. §§ 13 Abs. 1, 221 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 begründen. Hat der Täter dagegen unrichtige Vorstellungen von der Bedeutung eines tatbestandlichen Tätermerkmals (zB Putzfrau in einer Behörde hält sich – entgegen § 11 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 – für einen Amtsträger) oder nimmt er eine rechtlich inexistente Garantenstellung an, liegt ein strafloses Wahndelikt (dazu → Rn. 12 ff.) vor. Dass Abs. 3 unter bestimmten Umständen beim untauglichen Versuch sogar ein Absehen von Strafe zulässt, führt nicht dazu, dass grob unverständige untaugliche Versuche straflos sind, sondern macht im Gegenteil deutlich, dass selbst grober Unverstand des Versuchstäters nicht die Strafbarkeit per se, sondern allein die Strafzumessung berührt. Dass die generelle Strafbarkeit auch grob unverständiger untauglicher Versuche letztlich mit der Eindruckstheorie nicht vereinbar ist, zeigt nur, dass der Gesetzgeber allein die subjektive Theorie seinen Versuchsregelungen zugrunde gelegt hat (→ § 22 Rn. 9). Eine derart weit gezogene Strafbarkeit jedes untauglichen Versuchs findet sich in anderen Rechtsordnungen nicht. Auch wenn darin vielfach nicht allein objektiv auf die tatsächliche Gefährlichkeit eines Versuchs abgestellt wird, werden doch zumeist offensichtlich ungefährliche Versuche nicht als Grundlage einer Strafbarkeit angesehen. Schon deswegen würde eine Rücknahme der Strafbarkeit des untauglichen Versuchs de lege ferenda in Deutschland nicht gegen europäische Versuchsstrafgebote verstoßen. Google translate: In Germany, according to paragraph 1, an objectively ineffective attempt is also generally punishable, i.e. an attempt which, even ex ante, cannot succeed because the factual prerequisites assumed by the perpetrator are not met; this also applies without restriction to an ineffective attempt to omit. In view of paragraph 3, an attempt on an object which is inappropriate for the realisation of the offense (e.g. attempted murder of a corpse, but also attempted incitement in the case of an omnimodo facturus) or with an inappropriate means (e.g. attempted abortion using harmless painkillers) is inappropriate. According to case law, an attempted theft with the consent of the person stolen from is also inappropriate, but not an attempted rape with the consent of the victim without knowledge. Because the perpetrator assumes the existence of elements of the offense which are not actually met, an ineffective attempt is always based on a "reverse error as to the facts of the offense"; This "positive error" can refer to both descriptive and normative circumstances of the offense, although an erroneous assumption of normative circumstances may also constitute a delusional offense without punishment. Conversely, however, the distinction between a failed, suitable attempt and a failed, suitable attempt cannot be made solely on the basis of the subject of the error, as the different treatment of the misunderstood consent of the victim in case law shows. This also includes the attempt to commit a special offense by an unsuitable subject (e.g., the commission of an official offense by a non-official), provided that the perpetrator mistakenly imagines legal circumstances that justify his position as a perpetrator (e.g., the validity of his appointment as a civil servant). This also applies to the erroneous assumption of circumstances that justify a guarantor status pursuant to Sections 13 (1) and 221 (1) No. 2. If, however, the perpetrator has incorrect ideas about the significance of a constituent characteristic of the offense (e.g., a cleaning lady in a public authority considers herself – contrary to Section 11 Paragraph 1 No. 2 – to be a public official) or assumes a legally nonexistent guarantor position, this constitutes a delusional offense without punishment (see → marginal no. 12 ff.). The fact that Paragraph 3 even permits a waiver of punishment in the case of an inappropriate attempt under certain circumstances does not mean that grossly irrational inappropriate attempts are exempt from punishment, but on the contrary makes it clear that even gross irrationality on the part of the perpetrator does not affect criminal liability per se, but only the sentencing. The fact that the general criminal liability even for grossly irrational inappropriate attempts is ultimately incompatible with the impression theory only shows that the legislature has based its attempt regulations solely on the subjective theory (→ Section 22 marginal no. 9). Such a broad criminalization of every inappropriate attempt is not found in other legal systems. Even if these systems often do not objectively focus solely on the actual dangerousness of an attempt, apparently harmless attempts are generally not considered a basis for criminalization. For this reason alone, a withdrawal of criminalization of inappropriate attempts de lege ferenda in Germany would not violate European criminal law on attempts.

(Matt/Renzikowski/Heger/Petzsche, 2. Aufl. 2020, StGB § 23 Rn. 8-11, beck-online) FortunateSons (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gatoclass, I have asked someone else to follow up, thank you very much! :) FortunateSons (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)