Talk:Kinderleichenficker

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Violating Terms of use[edit]

@Equinox: In Wikimedia Terms of Use you can read under the chapter Misusing Our Services for Other Illegal Purposes this statement: »Posting child pornography or any other content that violates applicable law concerning child pornography;«. With your prevention this entry from deleting you are supporting child pornography. In German this word is not used in newspapers or other serious literature, only in obscure message boards. In the German Wiktionary we would delete those entries immediately. Good luck Alexander Gamauf (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support to Alexander Gamauf --Udo T. (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support to Alexander Gamauf --Peter Gröbner (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. Equinox ◑ 11:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to Equinox --Udo T. (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is your private opinion funded with facts? Alexander Gamauf (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a word, a term, and not child pornography just like child pornography and several other words or terms are words, terms and not child pornography. So Equinox is correct. -80.133.122.25 13:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um it's not a vote. Your support/oppose means nothing. This will be kept unless it fails RFV (not RFD). Equinox ◑ 17:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFD discussion: July–September 2017[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

Extremly disgusting and no part of the common German vocabulary. --Peter Gröbner (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Delete --Udo T. (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We aim to have entries for all words in all languages. If you think that the word does not exist you should use "Request for verification" instead. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Having an entry for "paedophile" or "Nazi" doesn't mean we support the ideology. Equinox ◑ 11:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extremly disgusting and no part of the common German vocabulary. --Udo T. (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either send to RFV or keep, amongst what appears to be a brigade by de.wikt editors. —suzukaze (t・c) 11:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SemperBlotto:, @Equinox:, @Mx. Granger: Forget the disgusting-ness. This is a purely linguistic issue. Please read my reply below. Kolmiel (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also have sent it to RFV now. --Udo T. (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zitiert von RFV und zur Sicherheit zusätzlich reingestellt:
Da sich um diesen Eintrag sowieso ein Benutzer/Admin mit etwas fundierteren Deutsch-Kenntnissen kümmern sollte, schreibe ich hier mal auf Deutsch, da mir das leichter fällt:

Es dürfte hoffentlich bekannt sein, dass man im Deutschen alle möglichen und auch unmöglichen Komposita bilden kann. Bekannte Beispiele sind der „Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän“ oder noch extremer (und unsinniger) der „Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänskajütentürknaufpolierlappenaufbewahrungskasten“.

Der Begriff „Kinderleichenficker“ kann in einer Google-Suche ganz sicherlich gefunden werden, da es nun mal (leider) Menschen gibt, die sich solche kranken Begriffe ausdenken. Der korrekte Begriff für die dahinter liegende strafbare Handlung wäre im Deutschen „Kinderleichenschänder“ oder eigentlich sogar nur „Leichenschänder“. Vor keinem deutschsprachigen Gericht wird jemals der Befriff „Kinderleichenficker“ oder „Leichenficker“ verwendet werden. Auch seriöse Zeitungen oder das Fernsehen würden niemals einen derart obszönen Begriff in ihrer Berichterstattung verwenden.

Man wird diesen widerwärtigen Begriff allenfalls mal an Stammtischen, in irgendwelchen dubiosen Foren und Blogs finden und bei Google Books unter Umständen auch in Büchern von Autoren, die unbedingt meinen, ihrer obszönen Kreativität freien Lauf lassen zu müssen.

Denn: es ist schon schlimm genug, wenn eine Leiche oder gar eine Kinderleiche geschändet wird. Wenn man zur Beschreibung solcher abescheulichen Taten aber dann Begriffe wie „Kinderleichenficker“ oder „Leichenficker“ verwendem würde, dann würde man damit implizit auch noch die Verstorbenen, deren Körper schändlich missbraucht worden sind, auf unzulässige und obszöne Art und Weise entehren. --Udo T. (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that it's digusting, though true, is irrelevant. The user should not have mentioned it, because it only distracts form his other, very reasonable argument: the infinitiveness of German compounds. What we should do is delete. However, that requires a long due change of our policies, namely that compounds in German (and Dutch) must be deletable as sum of parts. English compounds are written in two words, so you delete them. Ours are written in one word, so you say RFV. That's nonsense. Kolmiel (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or in other words. German Kinderleichenficker is just as unjustified as English child corpse fucker. Kolmiel (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've created a discussion about this at the beer parlour. Kolmiel (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Kolmiel I disagree. People who don't have knowledge of the German language will want to look up compound words they see. They wouldn't know what is a compound and what is not, necessarily. You wouldn't want to use Kinderleichenficker without knowing what it means lol. Ouch! PseudoSkull (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do remember times where, with a Germanic languages, I was literally copying and pasting each word into Wiktionary to translate it for myself. That's why compounds should be here, basically. Search reasons. It's an interesting thing to use Wiktionary for. A complete Wiktionary would have translations for almost all of such compounds, letting people copy and paste entire texts into Wiktionary to translate, without even having to know the language. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The original argument was the non-existence of the word, the disgustfulness only made the case even more important. Tanzschulbesitzerhündchenhalsband for me is not worth while requesting for deletion. Greetings, Peter Gröbner (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching the internet, I found hardly any evidence of this word being used, thus citing "at least three independent instances spanning at least a year" will be difficult. --Abderitestatos (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is an RFV issue and is not relevant to this discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've striken out the delete of German native speaker Abderitestatos since the speaker is not eligible to vote in our votes based on the number of contributions. Arguments are welcome, of course, but those presented are relevant to RFV, not RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a formal vote, it's an RFD discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing the fine differences between words or parts of words in German you would recognize, that a word including the coarse term »ficker« has a positive connotation. It implies an voluptuous act which invites to do the same. In connection with the word »Kinderleiche« “body of dead child” it presents at least an approval of a normal thing. It seems to be an invention of a single paedophile under the cloak of an insult. In written German you would express „Schänder einer Kinderleiche“. I'm not a moralist but a lawyer. And in accordance with the law of Germany (§ 184b, StGB) someone will be punished, who distributes or publishes also written child pornography. I would never publish words in Wiktionary, if they are violating the law of an democratic constitutional state. To prevent the project Wiktionary from damages I vote for Delete. --Alexander Gamauf (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexander Gamauf: If you are in fact a lawyer, you should understand that a single word or its definition could not reasonably be construed to represent pornography, and moreover that Wiktionary's servers are in the US and therefore subject to US law. It sounds to me like you are trying to cloak your morality policing as being for legal purposes, even though you know that we incur no liability by having this word. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By those standards, the German word for pedophile should be deleted as well. Strangely it's indeed not here: Pädophiler. In fact even the English article didn't list any translation. W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until RFV. Wiktionary is not censored. —CodeCat 15:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as SoP. Define custom CFI for languages, which form unidiomatic compounds. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anatoli T.: Do you want to keep Kopfschmerz and why? What distinguishes Kinderleichenficker from Kopfschmerz as far as sum of parts (SOP) is concerned? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want to keep Kopfschemerz (1) because it's included in most dictionaries. Pretty sure many consider the term (2) idiomatic and because of (3) the existence of headache, also an SoP. I'm not suggesting to delete all German SoP's but we need to define some CFI rules for languages like German, which can't be the same as for English. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev Poppycock. We don't need any special treatment for German. I will not give you one reason. I will give you twenty-three: towelless, fishless, bikeless, streetless, boxless, fireless, woodless, barless, magazineless, goldless, bronzeless, schoolless, cardless, mapless, pantless, sockless, appleless, watchless, morningless, kingless, bossless, condomless, monitorless. W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first word you mentioned is in common frequent use and can be found in printed dictionaries, the second you can read some very few times in fora. That is the difference. --Peter Gröbner (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not what is the difference (any difference) but rather, what is the difference as for sum of parts (SOP). The argument invoked by Anatoli above is SoP. And I ask, if this is SoP, that is, if lack of typographic separation does not matter for SOPness of German words, why is Kopfschmerz not SoP? (For "SoP", see WT:CFI#Idiomaticity.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If your head aches because of a tilt or sunburning, I wouldn't call it Kopfschmerz in German. Kopfschmerz denotes the feeling which seems to have its origin inside the brain. --Peter Gröbner (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duden gives "Schmerz im Kopf" as a definition. Anyway, I wonder what sort of explanations you would find for "Zahnschmerz", "Gelenkschmerz", "Himbeergeschmack", "Himbeerlimonade", "Himbeermarmelade" and "Tanz­schu­le", all in Duden. I am fairly certain Duden has a whole lot of two-stem sum-of-parts noun-noun compounds, many of which cannot be argued not to be sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you are right in general. I think, the Duden and the Österreichische Wörterbuch (not to forget) list compounds if they are used frequently. For the "Schmerz im Kopf" you mentioned you have to consider the preposition "im" too which is important. Otherwise sum of the part is not that unambiguous as it is in mathematics. For instance a Mädchenhandelsschule ist not a school where you learn about traffic with girls. See also de:Hochzeitsmesse! --Peter Gröbner (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if attested: first, I don't think the concept of SoP makes sense when applied to compounds; second, the makeup of the compound is going to be opaque to some people who don't know German. — Eru·tuon 19:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Erutuon Agreed, deleting "because SoP" makes little sense and deleting "because ewww" is even worse. The RfV can be found here: Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#Kinderleichenficker and pretty much every single use (including shitty comments) that could reasonably be found (with search engines and searching Twitter, FB and G+) are found at Citations:Kinderleichenficker. It's not a lot and probably won't pass RfV, even though it was first mentioned 14 years ago. W3ird N3rd (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the original arguments do not apply (which includes being a matter of WT:RFV and not WT:RFD), it was closed correctly. Of course other arguments could apply but then there could - and better should - be a new RFD discussion.
As for the SOP-ness: 1. It's a general matter and not a matter of this single term, so it should be discussed elsewhere. 2. By WT:COALMINE and common practice, German compounds are included. Just take a look at Category:German compound words and you'll find many SOP-like German compounds. By the way: The German wiktionary does include SOP-like compounds too, and so does Duden. The new Duden is said to contain even more of it. spiegel: "Die 27. Auflage des Duden kommt [...] Entsprechend viele Neuaufnahmen sind zusammengesetzte Substantive, wie Flüchtlingskrise und Mütterrente." 3. There are also SOP-like English terms like assfucker, though by the second definition it's not so SOP-y anymore. As (*)Kinderleichenficker would be rarely used literally and commonly used figuratively as an insult, it's probabaly not so SOP-y too. 4. Also to consider: a) While natives can often analyse a compound, non-natives often can't. b) Some German compounds are nowdays sometimes analysed as word + interfix + word like Altersarmut = Alter + -s- + Armut and not Alters (genitive of Alter) + Armut. (Note: in wiktionary the etymology might be given as simply Alter + Armut without mentioning the s at all.) While natives often have some Sprachgefühl for the insertion of the interfix, non-natives often don't. c) The meaning of compounds can be somewhat unpredictable, compare for example Schweineschnitzel (pork cutlet, cutlet made from pork) and Kinderschnitzel (cutlet for kids, not cutlet made from kids). In case of multi-word-compounds it could be more unpredicable, especially for non-natives. Kinderleichenficker is (Kind + Leiche) + Ficker/-ficker, i.e. someone who fucks child corpses, but compared with e.g. Kinderbürgermeister or Kinderpolizist one could also incorrectly assume Kind + (Leiche + Ficker/-ficker), i.e. a child which fucks corpses. -80.133.98.149 00:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I started the discussion not knowing that you (in contrary to the German project) make a difference between requests for deletion and requests for verification as the latter is settled at Wiktionary:Löschkandidaten in the German project. So the discussion should continued at RoV since the term in discussion is not used commonly. By the way, inserting the interfix is not regulated strictly, for example the German call it de:Adventskranz, we Austrians de:Adventkranz. Even more complicated is the situation with the Schaden(s)ersatz. Greetings, Peter Gröbner (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as single word, if attested. Ƿidsiþ 14:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


RFV discussion: July–September 2017[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Extremly disgusting and no part of the common German vocabulary. --Udo T. (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see at https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Citations:Kinderleichenficker&oldid=47136776 I quoted three independent sources which used this word and these sources span over around 8 years.--Hyperhero (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Da sich um diesen Eintrag sowieso ein Benutzer/Admin mit etwas fundierteren Deutsch-Kenntnissen kümmern sollte, schreibe ich hier mal auf Deutsch, da mir das leichter fällt:

Es dürfte hoffentlich bekannt sein, dass man im Deutschen alle möglichen und auch unmöglichen Komposita bilden kann. Bekannte Beispiele sind der „Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän“ oder noch extremer (und unsinniger) der „Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänskajütentürknaufpolierlappenaufbewahrungskasten“.

Der Begriff „Kinderleichenficker“ kann in einer Google-Suche ganz sicherlich gefunden werden, da es nun mal (leider) Menschen gibt, die sich solche kranken Begriffe ausdenken. Der korrekte Begriff für die dahinter liegende strafbare Handlung wäre im Deutschen „Kinderleichenschänder“ oder eigentlich sogar nur „Leichenschänder“. Vor keinem deutschsprachigen Gericht wird jemals der Befriff „Kinderleichenficker“ oder „Leichenficker“ verwendet werden. Auch seriöse Zeitungen oder das Fernsehen würden niemals einen derart obszönen Begriff in ihrer Berichterstattung verwenden.

Man wird diesen widerwärtigen Begriff allenfalls mal an Stammtischen, in irgendwelchen dubiosen Foren und Blogs finden und bei Google Books unter Umständen auch in Büchern von Autoren, die unbedingt meinen, ihrer obszönen Kreativität freien Lauf lassen zu müssen.

Denn: es ist schon schlimm genug, wenn eine Leiche oder gar eine Kinderleiche geschändet wird. Wenn man zur Beschreibung solcher abescheulichen Taten aber dann Begriffe wie „Kinderleichenficker“ oder „Leichenficker“ verwendem würde, dann würde man damit implizit auch noch die Verstorbenen, deren Körper schändlich missbraucht worden sind, auf unzulässige und obszöne Art und Weise entehren.

--Udo T. (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperhero: Are sources of the citations durably archived? As far as I know even archived versions at archive.org can be deleted.
@Udo T.: All that is irrelevant for a RFV.
-80.133.122.25 13:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are these citations to be taken for reputable? --Peter Gröbner (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand the rules at Wiktionary:Searchable_external_archives#Other_online_media:_websites_are_not_durable, websites archived at archive.org are currently not considered to be durably archived, because in theory the operator of the respective website could first delete his site and then using his copyright he could ask archive.org to remove his page from their archive.--Hyperhero (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find zero hits for "Kinderleichenficker" at Google books [1] and zero hits in the Usenet [2]. I guess this means Kinderleichenficker has to be deleted (except if somebody else finds better evidence for the existence of this word).--Hyperhero (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding any durably archived uses online either. @Udo T.: alles was für uns zählt, ist dass ein Begriff wirklich benutzt wird, entweder in Büchern oder in Zeitschriften oder in Zeitungen. Auch Usenet geht, da es dauerhaft archiviert wird. Jedes deutsche Kompositum, das unseren Criteria for inclusion entspricht, kann einen Eintrag haben, egal wie widerlich und transparent seine Bedeutung sein mag. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was a failure mistake of mine to mention in the requests for deletion in first place the fact that the entry in discussion is disgusting. That is not the point. The point is: It is a word combination which the German grammar allows but nevertheless is not used – neither in literature nor in common speech. Since it is disgusting there is in my opinion no reason to invent or construct such words to be used in an offensive way as mentioned in the entry. --Peter Gröbner (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RFV is driven by WT:ATTEST, of which the key part is this: '“Attested” means verified through clearly widespread use, or use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (different requirements apply for certain languages).' WT:ATTEST is part of the larger WT:CFI, which does not deal with "common use", "reputable", "serious", or "disgusting". The closest there is to "serious" is "permanently recorded media", but since that includes Usenet, that does not really cover "serious".
This nomination will be probably later closed as failing RFV, resulting in deletion, but let us wait and see whether someone comes up with quotations meeting WT:ATTEST. Some citations are at Citations:Kinderleichenficker, but these are not durably archived and I marked them there accordingly; web.archive.org does not count for durable archiving, from what I remember; maybe someone has a link to a discussion or a vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First citation refers to an anonymous reader/commentator (Salamitaktik) of an article at wallstreet-online.de, which does'nt contain this word. How can we be sure, that this person is not the identical author of the other citations (see Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Independent). I think that we should be careful whith not commonly used words, which can be generated by thousands with a computer prorgram. So, keeping this word is dispensable! --Alexander Gamauf (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The policy about not allowing web-pages and archive.org is at Wiktionary:Searchable_external_archives#Other_online_media:_websites_are_not_durable and the vote was at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-08/Citations_from_WebCite.--Hyperhero (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First citation now is from 2003. (lachschon.de) W3ird N3rd (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People using this term are just Wortschöpfer. --Peter Gröbner (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word aside, I find it extremely disturbing that a user's sole aim of editing on Wiktionary is to populate Category:German lemmas with terms of abuse and words of sexually troubling nature. Wyang (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That, in itself, isn't a problem, since we want to have words like that, and a case can be made for going against the grain in looking for words hidden in cultural blind spots. The real problem is the temptation to abandon usage as a guide and go for anything that fits the desired pattern- in spite of no good evidence for it.
Even if a term squeaks by in our verification, it may not be desirable. The goal is to cover terms that are part of the language, not ones that are used just three times among a very limited group of people. We may not be able to come up with a test that excludes such things without excluding worthwhile terms, but that's no reason to create them. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz I think I could come up with a test that does. At least one that would work better than the current rule. Should I propose such a thing in the beer parlour? W3ird N3rd (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm responsible for almost a dozen swearwords and insults on the Dutch Wiktionary and that's a major part of my contributions there. (all would pass an RfV though) Do I disturb you? W3ird N3rd (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kinderleichenficker&oldid=47576394"