User talk:Jochen64

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vehicle registration plates of Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oldenburg. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Binnen-I

Hi Jochen64. Thanks for your contributions to Binnen-I. Can you explain what you intended to say in this edit? The sentence doesn't actually mean anything in English. If you can paraphrase it, or maybe just write below in German what you intended it to say, I can take it from there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

All right, so I'll try to explain my train of thoughts, about the text on that sign. HundehalterInnen is short for Hundehalter und Hundehalterinnen, as well as AnrainerInnen refers to both genders. In the last sentence, however, it says Ihr Hund which is a male form. It does not say Ihr Hund oder Ihre Hündin, nor IhrE HÜndIn (or whatever a "Binnen-I" version might be). So, from a literal point of view, only male dogs are referred to.

What I had not then been aiming at, but am noticing now, is that the term Hundehalter (with or without Innen added) seems to refer to male dogs only, as the persons addressed are not called Hunde- und HündinnenhalterInnen. But that may well be quibbling, I admit.

I hope you can now understand what I tried to convey. Feel free to paraphrase as seems appropriate, or to ask me again. —Jochen64 (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you are wondering about the use of Binnen-I in words like Hundehalter, and whether the first noun component of this compound word, that is, Hunde-, is subject to the modifications of Binnen-I. As far as the article content is concerned, the only thing we can say for sure, is there are no reliable sources that support a concoction like HündinnenhalterInnen, or putting it another way, that is a personal observation of yours (what Wikipedia calls "Original research") and cannot be added to the article. Basically everything you've said above is in the nature of a personal observation or speculation or about whether such a thing could be part of Binnen-I in German, and therefore cannot be added to the article.

That said, I love speculating about language as much as the next person, and so I'll speculate: yes, you can have HundehalterInnen per the alternative paradigm of Binnen-I, but you cannot have HündInnenhalterInnen for three reasons that I've observed:

1. Binnen-I only ever applies to people, never to animals (thus for example, not HündInnen)
2. in a compound noun (Nominalkompositum), only the agent ("subject") of the compound can be operated on by Binnen-I, never the object (thus, SklavenhalterInnen—ouch!—but not SklavInnenhalter)
3. in any noun, you can only have -Innen in the word once, not twice, thus not HündInnenhalterInnen or SklavInnenhalterInnen

But all of this is pure speculation on my part, and thus none of it can be mentioned in the article, either. Going forward in your editing at Wikipedia, please ensure that every assertion of fact that you add to an article can be backed up by a reliable source that supports the statement you want to add. This is according to Wikipedia's core principle of WP:Verifiability, and should guide everything we add to articles. WP:Original research is the opposite, and is forbidden. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, what I wrote above was never intended to be published in the article. Rather, I tried to explain what I meant in the edit you mentioned before. I hope that my statement about Ihr Hund being of masculine gender needs no backup but is evident. (It would be possible to prove, though, by quoting a German grammar book.)

Your list is fine, yet we must be aware that the whole topic of gender neutrality is a relatively new one, so any rules or customs are likely to change fast. For this reason, your observations may be correct today and outdated next week. Let me mention just one example which came to my mind (and not only to mine, for it can be found online) BürgerInnenmeisterInnen – another compound noun which you will certainly understand: Bürger = citizen, Meister = master, Bürgermeister = mayor. Both Bürger and Meister are masculine nouns which may be added a female suffix, each in their own right – after all, both the citizens are male and female, and their mayor may be either. The whole term, however, is not yet introduced generally but may probably be so in the future – or never. But it is obviously possible to have two -Innen suffixes in one compound.

As well, there are at least two illustrations in the article where the subordinate part of the compound noun does bear the Binnen-I, i.e. FußgängerInnenzone and PfadfinderInnenheim. Does this prove or disprove anything? No, but it appears to be irrelevant which part of the compound is being "gendered".

But now for the statement I intended. Indeed I was wondering why the persons who felt HalterInnen needed to be emphasized did not realize that their pets might be of either gender too. It would have been consequent, in my opinion, to appreciate either creature equally. But I was not going to impose my personal opinion or impressions on the reader by explicitly saying so. Rather, I would hint at it in a footnote and leave the rest to the reader's imagination. – Which did not work out too well, judging from your comment. In fact, those few words I wrote are not really important. Is that a reason to delete them? Maybe, but then a lot more would qualify to be erased too. If you feel like it, go ahead and delete, or leave it as it is, or improve my sentence with your knowledge. I'm rather indifferent about it. —Jochen64 (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)