Talk:Techno Viking

Raab in Gefahr video

The man in the video from Raab in Gefahr never said he is Techno Viking in that video, that should be rephrased.-Koppapa (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it. - Chrisahn (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I replaced it with modifications based on what you say he says. I am at a disadvantage in being very hard of hearing so I can't hear what he says in the clip, but the YouTomb people say "old Viking" so I have noted the discrepancy. The Raab in Gefahr segment and the YouTomb coverage arising from it are part of the TechnoViking story and need to be in the article; so does the Schlepkopper rumor. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am German, and I can tell that the man in the Raab video never says anything about 'Viking', he just calls himself 'alter Germane'. 'Schlepkopper' may sound German to someone who doesn't speak the language, but it is not a German name, the writer of the blog you referenced most likely made it up. All occurrences of the name on the Web are related to the Techno Viking. Lastly, while Encyclopedia Dramatica is a great place for such rumours, Wikipedia is not. - Chrisahn (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt the accuracy of what you hear; as I say, I am simply too deaf to understand a word they say. And yes, S(c)hlepkopper looks made up, and I found no RS supporting the notion. The thing is, both are part of the internet phenomenon. I have endeavoured to make the situation even clearer in the text, pointing out that Lefevre's is a blog entry, separating the two references regarding Raab in Gefahr and being even clearer that there is a discrepancy between what the YouTomb people say and what (you tell me and I believe you) the man in the video says. But both are part of the story. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Schlepkopper and Raab thingies are fabrications, and I don't think Wikipedia should condone such nonsense. ED is for the silly stuff, WP is for facts. I don't care enough to argue with you though, and since you obviously care a lot I'll let it stand. I may change my mind later, and if someone else deletes these parts again, I'll gladly support that. Otherwise, nice article and very civil discussion. Thanks! - Chrisahn (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The man in the Stefan Raab video is quite clearly "Technoviking". Technoviking also spoke German in the original video and the other referenced guy, the American, admits not being to dance, nor speak German. Nor does he even look like the man. Also, "Alter Germane" would be Harry hinting at being Technoviking. It's quite obvious who is who here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.252.104.40 (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You have a very subtle sense of humour. ;-) Chrisahn (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The man in the Stefan Raab Video is Harald “the Freak” Seele aka Harry an older bodybuilder from Germany. See here . If he is Technoviking or not is unknown. But he is not this guy called "Schlepkopper". Full Raab video [1] Cyzoonic (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Transcript

The Tv sketch "Raab in Gefahr" (Raab in danger) is a running gag on his late night show "TV Total" from Stefan Raab. The video is named "Bodybuilding" for attending the bodybuilding championship trying to make fun of people. (The title of the sketch comes from the alleged fact that Stefan got beaten up some of the times for his remarks in earlier videos - real occurenes are obviously missing as the assailants do not allow broadcasting the film).

In the following video from TV Total the interesting scene starts at 02:30. You can see him in the background in the interview just before the scene.

http://tvtotal.prosieben.de/tvtotal/videos/player/index.html?contentId=36189
Raab:	Schönen juten Tach,	Hello and G'day
Raab:	oder grüß Dich	or Greets
Raab:	ich seh schon, das is' ja	oh I see, that is well...
Raab:	das sieht auch ein bischen gefährlich aus, hat man da (den Eindruck)	that looks to be a bit dangerous, it seems
Raab:	wenn man da (mmmm)	when trying to (mummmble)
Raab:	Sie sind der ...?	You are mister...?
Person:	Ich bin der Harry!	I am Harry!
Raab:	Harry!	Harray!
Person:	Alter Germane	Old Teuton
Raab:	Alter Germane! ja, ich seh schon	Old Teuton! yeah, oh I see
Raab:	Kann man mal ein bischen was sehen	Can we have a quick look?
Person:	hmmm	hmmm
Raab:	Nö dann nicht, muss nicht sein	that is nope, doesnt need to be (anyway)
Raab:	Das ist ganz Harry wie du das möchtest	That's all as you like, Harry
Raab:	Aber so ein bischen? Man gerade gucken	May be a little? Just a peek?
Background:	Ausziehen!	strip it!
Raab:	Das ich ma'...	So that I could..
Raab:	Ach du scheiße...	Holy shit...
Background:	Ja genau, Bauch Beine, ..	Yeah right, belly, legs, ...
Raab:	Um himmels willen, um himmels willen	Holy shit... holy shit
Raab:	Du bist ein sehr sehr netter Mensch	You are a very very nice person
Raab:	Hast du noch einen normalen, arbeitest du noch nebenbei?	Do you have a normal (job), do you still work alongside?
Person:	Security, ja	Security, yeah
Raab:	Security, ja natürlich	Security, oh yes of course
Person:	für dich	for you
Raab:	und zwar für mich	specifically for me
Raab:	du bist mein freund, dass das mal klar ist	you are my friend, (just) for the record

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidod (talk • contribs) 00:42, 15 January 2012

Copied from User talk:Yngvadottir: concerning mention of and ref link to Know Your Meme

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Techno Viking. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Otterathome (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your change, giving my rationale in the edit summary. Documentation of Techno Viking at Know Your Meme is part of the internet phenomenon; it's being mentioned for its own sake. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You cannot mention things for their own sake, content must meet WP:V. This does not.--Otterathome (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I believe this falls into the area of permitted use of a primary source. The fact that Techno Viking is covered there, including the "obey" picture, is what is being asserted. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The website has no official connection to the subject, nor is it reliable. So it's a no go.--Otterathome (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not being used as an external link - it's being used to document the spread of the meme. (Hence: primary source. I hope I'm correct in that terminology.) I am not citing its opinion, merely noting that it features Techno Viking and documents visual re-use of a motif from the video. Know Your Meme is the best reference for that claim, and reliability doesn't come into it - it either features Techno Viking and has such pics, or it doesn't. As such, removing the ref would be counterproductive. I appreciate your concern, but you appear to be confusing different types of references. The alternative would be to put it in External links, but that would be giving an unaffiliated site too much prominence. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The content you want to add needs to be reliable, kymm is not. It is a user-editable site, it would be like saying there's a youtube video of him dubbed with 'obey' then referencing that video. Or quoting his entry on Urban Dictionary. There's no significance with any of them.--Otterathome (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is a distinction between reliable and notable that comes into play here. You appear to be confusing the two. It is not verboten to mention Know Your Meme; they are not a reliable source for things outside Know Your Meme, but in this instance the article points out that they list TechnoViking, and include a certain kind of spin-off content. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What makes this obey picture notable than the other pictures? What makes this website about him more notable than other websites? So what if they list him? There's no reason for it to be mentioned. And it is 'verboten' to mention it, as it violates WP:V.--Otterathome (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You prove my point - you are confusing notability with verifiability. The overarching story is that Techno Viking is an internet phenomenon. The video itself was just the starting point. To encyclopedically cover the topic, therefore, it is necessary to note major points on the internet where it has been featured - including Know Your Meme and Encyclopedia Dramatica, both of which are sufficiently notable to have articles. Therefore it is not only not verboten to mention them in the article; it's part of covering the topic. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You'd better mention the other websites it is on then.--Otterathome (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Except for the ED mention, which was simply implied in a note (someone removed mention of the Techno Viking page there when ED was taken down), the article does mention the extent of the internet coverage. Thanks for the reminder to add back ED in past tense; I don't think it's necessary to reference that using the Wayback Machine. I'm now copying this conversation over to the Techno Viking talkpage, except for your template, which I'll make plain text, so that the points we have both raised are available to other editors of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Keith Jardine

This is not Keith Jardine. You can watch youtube videos of Keith and see that he has a different body type - taller, and a bit less muscular. Also, Keith was not in Germany 2000. 188.23.162.32 (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(a) Matthias Fritsch and (b) the image

I've reverted an edit that in addition to removing the "Who is the man" part of the Techno Viking phenomenon, redlinked Matthias Fritsch. I don't judge him notable enough for this redlink to be a useful hint. Does anyone disagree, but just doesn't have time to write him up right now? If so, on what basis? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly Fritsch is not notable; I just wanted to make that visible by redlink. Please consider thinking over the other issue again. --Trofobi (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, then we agree on Fritsch, but not on the use of redlinks :-) On the excision of material, I see you have posted to the BLP Noticeboard. I have to defer to the experts who hang out there, but I do not see documentation of the widespread speculation about the man's identity as damaging to him or his personality rights. You might be right about the image, but again, you have raised that issue in an appropriate place, where experts are going to discuss it and make a determination (and I see that as a distinct issue from the speculations about the man's identity). For what it's worth, though, since Wikipedia is not a profit-making enterprise, I still believe this falls under fair use. And as I understand it, with the big proviso that I am not a lawyer, the court case was against Fritsch and his uses of the images, and the settlement recognised that remowing other uses from the internet was not practicable? I put a question mark there because I believe that very issue is part of the appeal, and thus undecided. So there are my thoughts, but most importantly: this article is about the internet phenomenon. I'll be looking in those two places to see what those with more expertise decide. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is it so important for you to keep the disputed information online while waiting for result, and although it is made very clear by the man that he doesn't want it online. The guy has done a great job for respect there, but is refused the same for himself. If the experts decide that it's OK, we can always restore ist, can't we? --Trofobi (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I believe you are wrong: the information is about the internet meme, not about whatever-his-name-is. (Just as it's not information about Encylopedia Dramatica or What's My Meme or whatever that thing is called - see a couple of sections above. Could I please ask you to restore it rather than edit-warring about it? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. - it is not edit warring when the information is about a living person, and especially a private living person. A copyright editor is needed to decide if a) the picture is Fair use because Techno Viking is a public event/person like Tank Man (or otherwise meets Image use policy) and b) If this is a fair use screen capture of a YouTube video, especially considering - unlike Charlie bit my finger - the videographer did NOT have a legal release to upload the video showing the person in the video, as determined by a German court. EBY (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This response is only about the image, so I've modified the section header and am creating a separate section below. I initially returned the image in a separate revert because I thought there was a stronger case for not using it but didn't want it speedy deleted as an unused fair use image, and although I wish the original uploader were still editing so that they could speak on the issue, I do hear you both on that and will not put it back in unless the image review decision clears it for use. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The section on guesses about the man's identity

I've modified the header above, because someone came along and made an argument specifically about the image, and I'm now creating a new space to talk about the section that Trofobi has now twice removed. But it should be noted that Trofobi and I started discussing it a little bit in the above section (and have also exchanged e-mails in which I said much what I'm about to say.)

This issue has been raised at WP:BLP noticeboard#Techno Viking and I am hoping someone who knows the legal situation better than me will weigh in there, but I don't see the applicability of the German legal ruling to Wikipedia. For one thing, it is directed at Fritsch. For another, it rests substantially on his having made money off the video. And most importantly, the section is not about the man - it reports (neutrally, I believe) that part of the Techno Viking phenomenon has been that there have been speculations about his identity. I do believe that section needs updating; for one thing it's no longer up to the current state of knowledge to say that Fritsch never revealed the man's identity (sources now report that he did not know it) and for another Encyclopedia Dramatica no longer plays such a big role in the story, since it was taken offline and only partially recreated, and since the one name cited comes from there and is otherwise only attested in a blog, I'm inclined to not specify that name, just that ED once put forward a name that at least one other internet site also used. The "Raab in Gefahr" thing should probably also be mentioned more briefly, but it and the Keith Jardine thing are, in my opinion, sourced parts of the story about Techno Viking. And not about the real person behind the myth. And that I think is the crucial point. The article is not about the real person, is quite clear about that, and without the image, does not even use his likeness. I'm inclined to further protect his privacy by removing one piece of precision in the footnotes, but I do not see a valid argument for either the legal necessity or the advisability of leaving out part of the encyclopedic description of the internet phenomenon. As I say, however, I'm neither a lawyer nor a local expert on BLP issues. So I'm listening/watching. But I'm inclined to reinstate the section after making those revisions and removals. I believe right now we are doing our readers something of a disservice and I am not yet persuaded that there is a compelling reason, so far as the text goes. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No further discussion at BLP noticeboard, either, so I have reinstated the section with a few updates and a little less precision, as outlined above. I also found the Daily Dot had made a correction, and removed that point. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Know your meme

I have twice reverted re-removal of a reference to Know your Meme to supprt the point that ... Techno Viking has been covered at Know your meme. This requires no tertiary source, nor does it violate the requirement to avoid Know your meme as an unreliable source about other things. Like Encyclopedia Dramatica, it is mentioned in the article to indicate extent of coverage of the meme online; unlike ED, KYM is still online, and therefore should be cited in support of this assertion. Removing either the point or the reference damages the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Techno Viking referenced in a "Where are they now? article

See http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/07/20/where-are-they-now-techno-viking/ 96.253.110.19 (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Satirical websites are not generally considered to be reliable sources ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've belatedly removed that from both the body and the external links; without very strong corroboration from elsewhere its contents are a BLP violation, so we should not link to it. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone had edited this back into the article with a link to the satire article, this was edited back to how it was previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.252.108.212 (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed URL

I removed the following claim and blog source -Reagle (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Techno Viking aka Gunther Ackerman http://www.6am-group.com/what-happened-techno-viking-interview

Thanks. People keep adding that stuff. It's fun, but satire. Not a reliable source. Originally from http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/07/20/where-are-they-now-techno-viking/ Chrisahn (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Court case

Technically court cases are legal documents and accessible to the public, right? So the name should be in the court document. The question is whether the public has a right to know who techno viking is - at the least it would answer the question once and for all. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:1535:595B:9280:DF61 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

In Germany, court decisions are only published in anonymized form (if at all). See de:Publikation von Gerichtsentscheidungen#Anonymisierung. Chrisahn (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• VIKING3.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)