Talk:The Ruin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Ruin article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

---

[edit] revert

I've reverted the addition made by anon user as copyvio. Although I am unable to find the source directly, the indirect evidence is:

1. The prose is professional and polished, written by an experienced expert scholar.
2. The entry is full of typo's and spelling errors. Someone obviously manually typed this in from another source. One doesn't write high-quality material full of hasty typos.
3. There is missing text, for example this line:

Again we can identify the ubi sunt motif

Again? This is the first time it is mentioned. Obviously there is additional material where the ubi sunt motif was mentioned that was not copied in.

If the anon user could please log in with a userID and identify themselves and where this material came from it can be restored.

--Stbalbach 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Watson

Who is Jack Watson, has he released this translation into the public domain? Assuming it's not a 19th C translation, by default it would be copyright, and need explicit release. -- Stbalbach 16:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The poem is under a license similar to Wikipedia's, except more liberal, and is noted in the comment for the edit. From [1]:

"Translations included here include newly published material by Jim London and Jack Watson. These poems may be used freely as long as proper credit is given."

In other words, compatible with the GFDL. Fourdee 20:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are public domain translations available but this seems more accurate. The older ones involve a lot more guessing and re-interpretation. Fourdee 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Fourdee. -- Stbalbach 14:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article wiping, disambig

I have no idea why someone (User:Ghirlandajo) saw fit to wipe this page and replace it with a disambiguation page for two articles, one of them brand new and some obscure reference to Ukranian history. This is an English encyclopedia and this poem is historically significant to the English language.

At any rate, two articles is no reason for a disambiguation page. The new and less significant use of the term is sufficiently covered by an OtherUses4 tag at the top. Please do not wipe articles without discussion. I have undone this, added the otheruses tag, and made the The Ruin (poem) article redirect back to this. Fourdee 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't stop blanking the page, I will have to move the article about the vital period of the Ukrainian history here. There is no way why an obscure poem in a derelict language should occupy the place. Systemic bias will not be tolerated. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia, "The Ruin" has a long standing meaning in English, your article, the title of which you appear to have fabricated yourself (and is not the original title you used) has no precedence for this location in English. You are just vandalizing the article which has been here for a long time when the disambiguation link at the top is sufficient. You also destroyed/lost the work that has been done on this article since you last blanked it. This is not an obscure poem, it is an important piece of English language history and this is the English language wikipedia. Please cease vandalizing the article with a disambiguation page when you made up the title "the ruin" yourself, as a second attempt (your original was "ruins" or something). Use the disambig page at "ruins".

Why on earth would you think that you can make up a title for something that doesn't even have a meaning or use in English, then destroy what has been here for a long time and replace it with a needless disambiguation page? How does that better serve your article than the link at the top of this page? Obviously your notion of "importance" has little to do with the language of the encyclopedia. How is the history of the Ukraine more important to English speakers than the history of their very language and the earliest works of literature in it? That's absurd. There's no reason for this except for your obvious bias as evidenced by your use of terms like derelict. Perhaps you are not even familiar with English, but "derelict" is an insult. Fourdee 08:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your article can be linked from the top of this one via the disambiguation tags like {{for}}, {{otheruses4}} etc. There is no reason to delete this article from this location. "The Ruin" has a long standing meaning in English and you appear to have made up the title for your article yourself, as it was not your original title - which would constitute original research, which itself is prohibited on Wikipedia. There is little or no precedence for your use of "The Ruin" in English. Also, "derelict" is an insult in English, and it is not appropriate for you to issue ultimatums or threats. Fourdee 08:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on Ukrainian history before you go about accusing others of "fabricating" it. Moving your pet article to a more appropriate title is not "vandalizing" it. You don't own it. This is an international project, whose coverage of Britain-related topics is on the par with its coverage of Poland-related, India-related, Ukraine-related topics, etc. Systemic bias is strongly discouraged, the last time I checked. You arguments about the intimate connection of the Anglo-Saxon and Modern English appear to be irrelevant, because these are totally different languages, just like Modern English and Modern French are. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I still do not understand why you want to move the article to a "more appropriate" location when it has been here for two years and a simple link at the top serves just fine to reference the history article. Can you help me understand the reasoning behind this? As to your claims about Old English not being related to Modern English... That's quite obviously not the case. Again, this is an English language encyclopedia and the precedence should go terms and phrases as they are used in English. Perhaps I was more upset by this move than was merited, mostly because it was so unliteral and unannounced right after I had done work on the article. It seems at the least a bit rude to move an article someone has been recently working on without even discussing it first... Fourdee 10:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is in its proper location with proper disambiguation. It has nothing to do with this page. It only seems to be a war of edits, which is done without prior discussion on the part of user Ghirla. The article clearly doesn't belong here but in disambiguation whre it is now.--Hillock65 10:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fourdee. The article is the way it should be. There is no consensus to change. -- Stbalbach 15:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

After some thought, a few more words... the standard on wikipedia for which article should occupy the primary namespace, if any, is what the user is most likely to be searching for when he enters the term, and references to the poem occur markedly more often in English language Google results as far as I can tell, which I think pretty much settles the matter. Also I think given that this article has been here for two years, that lends credibility to its precedence. At any rate, please at least discuss page moves first on the talk page, as it will definitely tend to get a rise out of people (and I apologize for that) to move pages they have been working on unannounced.

As to systemic bias there is no way to eliminate that, as it is an intrinsic part of every system. If you eliminated all "systemic bias" from Wikipedia there would be no Wikipedia at all. English Wikipedia is naturally (and rightfully) biased toward what is relevant to English speakers, by its own guidelines... I looked and I couldn't find any policy or guideline which indicated equal preference should be given to a global view of terminologies or article titles, quite the opposite, it is suggested as I said above that the standard for an article title is what the user (an English speaker) will most likely be looking for. It looks like you (Ghirla) have done a lot of work on bringing good history articles to the English wikipedia on subjects which that not have gotten the treatment they deserve due to the fields of interest of our usual editors, and that is appreciated. However, please try to reach consensus on any major changes to what already exists here. Fourdee 18:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)