Talk:The Internationale/Archives/2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is the 2005 archive. For more recent comments, please see the Talk page.

According to the page, The Internationale is communist song, but this must be wrong? It's sung by both communists, socialists and social democrats. Perhaps this should be changed?

It's practically compulsory to sing the International after meetings of the Communist Party, but not of the Labour Party, etc.

I removed "Surprisingly, for a Commuinist song" from the language on copyright, for stylistic concerns, but I wonder about the rest of the sentance: I'm unaware of any copyright law that would prevent private, not-for-profit meetings from singing any song they'd like. ~CS 17:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can anybody point me to a reasonably literal and complete English translation? Those I've found on the web so far are rather free and/or incomplete. publunch

I think this is the full, real one, but I am not sure.. http://www.hymn.ru/internationale/internationale_pno_arr-en.pdf

I see someone has put the lyrics in the article now. Thanks. --Publunch 22:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Banned in China

I'd like to thank Hmib for expanding the information about the song's banishment in China. The single sentance the article contained was not very complete. I was wondering if, in addition, Hmib or any other readers could provide some English-language references and citations pertaining to this matter? I'm interested in the subject matter, but haven't been able to verify the information. Thanks! ~CS 00:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That is where I bumped into a wall. Chinese sources are, in this instance, are definitely the most reliable. English sources are, however, more useful in this instance, and definitely more convincing to the English reader. I tried very hard to find sources in English which covers this - however I could not find a single source in Google with "Zeng Qinghong" Internationale and other permutations. Ban Internationale turns up too many unrelated results, many international organisations having their names as internationale suchandsuch, and somehow many French sources about Falungong... I wonder why. However my French stinks and can't really discern what they are saying...

I am positive however that the sources I provided are reliable - after all they all checked out the same story, and they have very high Alexa rankings too... the 2nd source I have there, Epoch Times has an Alexa ranking of 3100~, and is a well-known Falungong-run international newspaper that is extremely critical of the Chinese government and of communism... and in that article it accuses the CPC of abandoning communism, and likens the current regime to that of Nazi Germany... 0_0 I don't even know who is anti-communist and who is pro now. I dislike the Falungong loons even more than the ChiComs, but now I seriously don't know what to make of it.

If that sounds confusing, it's because it is... I don't even know what to make of it.

If anyone can find a source in English, please add it to the links. Thanks.

-Hmib 01:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, no. Are you on crack? Stuff you find on the web are not reliable. Especially if all you find are Falun Gong web sites. Yeah, that would be anything from Minghui, or Falun net, or Zhengjian, or Clearwisdom, or Clearharmony, or Epoch Times, or Dajiyuan, or Xinsheng, or New Century net, or Sound of Hope, or Renminbao, or Boxun, or Peacehall or a bunch of others that copy content from them with no editorial control. And whoops, look where your external links are from. And that would be why, when you looked for stuff like this all you find are Falun Gong web sites referencing and quoting each other like a big orgy and nicely generating a dense link tree, resulting in a high Alexa ranking. It's a closed system. Get it? Just like Minitrue, which you are so fond of. The irony never ceases.

Now how do these anonymous sites always know about such earth-shattering news that nobody else seems to know? Because they rarely check out. In this case, this is their source according to the first external link "争鸣杂志2003年7月刊报导，六月六日，中共中央书记处下达通知" (Zheng Ming Magazine reports in 2003/July edition, that on June 6, CCP Central Secretariat sent down a memo...". This is quoting an anti-CCP Hong Kong political newsletter of July, 2003, and here it is online: http://www.chengmingmag.com/cm2003past/cm2003past.html There is nothing obvious there on this topic in the archived index for that issue, though curiously, editorial #2 of that same issue scathingly attacks "「從來沒有什麼救世主，不是神仙，不是皇帝」，共產黨人把《國際歌》天天唱，月月唱，年年唱，但共產黨卻自詡為救世主，卻把自己的黨看作神仙黨、皇帝黨，卻把黨員自己特別是黨的領袖、領導人和神仙、皇帝劃了個等號。" ("No savior, no gods, no emperors", every Communist sings the Internationale every day, month, year, yet the CCP likens itself to a savior, god, emperor, etc etc....") Does that sound like an editorial written in the same issue as a supposed report on banning the Internationale? No. To be sure, you'd have to get a hold of that month's paper copy and read the whole thing to see if that newsletter mentioned (perhaps by quoting yet someone else) the purported internal CCP memos dated June 6, 2003. Then you have see if you can track down that memo... etc etc.

Besides, this wiki article is supposed to about Internationale the song, and perhaps a little bit on how different countries use it. This whole thing about the CCP Secretariat supposedly requesting no singing of the song at local party meetings, even if it can be verified as true, does not deserve more than a passing mention. As is, it should be scrapped or placed in a context of high skepticism. But I'm going to let you realize what you wrote is a bad idea and do the right thing yourself. And please do not quote from the Falun Gong network again on things that only Falun Gong people seem to know about fifth-hand. Falun Gong is one of worst originators of bullshit on the Internet.

Your argument is self-contradictory. First of all, Falungong is supported covertly by a cabal of nations that would like to see China vanish into ignomity. This ensures that whatever the crap Falungong spews, it's going to be all over the English media in no time. That is not the case, thus detracting from your stand that this is a Falungong fabrication.

Secondly, a Falungong-run organisation is highly unlikely to critise the PRC government of abandoning communism. The main image of China that Falungong wants to brainwash the rest of the world with is that of a godless communist police state. Thus, they would be highly unlikely to critise PRC of abandoning communism, when they really want the world to conjure up images of the Orange Menace (red+yellow=orange).

Thirdly, though the direct sources are all from organisations higly critical of the CPC regime, there are mentions of the incident found in disparate places in websites not remotely connected to Falungong, of which I decided not to present in this page due to space limitations and relevancy.

Another thing that I've been reluctant to share here because it's bordering on original research: I have heard this news, from a wide range of people, one of them a CPC mayor-level official who is a practitioner of Miao indigenous religions, and another overseas Chinese, who as a Christian hates the Falungong more than anything else. These individuals have no connection whatsoever to the cult of Falungong, and the time where they discussed this piece of news was before any of the Falungong-run websites have published articles on this.

PS. As an off-topic discussion, I would agree with you on almost all your views of the Falungong. ;) -Hmib 19:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, nothing you said contradicts what I said about the Wikipedia article, which is, (1) you shouldn't source those sites, which have a history of making unreliable and exaggerated claims, (2) you shouldn't claim things based on those sites when it's clear they are just offhandedly quoting somebody else and (3) this topic is a side issue for this article.

I would suggest you delete the sources and alter the text within the article to accurately and, with specificity, reflect the state of affairs:

"Anecdotal evidence suggests the CCP may have in recent times issued orders to ban singing of the Internationale at its local party meetings."

Now if you read that and think it's silly to put in this article, then you would be in agreement with me.

I don't mean to say this can't be true (*). But we can't write everything that has scant evidence or Wikipedia is going to turn into a rumor mill and people with different views from you (you know, like FLG) can reciprocate on other topics. Do you want that? Please keep things in perspective.

Now, on to Falun Gong sites. Whatever the political motives are of the people who pull the strings of Falun Gong, it is really beside the point. It is enough to know that Falunmedia is anti-CCP and to discredit the CCP (and by extension, the PRC) is basically Falunmedia's only agenda. They do this openly, so it's not in dispute. WHY they want to discredit the CCP is another matter and it gets convoluted really quickly, but that doesn't matter either for this discussion.

Falunmedia uses many tactics to discredit the CCP, however, it really depends on the audience -- very important. You seem to be confusing what Falunmedia is trying to present to the West vs. what Falunmedia is trying to present to the overseas Chinese -- these are two different audiences with two different sets of expectations. To the English media of the West, Falunmedia will give the impression that the PRC is the orange menace, as you say. To the overseas Chinese, however, Falunmedia can't do the same thing but finds it more effective to say they speak for the guardians of true China and portray the CCP as a satanic bandit out to destroy China (it's an easy guess which entity wants this portrayal -- they live on an island.) What you've run into is the latter. What you are thinking of is the former. That's why you find this only in Chinese.

Falunmedia has a degree of sophistication in propaganda. Not only do they exploit people's prejudices and pre-existing notions, they tailor it to different groups that aren't likely to talk to each other. Think about this.

---

(*) But it's laughable to think it's true. First of all, it's not like anybody has heard or heard of the Internationale in China for decades. There was a rock parody, and it was sung as protest, rarely. I'm laughing out loud at the image of someone singing it at a party meeting. That would never happen. So why would there be a memo banning its singing? To believe the ban is real, you have to first believe, implicitly, that people in China ARE still singing this like a bunch of Comintern revolutionaries. Don't you see how Falunmedia has messed with your mind?

I suggest you take a less derisive tone. It is counterproductive and not appreciated in any form here.

First of all, even if it's never sung in meetings, there can still be a memo banning its singing. You see, a law need not be enacted only after an act which the law condemns as criminal has been committed. This ban could have been placed to enforce, in paper, in addition to an unspoken 'ban'.

Second of all, in wikipedia, things have got to be NPOV. Your argument relies solely on the premises that Falungong is an evil cult out to brainwash the clueless. I agree with this, however, wikipedia does not take a stand on this issue. To suggest what you're saying is essentially POV and biased, unless Falungong can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be an evil cult. So you need to focus on the articles themselves, instead of their authors.

-Hmib 03:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with whether Falun Gong is a cult or not. It has to do with your sources being unreliable, ipso facto, quite beside who they are affiliated with. The reason why their stuff do not make it into other outlets -- see, e.g. the CCP resignation claim -- is because they do not check out. They are not a reputable source *for news* and doubly so in this case because they are even quoting another source of unknown repute. And why does it matter what COULD be. Anything COULD be. This is all you are arguing for now. So I don't understand your position. Are you saying your sources in this case are reliable, or are you saying Wikipedia must incorporate all things of similar nature that border on unverified rumor?

And on a personal level, I don't think you are helping your own cause by implicitly suggesting Chinese still sang the Internationale up to June 6, 2003, which they most certainly did not. By the way, the stuff on Falun Gong was just background for you since you earlier raised doubt yourself about your sources, saying you didn't get what's going on.

It's got everything to do with whether Falungong is a cult or not. The sources are otherwise major outlets of information, which under any normal circumstances would be considered reliable. The only exception to this is that if the source is from an 'evil cult', which would automatically be invalidated. However there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Falungong is an evil cult.

What I'm saying, is that in this case, the articles I cite are from major sources, that based on their statistics alone, qualify as a major outlet of information. You can't dismiss it out of hand based purely on your preconceived notion that it's a cult.

I'm not helping my own cause. This is wikipedia. And really, what is my cause? I don't think you know what my cause is, you can't read my mind. Chinese have not sung the Internationale up to June 2003? I know I did. And what's that got to do with its ban? This also happens to be completely irrelevent to the topic at hand. -Hmib 19:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you not read what I said? Your sources are ipso facto unreliable. The sources are absolutely not "major outlets of information" by any stretch of the imagination. They do not follow any journalistic standard and don't even pretend to BE news outlets. How you can call such sources reliable under ANY circumstance is beyond rational comprehension. They are on the level of The Onion. And your continued insistence on what *I* believe about Falun Gong is bordering on nutty. You are the only one who uses the phrase "evil cult" in this entire conversation, not I. I have specifically and repeatedly written that Falun Gong's motives are irrelevant and only questioned the poor standards of its media operations. So stop building up a straw man.

Wikipedia states the following guidelines, and though they apply to authors on Wikipedia, they apply equally well to your sources.

There are several reasons you might want to verify something in an article:

The author has a record of contributing inaccurate or misleading information. [check]

The author has a conflict of interest. [check]

There are other errors in the article, and the entire thing needs to be checked. [possible]

The article is the subject of an accuracy dispute. [check]

The subject area is one where errors are frequent. [highly likely]

The statement is implausible on its surface. [check]

The statement is key to the entry as a whole. [no]

The statement is overly vague. [no]

Dubious sources

For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources.

Sometimes a particular statement can only be verified at a place of dubious reliability, such as a weblog ("blog") or a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, then just remove it - don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth. However, if you must keep it, then attribute it to the source in question. For example:

According to the weblog Simply Relative, the average American has 3.8 cousins and 7.4 nephews and nieces.

Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a web site and claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group," "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. Thus, one must assess whether the source is reliable.

In the case of a source of facts: is the source a noted expert in the area? Does the source write blatant errors? Has the source followed journalistic or academic standards of ethical investigation? In the case of a source of opinion: is the source notable? Does it stand for a large group of people?

I doubt you've asked yourself any of these questions. I'll give you some time before I will, in the interest of Wikipedia users, assert the strongest qualifications that ought to precede your claim in the main article since the very beginning. You don't seem to be interested or perhaps even capable of honestly evaluating anything.

The author has a record of contributing inaccurate or misleading information. [not proven]
The author has a conflict of interest. [[[Simon Weisenthal Center]] has a conflict of interest with Stormfront (online site), but that does not diminish its accuracy]
There are other errors in the article, and the entire thing needs to be checked. [none besides the part in question]
The article is the subject of an accuracy dispute. [check, I'll give you that]
The subject area is one where errors are frequent. [no precedence, unable to ascertain]
The statement is implausible on its surface. [that's your personal POV]
The statement is key to the entry as a whole. [no]
The statement is overly vague. [no]

Once again the reason you cite for the sources being ipso facto unreliable is based on your own POV. It's your own POV that Epoch Times et al has poor journalistic standards. Comparing it to the Onion is ridiculous, as the Onion makes no secret that it's satirical and not to be taken seriously. Epoch Times and its affiliates are major outlets of information, regardless of whether you believe them to be. Also, I suggest you cut back on your personal attacks. -Hmib 17:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This is my last entry in this thread. I've had enough trying unsuccessfully to communicate with an unreasonable person. Although it is a response to the above, it is not a communication to you, but rather for the benefit of other people who will read this thread and for completeness.

However much it would please me to make a compilation of all the lies of Epoch Times in order to show its non-existent journalistic standards, it would be pointless to do it for the benefit of someone above who purportedly can read Chinese but cannot make honest evaluations, and for others who can make honest evaluations but cannot read Chinese. One would think this would be unnecessary as it is so blatantly obvious that even if one had not read the Epoch Times him/herself, one can find out its unreliability from others who have with a few minutes of digging. If nothing else, there is nothing easier than trying to find citations referencing Epoch Times from reputable, mainstream sources, something tried and true in academia. There are none and the clown above won't be able to provide any either.

In any case, all of that is still secondary to the issue of the four sources in this article. I will just make a note of what they are here for those who don't read Chinese and for future reference. Then I will do the right thing that the person responsible refuses to do.

Summary: The following are the four sources, all amateurish rants from Falun Gong affiliated sources against Jiang Zemin, Zeng Qinghong, the CCP and others whom the Falun Gong hates. (The point is not that they are from Falun Gong, but that they are really from the same source.) The only external reference provided for the song-ban claim is to a Hong Kong based Zhengming Magazine, which so far has not checked out. Anybody who wishes to is suggested to investigate.

The reference is to an opinion piece titled "The reason Zeng Qinghong orders no singing of the Internationale" by Li Zi. There are only two relevant parts. The first sentence reads without any reference "On June 6, 2003, Zeng Qinghong sent out a memo in the name of the CCP Central Secretariat, absolutely forbidding the singing and performing of the Internationale in the future." The second part is toward the end of the article, which reads, "Zhengming Magazine's 2003/7 issue reports, on June 6, the CCP Central Secretariat sent down a memo: At any provincial, city, or county (bureau) party meeting or party member organization meeting, the Internationale is not performed or sung."

My note: That issue of Zhengming Magazine, an anti-CCP newsletter from Hong Kong, has no articles with titles related to the Internationale, but has an editorial that railed with no irony against communists singing the Internationale. See thread above for details.

Source [2]: Epoch Times. This is an anti-CCP site linked with Falun Gong which is the online version of the paper "newspaper" of the same name.

The reference is to an opinion piece titled "SouthCentralGuy: The Chinese race faces life-death challenge from the Jiang Zemin/Zeng Qinghong alliance, Part 4 -- 'History as a Guide' Part 5)" written by the pseudonymic SouthCentralGuy. The references are in the following sentences: "...and having sung the Internationale for a hundred yeras, now Zeng Qinghong orders the whole party to ban its singing; ... " without reference and "Having banned [a folksong] 'Railroad Guerrilas', and a large number of WWII-era anti-Japan songs, having banned the Internationale, there is still the PRC anthem ..." without reference.

My note: The Railroad Guerrilas can be downloaded from mp3.baidu.com, a search engine in China, as can the Internationale.

Source [3]: China Affairs Forum, a Chinese-language Internet forum site (ChinaAffairs.org) specializing in posts of content taken from other media.

The reference is to a post by the same author as in source [1], with content is the same as source [1]. The post's title is the same as source [1]: The reason Zeng Qinghong orders no singing of the Internationale. The relevant references are the same as source [1].

The reference is to an opinion piece titled "National anthem plus strip-tease! Bo Xilai's district has Ace-trick in singing praises to Jiang Zemin" written by Xiao Qingqing. The relevant part is in the sentence "It can still be recalled that according to media reports, June 6 this year [sic], the CCP Central Secretariat that Zeng Qinghong grasps, suddenly sent down the memo that: At any provincial, city, or county (bureau) party meeting or party member organization meeting, the Internationale is not performed or sung."

My note: The only "media reports" there has ever been on this are in other Falun Gong run sites. Also, the wording of this and a few other sentences in this piece and source 1 are nearly identical. This piece is published on 2004/1/5. By "this year," the writer means "last year."

This is all the relevant information I can think to provide to this thread, so this will be the end of my participation in this thread. I will make changes to the article within a few days to keep it consistent with Wikipedia and general ethics guidelines.

I grow weary of your repeated personal attacks. This if nothing else is not what we want in wikipedia.

So what if the sites are anti-CCP? Does that automatically invalidates them? Your own words betray your POV against Falungong and Epoch Times. That's fine - you are entitled to your opinion. But trying to argue your point based solely on your own perception of these organisations is not something we want on wikipedia. Let me try one last time. You have to evaluate these organisations for what they are, not what you think they are. There's a big difference here. As for your claims that these sitess are unreliable, merely satirical, full of bull - when one reads all your comments on these sites, it all boils down to them being Falungong-aligned and anti-CCP. You seem to be incapable of judging something without taking a prior, predetermined view to whatever it's talking about. -Hmib 06:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the phrase "Not unexpectedly, nothing of this is covered by the media in countries which are unwilling to abandon the "Communist China" rhetoric." for a several reasons:

1) Validity. It assumes that an inability to find English-language reasources is because of media propaganda. Without very specific information that explicitly states this is the cause, I don't think such an assertion can be made. The lack of resources could be because of a wide number of reasons: disinterest, lack of foreign correspondents in China, not beliving it is news-worthy, or of only local interest.

2) POV. As it was stated, the comment is very POV. If the assertion can be proved, it needs to be re-written in a manner that does not sound conspiritorial, does not reveal the political position of the author, and is free of loaded rhetorical language, and phrases ("Not unexpectedly," "unwilling to abandon..." and the very word "rhetoric.")

3) Clarity. "'Communist China' rhetoric" is a buzz-word which carries a lot of baggage with it, but is not readily clear from the context of the sentance. Someone with interest in political media understands what the stentance means because he or she is familiar to what the allusions and accusations in the sentance are -- but that person is also aware that it is providing a condemnation of the media which needs to be tempered if the article is going to sound encyclopedic. ~CS 00:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

However it is a fact that this event has been systematically ignored by the English media. Disinterest, or rather an unwillingness to be interested, is the cause of this. It's absurb to say that a news item of this magnitude is not newsworthy. We're talking about the (so-called) socialist country on the planet abandoning the socialist song, no, more than that, banning the said song. Lack of foreign correspondents is definitely not a problem. When there are thousands of foreign reporters in China specifically chasing down state-run gulag/sweatshops, it's obvious the English media has a huge base in the area. It's definitely not of only local interest, as the matter itself is a national affair. It's not your neighbour's cat gone missing.

That said however I will try to make it a bit less POV. (I concede that I was a bit pissed about supposed media transparency in supposedly democratic countries.) -Hmib 03:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have heard of some claims that the Internationale has been banned in red China. I just added the Chinese lyrics with my own English translation. I have also found that in addition to Mandarin version, the Internationale also has Cantonese and Taiwanese translations, occasionally used in Hong Kong and Taiwan. It appears that the Internationale is less popular in capitalist-oriented Hong Kong and Taiwan than in red China.--Jusjih 01:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Lyrics, revisited

Your English translation wasn't complete. There are 6 verses in the song!--Bloomfield 22:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I know. I'm not a god. I have my limits. I translated the 3 most-sung verses, the rest can wait for a while. And feel free to translate it yourself, if you so wish. -Hmib 23:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There are 6 verses in the song (not just direct translation, but old lyrics).--Bloomfield 09:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

THE INTERNATIONALE

1. Arise! ye starvelings, from your slumbers;

Arise! ye prisoners of want.

For reason in revolt now thunders

And ends at last the age of cant.

Away with all your superstitions

Servile masses, arise! arise!

We’ll change henceforth the old tradition

And spurn the dust to win the prize.

Chorus

So comrades, come rally

And the last fight let us face

The Internationale

Unites the human race.

2. No saviour from on high delivers;

No faith have we in prince or peer.

Our own right hand the chains must shiver:

Chains of hatred, greed and fear.

E’er the thieves will out with their booty

And give to all a happier lot.

Each at his forge must do his duty

And strike the iron while it’s hot!

3. The law oppresses us and tricks us,

The wage slave system drains our blood;

The rich are free from obligation,

The laws the poor delude.

Too long we’ve languished in subjection,

Equality has other laws;

“No rights,” says she “without their duties,

No claims on equals without cause.”

4. Behold them seated in their glory

The kings of mine and rail and soil!

What have you read in all their story,

But how they plundered toil?

Fruits of the workers’ toil are buried

In strongholds of the idle few

In working for their restitution

The men will only claim their due.

5. No more deluded by reaction

On tyrants only we’ll make war

The soldiers too will take strike action

They’ll break ranks and fight no more

And if those cannibals keep trying

To sacrifice us to their pride

They soon shall hear the bullets flying

We’ll shoot the Generals on Our Own Side.

6. We peasants, artisans, and others

Enrolled among the sons of toil,

Let’s claim the earth henceforth for brothers,

Drive the indolent from the soil!

On our Flesh too Long has fed the Raven;

We’ve too long been the vulture’s prey.

But now farewell the spirit craven:

The dawn brings in a brighter day.

Lyrics by Eugène Pottier

Music by Pierre Degeyter

This was anarchist song too, not only socialist. Pottier was proudhonist (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon) himself.--Bloomfield 10:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to copy verbatim what's already in wikisource. It only adds clutter and confusion. We don't want every translation here, just the important ones! The 6-stanza version is not among the most commonly sung ones (heck, you can't even find one mp3 of it), so it stays in wikisource. -Hmib 16:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether Billy Bragg is willing to allow his modern version licensed under the GFDL? I have to be sure of this before I will ever post it at Wikisource and to sing it myself to create an audio file, so please answer if anyone can.--Jusjih 01:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ask him. But I already know the answer - no. If he is willing he would not have sold his album, that hypocritical oppressor of poor people who don't have enough money to buy an album! :P -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian version

I saw no reason why one line (the second last line before the chorus of the third verse) was capitalized (especially since the French and English versions did not have this.) I changed it to lower case (quite a task, since my Russian is next to nil, but I believe the simple movement of cases was correct.)

Secondly, I am highly suspicious of the "Latinization" of the Russian lyrics; several of those characters usually don't appear in Russian Latinizations, but are letters used in Czech, Serbian, etc. Can someone confirm that that is indeed the *Russian* version in the "Latinized" column? --Canuckguy 07:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been wondering about the all-caps line too. Unfortunately my Russian now sucks, and I tried, and was unsuccessful, in rendering a literal translation of the Russian lyrics. :( So now my confidence in my Russian ability is now zilch, and I'm not touching it with a 10-ft pole. -Hmib 07:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:The Internationale/Archives/2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Banned in China

Lyrics, revisited

Russian version

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search