The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catullus 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Last summer I had a long debate with User:Sophysduckling about whether translations which are created by wikipedia users rather than published sources should be considered original research, as well as whether pages like this one, which focused more on the text of a poem than significance and meaning, belonged on wikipedia or wikisource. You can read the debate at User talk:Sophysduckling/Archive 4 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catullus. We reached a sort of truce in which most catullus articles were removed, but the fundamental debate about whether an original translation violates WP:NOR was left unsettled. This page was originally redirected by Sophysduckling, as he thought it was not notable enough for an article, but it has been remade by User:Alakazam138. I feel that an original translation should be considered original research, and that articles like this belong on wikisource, not on wikipediam as per WP:NPS. Furthermore, I believe that this and most poems of catullus are not notable enough for their own pages. Delete or Move to Wikisource Samael775 05:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Original research and non-encyclopedic. Glendoremus 06:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • okay, seems much improved so I've changed my opinion.
• Keep - please note the NOR policy: a translation does none (or should not do any) of the 7 things listed at WP:NOR (copied below). A translation replicates content exactly as is without changing its meaning, and only replacing words with their equivalents in another language. If the translation is not available in a source (i.e., it is an original translation), that should be noted and source(s) provided for the original language version, but I don't believe it constitutes original research. Black Falcon 08:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• An article is OR if and only if:
  1. It introduces a theory or method of solution;
  2. It introduces original ideas;
  3. It defines new terms;
  4. It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
  5. It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
  6. It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
  7. It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
• It seems as though someone is looking too closely at the words of the NOR policy, as opposed to the spirit. But to humor you, a translation of a published work makes an implicit argument about what a proper translation of that particular published work should look like. Allon Fambrizzi 09:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • I am indeed humoured by your comment. It seems to me that looking at the "spirit" of a policy rather than its text falls under "original research". There are no assumptions about what a proper translation looks like. As long as two different languages have words for the same objects and concepts, they can be translated without any "assumptions". No assumption is needed to translate the English "flower" into the German "Blume". Cheers, Black Falcon 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although WP:NOT#BUR states, "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict." (and I believe this to be an excellent idea), I do not feel the NOR policy includes translations (if that is the case, shouldn't we also delete any articles that were translated from a foreign-language wiki?). If a translator makes any kind of implicit or explicit "argument" or "assumption", then she has failed in her task, which is only to replace e oncombination of letters denoting a concept or object with another such combination that refers to the same concept or object (minor changes in the word ordering to conform to appropriate sentence structure does not, if done properly, affect content). -- Black Falcon 01:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello. I recently wrote this article, but I'm sorry that I wasn't aware of the situation with the poems. I'm only a newbie and I apologise. Should I write these sorts of things up at WikiSource? After all, Catullus is a great poet and there is so much meaning that can be derived from every poem. Surely a collaboration between all the Latin scholars can make each poem worthy of its own page? Obviously it is my fault, (probably for rushing in to Wikipedia too quickly), but it is slightly annoying as I did feel I was doing a service, rather than a diservice. However, as a newbie, I'm not exactly sure how I can fit all of Wikipedia's criteria for articles, nor am I to make the decisions, that is for you good people here. Sorry again for causing a bother. Alakazam138 10:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Oh, for crying out loud: Are there noncopyright translations that aren't bowdlerized or in stilted 19th century language? If so, the translation can be replaced. If no such a published translation exists, or isn't available, then the editor's translation is useful and should be kept. Samael1775, as to notabiity: after two millennia, I think his poems have become notable enough to warrant individual Wikipedia articles, and I see nothing wrong with every work by every major Greek and Roman author getting the same treatment. Alakazam138, even if you were wrong, and I don't think you were, there's no need to apologize -- you did just what you're supposed to do around here, jump in and be bold. Thank you, and please don't stop. Allon Fambrizzi, even with a poem, a translation can be as "objective" or "neutral" as possible, particularly in more literal translations, which seems to be in keeping with the NOR policy, both in letter and spirit. Noroton 15:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just had another look at the article -- ORIGINAL research? It's all very straightforward, uncontroversial, obvious information of use to readers who, for instance, are unaware of the Atalanta myth. Although a citation is always nice, it can also be overkill when the facts are well established. There is no reason for a deletion here at all. Noroton 15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Translations, especially translations of poetry, are based on judgements of the translator, it is impossible to precisely translate every aspect of a poem, because there are all kinds of things like idioms and connotations that can't be directly reproduced in another language. Furthermore, I see no reason why the text of a poem, let alone annotations and latin vocabulary, should be in an encyclopedia. This is an annotated, translated, original source document and as such belongs on wikisource. See WP:NPS and WP:L&P Samael775 17:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response: I did see WP:NPS and in the second paragraph found this:

        Smaller sources and samples are acceptable in articles. Some short texts such as short poems and national anthems are usually included in their article, e.g. Ozymandias.

      • Ozymandias is a 14-line poem that's actually a bit larger than Catullus 2 (one less line, slightly fewer words). Frankly, it's hard to come to a better understanding of a short poem when to refer back to it you need to jump between WikiSource and Wikipedia. As a reader, wouldn't you prefer to see short poems included in the articles about them? Samael, you make a better point concerning translations -- ANY translation done by an editor here (or done anywhere else) will necessarily involve word choices. But Wikipedia does, in fact, allow translations because sometimes their usefulness is more important than the potential harm of a bias. Anyone with a competing translation of a word or line could perhaps note it in the article with a simple "or ...".Noroton 22:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC) (slightly self-edited)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely unsourced original research. Without citations from reliable sources, how can the average reader be assured that the translation is accurate? The content of this article relies entirely on the judgments of Wikipedians, not on outside sources; that's original research. Also, there is no evidence offered for considering this particular poem notable. Furthermore, the vocabulary list is outside the scope of an encyclopedia article. If the article is rewritten using reliable sources, I'll change to keep. Without that, it should go. Nick Graves 16:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has significantly improved. There is still some content that needs to be sourced, such as the identification of the poem's meter, but the original research content is sufficiently reduced to warrant keeping this. Kudos to the editors who took the time and care to improve and save this article. Nick Graves 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I do have 3 sources that support my 'loose' translation. I have now cited them at the bottom of the page. I feel that a vocabulary list is not outside encylopaedic format since a word means either one thing or another; there is no real debate. I appreciate your point about it being uncited though, yes, I should not expect people to just believe what is written there. Thanks for all your feedback, it's been a help to see how to improve my service to Wikipedia.Alakazam138 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about sourcing. Translations are creative works and there is no such thing as a "definitive" translation; you can't just use Wikipedia as a publishing service for your own translation. Facts can be verified; translations cannot. Delete. Allon Fambrizzi 17:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
    • This is in no way what I am intending. "Publishing service for my own translation?" No. I merely thought it would be good idea to put up a poem by great man, so that everyone can benefit from it. But what's the use, I can see where this will end up. It's quite disheartening really. Alakazam138 17:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because you aren't expending your energies in the right place. See below. Uncle G 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If there's room for every joke in every episode of every 4th rate sitcom, there's room for a translation and commentary on ancient literature. Call me a snob if it makes you feel better. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place for source texts and commentary. Articles about literay works should focus on impact, significance, and crtical opinions. Samael775 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Policy is clear: Wikipedia articles are not collections of source material, nor are they annotated texts. This article is an annotated text. It gives the source text, an original translation thereof, and then line by line annotations. The proper place for annotated works of literature is Wikibooks, which will quite happily take all of the poems, not just selected ones, as long as they are actually properly annotated for study use and not just raw copies of the source text. See WP:FICT#Making good use of Wikibooks and Wikisource for how to use Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikisource in concert for situations like this. I've started The Poetry of Gaius Valerius Catullus for you. Delete. Uncle G 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy is not nearly as clear as you make out. Here's the only place "annotated texts" appears in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

    Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach a subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.

  • We don't have a textbook here. We have the beginning of an article with the necessary foundation for further information. This poem isn't nearly as important as Ozymandias and the article will hardly have as much information as that article, but if you notice the "Analysis" section of the Ozymandias article, you'll see something very similar to what we have here (aside from the necessary translation information). Is the article attempting to teach subject matter? I see it as presenting enough information to understand the poem in some detail, which is necessary to get enough of an understanding of the poem to make the article of any use to the reader.

    Here's another policy statement from that same policy article, under the section "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" or WP:BURO:

    A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Noroton 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Policy is quite clear. What you are constructing is what is known as a straw man. You've just quoted the second half of the full sentence, which, in full, reads "Wikipedia articles are not simply textbooks or annotated texts.". That's quite clear that Wikipedia articles are not annotated texts. You've then proceeded to argue that since the article isn't a textbook, which no-one said it was in the first place, it doesn't violate the policy. That's a straw man argument. The article is a canonical annotated text. It contains the text of the poem, a translation, and line-by-line annotations. (See b:Wikibooks:Annotated texts#What is an annotated text?.) Policy is quite clear, saying so in as many words, that that one of several things that Wikipedia articles are not.

      The latter half of your argument is largely irrelevant, and, in attempting to make the argument that policy should be ignored (which is not what that section is about at all), is merely a strong indication that the former half of your argument is exactly counter to clearly stated policy. Uncle G 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Excuse me, but since when did your pronouncements become clear Wikipedia policy? I was quoting Wikipedia policy, not your personal pronunciamento, and the only spot where I could find the words "annotated texts" in the Wikipedia policy article you linked to. The only clear thing in that policy page regarding annotated texts is that the idea of annotated texts was closely wedded to the idea of textbooks. I was assuming that your citation of a Wikipedia rule had some relationship to the actual text of the rule. If policy is so clear, simply give me the quote from the relevant sentence or sentences. I did. And to say that there are limits to bureaucratic rules is to cite a Wikipedian bureaucratic rule, not to deny any Wikipedian bureaucratic rules. Again: I cited, you pronounced. Here's a sincere (if a little angry) suggestion for you: Rather than searching for debating points to score, you might want to search for ways of reaching consensus, a Wikipedia goal which appears to have eluded your marshalling of rhetorical weaponry.

        Looking back on your comments, I found your reference to b:Wikibooks:Annotated texts#What is an annotated text? a useful, very constructive point which brings up some (nonrhetorical) questions:

        1. Do you really want to say that no references to the specific parts of a text are appropriate in a Wikipedia article about that text? Could they be part of an article?
        2. Could an article that starts out as annotating a text grow into a proper Wikipedia article? I've already made a (small) change to the article so that it is not, now, 100 percent text and annotation. I see no reason why that process should not continue until the article is mostly something else. But as I've said above, annotated text is an integral part of understanding a poem, particularly a translated poem.
        3. What do you think of the "Analysis" section of the Ozymandias article that I mentioned? Inappropriate?
        4. If this article were to be kept, if only in name and subject matter, what would it include in your opinion to be a proper Wikipedia article?
        5. How would it work in conjunction with a Wikibooks annotated text?
        6. What subject matter would be appropriate to each, in your opinion?
      • I'm open to agreeing with you. Let us (all) reason together.Noroton 03:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excuse me, but since when did your pronouncements become clear Wikipedia policy? — These are not my "pronouncements". This is the very text of the policy as written right there in front of you. "Wikipedia articles are not simply textbooks or annotated texts." are the exact words directly from the policy. You ask for the relevant quote. You've been given it twice already. It's even in boldface in the policy. To say that I've not been citing the policy but "making pronouncements" and "rhetoric" is highly disingenuous, and is another strong indicator that your argument is exactly counter to clearly stated policy. For the third time: Policy is quite clear on this. Uncle G 12:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response: My apologies, there must be something wrong with my computer and with my eyes. I typed your quoted sentence, even parts of it, in the page-search function of my computer and tried to find even part of that sentence on that Web page and I couldn't find it. Perhaps you could help me out by telling me what section that sentence appears in. Seriously, I can't find it. Also, I'm afraid I was a bit irritable in my previous replies to you, and I apologize for that. What we have is a serious disagreement over what Wikipedia policy actually is (I also don't think your view of it is actually workable, especially for articles on poems, given how poems work and what a reader generally needs in order to understand them). Please take another look at the Catullus 2 article, which is much changed, and tell me if you think it works better with translation and translation notes present on the page or moved to Wikibooks. My point elsewhere in this discussion is that to understand a poem the reader goes back and forth over various aspects because it is the interaction of those aspects where the power of a poem coheres. For an encyclopedia reader of an article about a poem, understanding the poem is not the only aspect, but it remains an important one, and to understand the history of the poem, having the text readily at hand is important. I'd be interested in your opinion, and also how you think the Catullus 2 article might be further improved. Noroton 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Specific parts of a text are appropriate when used for analysis. However, these Catullus articles seem to focus entirely on the text of the poem, and specifics about translation, which is much more the domain of wikibooks. While the potry of Catullus as a whole is certainly notable, I don't think there is much to be said about individual poems of Catullus. If you look at Ozymandias, you will notice that the text of the poem is in a small box off to the side, unintrusive. The table on Catullus 2 dominates the page and the rest of the article is little more than a collection of footnotes. According to WP:NOT, "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot."
2. Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place for annotated texts. While sourced analysis of a poem may be appropriate, an annotated text is not an encyclopedia article. While I agree that in some cases annotations could grow into a full article, I don't think Catullus 2 meets wikipedia's notability guidelines. While the poetry of Catullus is notable, there aren't many of the individual poems that have been the subject of multiple nontrivial works other than translations.
3. There is a differnce between annotated text and analysis. Annotations focus on explaining specific points of a text, analysis focuses on the whole.
4. I don't think that this article should be kept at all, as I don't think the poem is significant enough to justify an encyclopedia article.
5. Catullus or Poetry of Catullus would link to the wikibook, which would provide annotated texts of individual poems.
6. Wikibooks should contain information about specific parts of specific poems, such as what this idiom means, what this refers to, ect. Wikipedia should focus on analyzing poems or corpi of poetry as a whole, such as what techniques the poem uses, what this poem is about, how this should be interpreted, as well as inspiration and impact. Also, Analysis on wikipedia should be from the interpretation of published critics, and should be sourced. Samael775 04:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thank you for your reply. Please see the expanded version of the article, which should meet some of your objections, in addition:

1. As I say in my comment below, I think all aspects of a poem interact with each other and so the best way to present a poem to a reader (if space considerations allow) is to do it all on one page so the reader can easily look back and forth at different aspects (discussion, notes, text, translation). As for notability, see the comment by the academic in paragraph 2 of the article. The poem has been the subject of serious articles, but, as with most poems its size, no books solely on the poem. But I don't think that's determinative.
2. Again, all aspects of the poem interact with each other.
3. There is too much worthy information in this one article now for it to be combined easily with articles on more of the poems. I just don't think that would work now.
4. Covered in other comments.
5. Covered in other comments.
6. Yes, a Wikibooks article on the poem could concentrate on the meaning of specific parts of the poem, but that's all tied in with discussions of the poem's theme, so you're either divorcing two elements that would go well together, forcing readers to bounce back and forth between pages, which wouldn't help comprehension at all, or you're repeating much (all?) of the same information on two different Web pages. I agree that Wikipedia articles should do all the things you say they should do, and my additions to the article go part of the way toward doing that. Further comments below, just under Folantin's contribution. Noroton 20:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If you feel you must, for the sake of doctrinal purity, move the text and translation to Wikisource, do so if it isn't already there; but keep the brief commentary, and the article to link to it. There needs to be a better way to integrate Wikisource content into articles beyond merely having a link. FWIW, I feel strongly that translations produced by editors for Wikimedia projects are not original research in any meaningful sense. They advocate no new theory, and are subject to emendation for greater accuracy by the ordinary collaborative process; and finally, they are more desirable than copyrighted recent translations and likely superior to old PD translations. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. The article subject matter itself is noteworthy, so the only real dispute seems to be over WP:NOR, which is not grounds for deleting an article. Simply add references for any unreferenced claims (including disputed translations or academic disagreements over translation, which Wikipedia should report on, not weigh in on). Moreover, I see no policy or guideline saying that it is original research to translate a text, as long as the translation agrees with general academic consensus. As for the Wikibooks issue, this seems to be a case of sacrificing useful information for bureaucracy; there is no value to our readers in forcing them to go to an external website to view a short passage that we could just as easily quote here. -Silence 08:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, original research can be grounds for deleting articles, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please read it. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, including the policy that Wikipedia articles are not annotated texts, is also grounds for deleting articles, again per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please familiarize yourself with our policies. Uncle G 12:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. First, I'm not sure translation constitutes original research, especially a very literal translation like this. After all, we have a whole department of Wikipedia encouraging editors to translate foreign articles. What do we do if we find literary texts in them? Leave them untranslated? I'm not sure about the status of the detailed vocabulary guide and other features of this article which I've never seen elsewhere on WP. But I think the poem does pass notability, though maybe the article should also include Poem 3, which is on a similar theme. Both influenced a whole line of later poems about pets, from pieces by Martial and Ovid to John Skelton's Philip Sparrow and beyond. This should definitely be included in the article (yes, I can dig up most of the necessary references, though I'd appreciate any help). --Folantin 10:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:I've made significant additions to the article:
  • It is no longer primarily a text with annotations. There is significant discussion (all of it reporting, not original) of the poem and its theme, and everything is annotated. This should meet some of the objections above.
  • The discussion of theme is intimately connected — interwoven — with discussion of the Latin text. I don't see how those two aspects of the poem can easily be separated. This doesn't make Catullus 2 unique, by the way — any poem, to be discussed adequately, should be discussed with a lot of interplay between various elements, often including theme, sound, form, individual words and, in the case of a translation, often alternative options for translation. I think that's all part of the business of describing a poem. That's why I think the full text of a short poem needs to be in the Wikipedia article about it, along with a translation for poems in other languages, and textual notes. They're all intimately connected. My additions are only a start and should be added to, especially with an expansion of sources, and they should be looked over by others. I'm putting a note on the discussion page to that effect. Noroton 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering how much the article has been improved, I have changed my mind. Keep(not speedy keep because others argued for deletion). However, User:Alakazam138 has started working on the wikibooks page Uncle G created, where he can put things like latin vocabulary and speciic notes, so consider using that rather than wikipedia for annotative details. I am also not sure wikipedia is the place for latin text, but its not really worth arguing over. Samael775 21:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not my page. Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikisource are all collaborative projects, and everyone is welcome to contribute to building them all into an interwoven whole, with annotated texts on Wikibooks, the source texts and any (free, and already published) translations on Wikisource, and encyclopaedia articles about the Poetry of Catullus on Wikipedia, all linked together. Uncle G 12:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know I was just refering to the page you created. Samael775 20:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep but the article should be about the poem, with the translation deemphasised. It shouldnt look like the article is an excuse to put in the translation. That's what the real problem is--its easy to see only that. Also, shouldnt the title be the conventional name--or first line--, not number in a standard list?DGG 01:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added a section about the poem's influence (it could probably be expanded). I have references for the metre (plus other things) if anyone needs them. --Folantin 10:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and transwiki per Uncle G. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep there is more here than just a text (even an anotated taxt). It might be better at wikibooks, but it works here well enough, I think. Eluchil404 11:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.