Jump to content

Talk:English versions of the Nicene Creed

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1962 Missal

[edit]

An accurate black-and-white reproduction of the 1962 Roman Missal is found 1962 here. It is entirely in Latin. The anonymous editor from Maidenhead is probably thinking of one of the first vernacular Missals (with provisionally approved texts that varied from country to country) that were issued in about 1965. These were based on the 1962 Missal but with changes that had already been introduced. In any case, the present article is about "English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use". If the Maidenhead editor wants to insert a text, he or she should give a source that indicates that the text is still in current use and where. Lima (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICEL violation?

[edit]

On User talk:Invocante I posted the following:

Andrew c has asked me to use your Talk page, not just edit summaries, to draw your attention to what seem to be copyright violations by you. Apart from printed sources that indicate that ICEL strongly opposes any publication of its copyright draft texts for a revised English translation of the Roman Missal, there are indications also on the Internet. I have already drawn your attention to this site. You could also look at this and this. And you could read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but without getting it into trouble. Lima (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invocante has posted on my Talk page:

Who do you think you are? I [Invocante] do not accept that in the normal understanding of things I am violating the copyright of the ICEL. The very notion of copyright on translations of texts as ancient as the creed or the Gloria is dubious but in any case there is a more substantial point. The new translation when it comes out will affect millions of the Catholic laity and the attempt to hide behind copyright is simply disingenuous. The reason for this are well given by Father Zhulsdorf in his reply to the ICEL letter referred to by you [http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/04/letter-from-icel.html here Indeed if we take the example of the new translation Gloria the Church has already authorised a new musical stetting of those words which is readily available from the Word Youth day website, see http://www.wyd2008.org/index.php/en/parishes_schools/wyd08_mass_setting. This availability on the WYD site tells us two things. One the text I provide was reliable and 2 the church is perfectly happy to have the text in the public domain. So on what basis do you laim the right to delete my entry? Lastly I might you arrogantly reedits my and everyone else's work but you make no effort to speak to me first. You seem to think you have a monopoly of wisdom about the catholic church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invocante (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do others think? Lima (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the multiple insertions of "[This text appears to have been cited without the express permission of the copyright holder.]" I beg leave to remark that I see a big difference between the cases thus marked and a text whose copyright holder opposes its general publication. But, again, I leave judgement to others. Lima (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factually a party either owns copyright or they do not. Factually, am I mistaken that you have not obtained express permission from the copyright holders to publish these texts? If I am am correct, and given your zeal for enforing your (entirely mistaken) understanding of copyright law then you can have no objection to these factual statements. Invocante (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In current liturgical use

[edit]

Invocante, please indicate how you justify inserting in an article on English versions in current liturgical use a version that as yet is only a draft for future liturgical use. Lima (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well firstly, most understandings of the term current would also include the near future as well. Indeed it would seem fair to assume that any reader interested in current translations of the creed would also be interested in any future translations of the creed. As I make clear this is only a draft (although as you well know this draft has now been fully approved and will not change) it seems difficult to understand what the harm is in including the future translation. Secondly I did try to establish an entry for future use but it was deleted. As I have said before this is not an issue about copyright or any current v future use it is about your proprietorial attitude towards all pages concerning catholic doctrine about which you seem to believe you should be the sole contribution. I suggest you go and start “Lima’s online Encyclopaedia of Catholic Doctrine” and leave wikkipedia the open, collective work it is supposed to be.Invocante (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Current", as I understand it, refers neither to even near past nor to even near future. Lima (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can indicate (with source) where the text in question is supposedly in current liturgical use, it will have to be removed. Lima (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed the non-current text, and also the comments that belong, if anywhere, on the Talk page. Whether ICEL has or does not have the right to prevent publication of its proposed text, nobody objects to publication of the other texts. Lima (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And who, apart from you, objects to the publication of the ICEL text? You repeatedly fail to answer my arguments and instead resort to the brute force of just deleting my entry. If that isn't vandalism what is? I have therfore undone your unjustified vandalism. Invocante (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that ICEL itself does object; but that is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that the text in question is not an English version in current liturgical use. Unless you cite a source that shows it is in current use, it has no place in this article. Lima (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that inserting off-topic matter, while making no effort whatever to justify its insertion, was vandalism, and that removing such unsupported off-topic matter was not. Lima (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how inserting the words to an English version of the creed can be considered to be off topic. The new wording will be used in the World Youth Day 2008 and so that would seem to be "current" usage by any standards. 16:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invocante (talk • contribs)

How can a version intended to be used at a single event that has not yet taken place be considered to be in current liturgical use? Lima (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the proposed new ICEL version of the Creed is not to be used even at Sydney. The Liturgy Office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales says: "Permission has been given to use the new translations of the Gloria and Sanctus", apparently not for the Creed. Lima (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Catholic Churches

[edit]

I added the Nicene Creed used in the Liberal Catholic Church, putting it into a category called "Catholic Church." My addition was quickly pulled. It was stuffed into a new category called "Independent Catholic Churches." The original category was changed to read "In the Catholic Church in communion with the Pope." The editor is apparently associated with the papal branch of the Catholic Church and is forcing non-Roman jurisdictions to a subordinate place. This is not an even-handed treatment of these English translations. First, the Eastern Churches should be listed first because their English versions are closest to the original(s). The Western church can then come next with Catholic and Protestant being divisions in the Western Church section. Wynnwagner (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to changing "Catholic Church in communion with the Pope" to "Roman Catholic Church", but some do object to giving the latter name to that Church as a whole, including its constituent Eastern Catholic Churches. The Liberal Catholic Church, the article on which rightly states that it "is not connected to the Roman Catholic Church", should not be confused with that Church. Until now, nobody has objected to the use in this article on English versions of the Nicene Creed of "Catholic Church" to mean, as now spelled out, the Catholic Church in communion with the Pope, although Anglicans, Lutherans etc. say they too belong to the "catholic Church" in another sense. So there is no reason for having the Liberal Catholic Church alone inserted into the section on the Catholic Church in communion with the Pope. The article on Independent Catholic Churches mentions the Liberal Catholic Church as an example of such Churches. I doubt if the Liberal Catholic Church or indeed all the Independent Catholic Churches together would be considered as more significant - certainly not historically or in numbers of adherents - than Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans. Lima (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If "Catholic Church in communion with the Pope" means the same thing as "Roman Catholic Church", let's change the heading of that section - bring it into line with common usage. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Just wanted to point out that links(citations?) [10], [11] and [12] are dead. They result in a page not found. Mcmillan0520 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

τοὺς ἀνθρώπους usually translated as "men"

[edit]
In the original Greek text, "τοὺς ἀνθρώπους" (tous anthropous), usually translated as "men", is unambiguous, since "ἄνθρωποι" (anthropoi) means human beings, while "ἄνδρες" (andres) means male human beings, as opposed to "γυναῖκες" (gynaikes), female human beings.

I find this sentence unclear. What is it that makes the translation to "men" unambiguous? Are we trying to say that translation as "men" preserves in the translation an an ambiguity that is present in the original? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Its been years since the last post in the previous conversation, so I would like to start fresh in revisiting this issue. Thus far I've simply updated the link to the Nicene revision out of respect for previous consensus (the old link was broken). However, on the current page on the USCCB listing of "samples" that I've linked to, I've noted the strongly worded warning against posting the "draft" text has been removed, and I believe the revision has been "approved" for liturgical use. So perhaps we might have a fair use rational for posting the text now, since in about a year in a half it will be recited by millions of Catholics throughout the country? Just a suggestion :). --Zfish118 (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be more exact, it's ICEL, not USCCB, copyright. Yes, I think we can now post the new text, which will come into liturgical use in most English-speaking countries at the end of 2011 and is already in liturgical use in South Africa. Esoglou (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran usage

[edit]

I'm not familiar with the LCC usage, so I'm hesitant to edit this, but the citation regarding the LCMS's Lutheran Service Book is ambiguous at best. The LSB cites "Christian", NOT "catholic" in the Nicene. There is no alternate rendering given, although a footnote is given (as noted here) giving a meaning of "Christian" in the context. Jim (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone with access to the service book in question please deal with this? Esoglou (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both the text and the citation of the Lutheran Service Book are incorrect. I will correct it according to the text. Also of note, the word "Christian" in place of Catholic comes from the old German translation of the Creed, which pre-dates the Reformation.Mlorfeld (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Church in America

[edit]

Corrected sitteth to sits, spake to spoke

Source
http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=10 Grailknighthero (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic translation wrong, not sure how to correct.

[edit]

Having checked the English-language catechism on the Vatican's own website - here - there are some pretty glaring differences, most of which were what I'd anticipated from my youth; I'm not sure what sway the organization cited has, in Australia or elsewhere, that they seem to have translated it themselves. First-person plural is the most obvious difference, but pretty minor - more substantially:

  • "All that is, seen and unseen" rather than "all things visible and invisible."
  • "Only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father" rather than "only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages."
  • "Of one Being" rather than "consubstantial."
  • "Born of the Virgin Mary" rather than "incarnate of the Virgin Mary."
  • "Suffered died and was buried" (not sure what became of the commas there) rather than "suffered death and was buried."
  • "On the third day he rose again" rather than "rose again on the third day."
  • "Fulfillment" rather than "accordance."
  • "Worshipped and glorified" rather than "adored and glorified."
  • "He has spoken through the Prophets" rather than "who has spoken through the prophets."
  • "Acknowledge" rather than "confess."
  • "Look for" rather than "look forward to."

For copyright reasons, though, I'm not sure what to do about this. On the one hand, I can't "just fix it," but on the other, well... it's wrong! Twin Bird (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The version you are referring to is the 1975 ecumenical version (ICET), which was in use in English-speaking Catholic churches outside the United States, and so appeared in books such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church that were published between 1975 and 2011. It is no longer in current use in the liturgy of the Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Determining the 'correct' Catholic translation (may I suggest) is beyond WP's scope, which is to describe the variations and their histories, providing references. The Vatican link above is to the translation that was in use in the USA till Advent of 2011; the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has since adopted a version that seems identical the the Australian ICEL text (which ought not to have displaced the older!). But in general, each country may have its own translation: this is especially confusing with Spanish liturgical texts, which differ from Mexico to the US as well as from Old to New World. Sparafucil (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about English versions in current liturgical use. In all countries, the Latin Church now has only one English version in current liturgical use. The older versions are no longer current. Esoglou (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English versions of the Nicene Creed in current liturgical use → English versions of the Nicene Creed – This title is ten words long and therefore violates title guidelines, which urge brevity in titles. The title alone takes up nearly a quarter of an edit summary. There’s certainly no reason for the word “liturgical” and probably no reason for “in current use” either…there is no article about former use, and anyway, there’s not really a pressing need for two articles on this topic anyway pbp 14:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The article, even when restricted to versions in current liturgical use, is already rather long. With the addition of versions previously but no longer used in liturgies, it would be doubled. It would be quadrupled if translations, scholarly or non-scholarly, of private composition and not even intended for liturgical use or even for use in non-liturgical prayer were added. The article itself states: "This article endeavours to give the text of English-language translations in current liturgical use"; and "Other English translations are given in scholarly works such as J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Creeds and Philip Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, and in prayer books of many denominations". I see no need whatever for an article covering all translations of the Nicene Creed into English. Esoglou (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't "rather long" It's 26 KB; guidelines define "rather long" as 80-100 KB. If translations were summarized instead of just copied verbatim, it could be much shorter. It's likely that an article concerning several defunct translations would probably pass GNG, so there is a "need whatsoever". And you haven't addressed the argument that pages' titles shouldn't be ten words long, if it can be helped, which it can. In summary, the article can be much longer, but the title needs to be much shorter. pbp 20:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not providing an argument against the move though. --213.196.218.202 (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cleanup template

[edit]

So far as copyright problems are concerned there is only one way of staying within the law, that it is to post links to a website which is authorised to carry the text. (This is what should be, and often is, done with biblical quotations.) Otherwise, delete.
I don't feel there are real POV problems. Neutrality is not guaranteed (and should not be measured) by giving each group a similar amount of space. The section on Catholicism reflects the varying forms used.
Since the lead section states that this article "endeavours to give the text of English-language translations in current liturgical use." the section the Schaff Versions is out of place and a link to the fuller article on the creed itself such as: For an English translation of the source texts see here. Jpacobb (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've tweaked both the cleanup message (which I originally posted) and the lead slightly, as the article now is entitled to encompass all versions of the Nicene Creed. The just of the cleanup comment is that the following two things need to happen:
  1. There needs to be a lot more prose contextualizing various translations of the Creed
  2. A number of the translations need to be removed from the article. Non-copyvio ones need to be taken to WikiSource, and copyvio ones need to be deleted outright
pbp 18:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase about "in current liturgical use" has rightly been deleted. It no longer had any place in the article in view of the changed title, a change that also justified the addition of Schaff's translation and others that may yet be added. I don't see why the Schaff translations of the two Nicene Creeds should be reduced simply to a link, any more than the other translations, each of which ought to have a cited source that could equally be given as a link. Besides, the text that the Schaff link leads to is more than just translations, since they are replete with brackets and italics that serve to point out differences between the 325 and the 381 texts, a matter that is dealt with in the article on the Nicene Creed, from which the various English translations of the Creed were removed to this article to keep the Nicene Creed article from being overburdened.
As long as the texts remain, it is easy to compare them without the need of much "prose" pointing out the variations. But information about the bodies that composed them or adopted them could well be useful.
It would take a legal expert to tell whether a work such as this is not allowed to give the various texts for the precise purpose of comparing them. Does that count as fair use? If it were to be judged illegal, then all the current texts would have to go except for some very old versions still in use without having been edited in the last seventy(?) years Esoglou (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty clear to me that most of this article is copyvio. Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted material and fair use: "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information." I'm no expert, so I won't delete it all yet. --JFH (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I deleted it and it will be investigated by WP:CP --JFH (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly, strongly recommend posting 3-4 complete translations that are (a) clearly public domain and (b) either a historical or practical basis for describing other versions. This approach would avoid copyright issues, shorten the article immensely, keep nearly all information anyone might want to find, and avoid being non-encyclopedic. It also might not take very long to do based on the current version. Denn333 (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I wonder what the legal experts will say about quoting different versions of the not all that long Nicene Creed for the purpose of comparison, as in this article. If they rule it out, questions will follow about the quotations of versions of the shorter Apostles' Creed, of the Lord's Prayer and of other liturgical and biblical texts agreed on in still recent decades. Esoglou (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think to make a fair use claim you'd have to claim everything quoted is necessary to make whatever point is being made. For most of these, I can't discern any point besides, "here's this translation." --JFH (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is comparing the translations. I await with interest the decision on whether quoting these extracts from wider-ranging liturgical publications is allowed in Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure if I published an interlinear Bible or hymnal with several versions of each hymn that wouldn't satisfy fair use even if I said the purpose is comparison. If the information being conveyed is the most important differences between the texts, you should be able to do that with short quotes (and ideally you'd use secondary sources, otherwise it's OR). If the information is the texts themselves, and you're asking the reader to compare, then that's just reproducing copyrighted material. With something short like the Lord's Prayer, it might be easier to claim you need the whole thing to show the difference, though I'm not sure you do. --JFH (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let us just await the decision of the experts. If they outlaw the quotations, we can look forward to plastering similar notifications on Agnus Dei, Apostles' Creed, Confiteor, Epiclesis, Gloria in excelsis Deo, Pater Noster, Sanctus, Te Deum, Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon, Words of Institution ... with regard not only to the texts in English but also to those in Latin, in view of the spelling and other changes introduced in still recent decades in the Nova Vulgata and in the Roman Missal and Liturgy of the Hours. And that concerns only the Latin tradition: I presume that the English translations of the prayers of Byzantine (Eastern Orthodox) tradition, such as the Agni Parthene and the Axion Estin, are in many cases even more recent. As I said, I await the decision with interest. Esoglou (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to lie. This is stupid. I can't tell you all how many times I literally see these different creeds just plastered ALL over the place with no evidence given about any sort of copyright. I don't know who has a stick up their you-know-what to claim that all these are actually copy-written, but it's a translation of a mostly 1700 YEAR OLD text. Like, if I look up copyrights about this kind of stuff online, you literally can't find stuff about it. If this is being done due to the complaints from YEARS earlier about ICEL's translations, I think that mostly had to do with that they were not finalized translations and therefore, were not to be used AT THAT TIME. Any person who has a knowledge of Latin or Greek or whatever original language these were written in could very easily spit out the same exact translations that are being used here. Personally, I'd love to see a legal expert argue a 1700 year old prayer is copy-written, I might even pay money to watch that one. He'd get laughed out of any courtroom he tried, and probably disbarred simply for trying. If the copyright on something like the GIRM or the new translation of the Missal is being used, that's the copyright on the actual book, not the prayers. These prayers are literally ancient, copyright didn't even exist when they were written, and I can guarantee you that even if the idea existed, it wouldn't have been used because that would have been too restrictive for the missionaries traveling around on HORSEBACK to CELTIC BRITAIN. If like the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, to quote one "copy-written" removed version for example, seriously cared that much, I think that they should be tending to more important things on their hands. Like, people have these things memorized, I can rattle the entire Catholic translation off in my head without even trying, a copyright protects an authors work; if hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have the entire thing actually memorized to the T, a copyright isn't going to help protect crap. I'm sorry if someone doesn't like my tone, but I'm not even remotely kidding with this post. These prayers are ancient, the translations aren't copy-written, and if they somehow are found to be, I'd like to have a little discussion with the morons who are trying to copyright them. And I would be extremely surprised if someone seriously cared that much anyway. --Farmer88 (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.divinesacredheart.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192 Here ya go. One link to a site that has the Nicene Creed published WITHOUT copyrights. (Well there IS the one for the site, but it's irrelevant to this discussion). Can we get it back on Wikipedia now? It's really convenient to be able to Google a prayer's name then click on the Wikipedia link to get the text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.5.132 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COMPLIC. I added the 1662 BoCP version to Nicene Creed, as it is one of the most commonly used anyway. --JFH (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly doubt that the 1662 version is now the most commonly used. (I know you only said it is "one of the most commonly used".) If the IP user returns, he or she may be consoled to learn that it is still possible to get the various English translations on Wikipedia: it is enough simply to go back to a pre-2013 version of this article. The legal experts have made no pronouncement yet on whether they can be kept or whether, on the contrary, the blocking of them here can be undone. Esoglou (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the copyright on the original text has lapsed, any translation is legally a different and new work and the copyright in it exists until it lapses under the general law on the matter. The easiest way of seeing this is to consider translations of the Bible translations. Almost all modern translations claim copyright (see for example NRSV) and compilers of Prayer Books such as the Alternative Service Book 1980 are meticulously careful to obtain permission and recognise the copyright both of the Bible passages used and the individual prayers (see p.1292). However illogical this may seem, that is how the law stands and therefore technically speaking the reproduction of recent, modern translations of ancient works on Wikipedia is a breach of copyright unless the owner has given some sort of restricted general license for non-commercial use as in the example given above or permission is duly obtained. Jpacobb (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that these versions of the Nicene Creed are under copyright. The question is whether, as in the example you give, or for other reasons, they may be presented here. As yet the Wikipedia legal experts have not pronounced on the enquiry put to them. As I said above, I await the decision with interest, since it will affect not only versions of the Nicene Creed, but many other texts. Esoglou (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's little to keep waiting for except the possible deletion of this whole article; the reckless pasting of copyright material without any attempt to supply context, explanation of notability or even comparison between versions has been terribly disruptive and by attracting so many templates has made the article practically unreadable. Esoglou, are you merely trying to make a point after the renaming discussion above? Sparafucil (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the very first version of the page contained copyvio, if that's what this is. I think the assumption that these types of texts are free to use is common and understandable. --JFH (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask the editor who accused me of merely trying to make a point to be kind enough to refrain from assuming bad faith on my part. I applaud Jfhutson's action in consulting the experts on copyright violation, especially since the question concerns so many other articles also. Deletion of this article and at least parts of other articles will doubtless follow any decision that the contents are largely copyright violation. Esoglou (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. First, I apologize for the backlog at the copyright problems board. Unfortunately, we have a great shortage of admins working in this area.

Nutshell: I believe that we may use excerpts to analyze the differences, but not present the entirety of current, copyrighted translations. See below for more complex explanation.

Translations are what is called in copyright law derivative works - an act of translation is itself creative and attracts copyright protection. It's arguably one of the main reasons that people are inspired to make new translations. Dorothy L. Sayers would have had little incentive to make her gorgeous translation of the decidedly public domain Divine Comedy if her translation were also public domain and not marketable. :) So, given that modern translations do receive copyright, the question comes down entirely to WP:NFC and fair use.

Our policy permits brief excerpts of copyrighted text for purposes of critical evaluation and comparison, which are certainly transformative. So, in discussing Sayers' translations, the authors of her biography write:

On a line-by-line basis, Sayers's translation can seem idiosyncratic. For example, the famous line usually rendered "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" turns, in the Sayers translation, into "Lay down all hope, you who go in by me." As the Italian reads "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate", both the traditional and Sayers' translation add to the source text in an effort to preserve the original length: "here" is added in the first case, and "by me" in the second. It can be argued that Sayers' translation is actually more accurate, in that the original intimates to "abandon all hope". Also, the addition of "by me" draws from the previous lines of the canto: "Per me si va ne la città dolente;/ per me si va ne l'etterno dolore;/ per me si va tra la perduta gente." (Longfellow: "Through me the way is to the city dolent;/ through me the way is to the eternal dole;/ through me the way is to the people lost.")

Woefully inadequate from a sourcing standpoint, that, but sound in terms of copyright. Here, the authors are excerpting from Sayers for the purposes of direct comparison and analysis.

Looking at the version of this article as it existed before it was flagged, zeroing in for example on the section on Presbyterian churches, the sole introductory text prior to the replication of the entire piece is "The Trinity Hymnal of 1990, published by the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, uses the following translation:" Such use does not seem to be transformative. I'm afraid that as an uninvolved administrator working copyright areas, I cannot see any defense for copying the entire translation. Certainly, we can support a nuanced evaluation that uses brief excerpts - ideally with better sourcing than in the Sayers article - of what changes exist and why.

I understand that the article can be rolled back to an earlier version, and that's certainly an acceptable solution here, but before doing so I would like to know if you (the editors interested in this article) would prefer to come together on revision first. I will keep an eye on the article for replies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't believe a version of this article exists without any full-text versions of translations under copyright. I'm not sure what the best course here is. --JFH (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The best course would probably be either to rewrite the article in the space supplied for rewrites in one of the copyvio templates or to simply remove the material and the templates and work from there. It's a matter of editor preference, really, with the goal of getting the best article out there that we can for our readers while still complying with policies. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Book of Common Prayer of 1970 (ECUSA) is apparently public domain (see Canon II.3.6.b(2) It contains at least two versions of the Nicene Creed. See the links to Holy Eucharist on this page The old 1789 version is available here but be careful when transcribing as it uses the old style 'f' type letter "s".Jpacobb (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for the attention that has been given to the enquiry about copyright. If nobody else does it, I suppose I had better do to quotations of the Apostles' Creed, the Gloria in Excelsis, etc. what has been done here. But not immediately. I regret that I do not feel I have the time at my disposal for rewriting this article as only commentary. Perhaps nobody will feel like doing it, and this article will have to be deleted: an article that did no more than give relatively ancient versions based on texts that ʃtill used the long non-final s. Esoglou (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think preserving the text which notes that each version exists and in which churches they are used with a footnote that allows one to find the versions online or in books is helpful. If someone comes along and adds commentary, that'd be great. I know WP is not a collection of links, but the facts about the usage of these texts in various churches seems encyclopedic. --JFH (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A noncopyvio version is here. I simply removed the violating texts and replaced purely introductory text (i.e. "the version used by such and such a church follows") with "the version used by such and such a church may be found at their website." I'll let others decide whether that is encyclopedic information worth keeping. I certainly think there is at least some encyclopedic information here, and the page should not be deleted, even if it is not very well done right now. --JFH (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone actually working to resolve the alleged copyright violations? Is the Church, or rather The Anglican, Roman Catholic, Antiochian Orthodox Christian , Greek Orthodox Catholic, Presbyterian, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Churches all object to their creeds being posted? Or did the Council of Nicea call a conclave and express their outrage. That would be a pretty longstanding council. Has it occurred to anyone that this might be motivated by a petty bigot? I mean really, are you going to allow this? Are you all that weak willed? 108.241.120.20 (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is here that discussion is expected of the "noncopyvio version", since no Talk page is attached to it (nor can one be attached). My own impression is that an article that omits the most used texts in current liturgical use is of insufficient interest. People would be interested in comparing "live" versions of the Creed as used by major churches, but who is interested in comparing the versions of Schaff, Kelly, Leith, Mingana and Noble and an anonymous prayerbook? Who is interested in comments on differences between details whose context he or she cannot see? Who is interested in seeking out texts to which, at most, some Internet links are given so as then to see what it is all about? It is not worth keeping. Esoglou (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then AfD it, but "insufficient interest" isn't exactly relevant to whether the article should exist. It seems that you want this page to be a place for texts to be presented for comparison. That could be an interesting webpage, though I think it's probably more within the scope of Wikisource than Wikipedia, but regardless, it's impossible given the current copyright situation. Write your Congressman. --JFH (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on English versions of the Nicene Creed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ælfric's translation (c. 1000)

[edit]

This Old English translation can be found here, beginning: Ic gelyfe on ænne God, Fæder Ælmihtigne, Wyrcend heofenan and eorðan. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed&oldid=1204734830"