Talk:The Internationale/Archives/2022

Sixth Anniversary of the October Revolution?

Resolved

 – [1]

The October Revolution occurred in 1917! Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Isaac Rabinovitch: And? Please clarify what you want to discuss in the article, otherwise see WP:FORUM, and possibly WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ilovemydoodle: This comment is from February. It referred to a typographical error made by Uncle G, which xe corrected a few hours later. I've added {{resolved}} above to make this clear. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ilovemydoodle Did you notice the title of the section? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Isaac Rabinovitch: Huh? What do you mean? Please clarify. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It means you need to read the section title. Please slow down and read stuff more carefully before you go on the attack, if you want people to stop seeing you as a troll. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Bringing back the lyrics

Guys i have to bring back because i want multiple languages on The Internationale so please don’t remove them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FA49:5241:5D00:61E8:152A:C931:F39B (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• There is 17 years of talk page consensus against this, from the 2019 discussion above on this very page, to the discussion in Talk:The Internationale/Archives/2004. This is an encyclopaedia, not a lyrics dump. Also, you thoughtlessly duplicated content that was already there, and re-introduced content that is actually wrong, and got corrected with good sources (actual academic ones, not news articles by journalists). Uncle G (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • But some lyrics in the public domain, should we restored it (unless if we understand about Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights for some translations). --2001:4452:490:6900:59D6:2630:1508:9132 (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    • No, because it's Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that is relevant, not copyright. This is not a lyrics dump. It's an encyclopaedia article. Indeed, if the argument is that the lyrics are in the public domain, then Wikisource is definitely the place for them. This is a point brought up here again and again over those 17 years.

      And once again you have thoughtlessly duplicated content that is already in the article. So I'm going to undo that thoughtless edit again. Please think, and read what you are editing.

      Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

      • What about some translated lyrics or different versions of "Horst-Wessel-Lied", should we also removed? --2001:4452:490:6900:15FD:E0D6:766:B51B (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
        • I haven't looked at that article, so I'm not going to comment. I have looked at the years of talk page discussion here, though. It seemed eminently sensible. But no-one, until now, had the courage to actually do something: to get rid of the huge lyrics dumps to allow an actual encyclopaedia article to grow. (I've seen it many times over the years, where massive plot summaries and lyrics dumps hide the fact that there's little to no actual encyclopaedia article present.)

          Here, I'm personally willing to compromise over the original and the one that actually became a country's national anthem. You'll note that I haven't touched them, and nor did Drmies. I'm concerned about the "literal English translation"s though. The fact that they are completely re-done with not even an edit summary by the likes of Special:Diff/1071453728 does indicate that they are the personal notions of inexpert Wikipedia editors and not necessarily accurate in any revision.

          I was also personally happy with the analysis that got restored, even the stuff pending sources. After all, I did keep some of it in. ☺ Hence the duplication. As I wrote at User talk:RuleTheWiki#The Internationale there is a difference to be split. And I think that most of what you just took out about the Soviet Union's anthem could probably have been sourced; although what I found on that, but didn't have the time to use, suggests that there was more, and slightly different stuff, to write on why the Soviet Union changed its anthem from internationalist to nationalist.

          Uncle G (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

          • I was wondering about that "literal" translation myself, Uncle G--I don't even believe in the concept of a literal translation, and the diff you linked is really interesting. IP, we are not going around with blunt axes chopping down forests because we like the view better. This pruning was much more judicious than you might think, and Uncle G was able to make up for it, by writing properly verified and relevant content. But, in the end, yes, no, we are simply not a repository for translations. (Oh, there's a lot of ... stuff in the Horst Wessel article...) Drmies (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

            Judicious or not, there is no benefit to this article by removing the example translations. Some of the historical and political relevance of the Internationale comes from its status as a widely-translated song. We already have sections describing these translations, why not allow the reader to view them directly? Flameoguy (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would hardly call the discussion a 'consensus'. The discussion of what belongs in an encyclopedia is pretty contentious and if you look at the excerpt from 2019 you would find that everyone supports the inclusion of the lyrics in some form. You can continue to reiterate that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" as if nobody else is aware of this, but that does nothing to demonstrate the encyclopedic value of the text. Flameoguy (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)