Talk:Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler

Inclusion of obit in article

This article went through DYK without having the obit itself in it. Now, an IP insists on adding the obit in bolded text into the article, and accuses me of "political vandalism". I can't really see any need for having it here; the article is about the obit, it's not the obit itself. And there is a link to the obit at wikiquote. --Eisfbnore ^talk 09:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Eisfbnore: I now understand that Eisfbnore don't want people to see for themselves the real wording of Hamsun's obituary - which is not quite as unnuanced as many Norwegians have claimed. Without the short text (four lines) of the obituary, the entry - actually under the specific heading "Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler" - amounts to slander of Hamsun due to lack of ref to what he actually wrote. It's NOT, in my understanding, Wikipedia's task to LIMIT available information. With the name of this entry, it will be expected that "Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler" is to be found under it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.26.222 (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC) — 85.165.26.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

First of all, I'd like you to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) and avoid personal attacks. As said before, this article is about Hamsun's Hitler obituary, it's not the obit itself. For example, when you read about a book on Wikipedia, then you read about the book, not the book itself. This isn't about limiting information or not letting people "to see for themselves the real wording of Hamsun's obituary"; it is about seeing what fits in and what does not. Wikipedia is not a WP:QUOTEFARM, and for so short articles like this one, it takes up way too much space. There is a link in the article to the obit at wikiquote, which I think curious readers will find handy. Eisfbnore ^talk 01:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Esfbnore: In all respect to you, your work and your politics, let the obit stay. Your "about"-argument doesn't hold, as any entry "about" anything must include basic reference to the factual premise. Stop quibbling over four lines, when the rest of the Wiki-entry is 8 times that. Your comparison to quoting a full book becomes silly, as the obituary is only four lines. - Have a sense of proportion. Wikipedia's NPOV core policy necessitates in this case that the subject of the ensuing discussion of the obituary - i.e. the obituary itself - is included. Your limiting of what people can see for themselves in this case, contrary to what you claim, amounts to censorship. Stubbornly repeating that your censorship is not censoring, fails on its own unreasonableness. "Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler" fits nicely under the entry called just that. - I came to the entry myself for the original obituary, found it omitted, and as a service to Wikipedia included it. Don't get carried away in your personal preferences, to the detriment of Wikipedias overall usefulness. I'm simply helping out. Pls don't waste my time and effort. (I'm unfamiliar with how to "properly" deep-edit Wikipedia, and so don't know what your tildes are about - but here they are: 85.165.26.222 (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

Your arguments doesn't make really much sense to me. The article creator left out the obit, and now you seem to be trying to illustrate a point by constantly re-adding it, whilst accusing other editors of vandalism. You have made no edits to other Wikipedia articles than this one so far. If you do want to help out, then starting an edit-war isn't really a good idea, I fear. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and censorship is not the case here. Why whould I then provide a link to the obit at Wikiquote? Eisfbnore ^talk 02:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Eisfbnore: You're "Gaming the system" - using your superiour knowledge of how it works to go against Wikipedia's intentions. Muscling me out - as I'm sure you can do, knowing the system btr (now you've posted warning to block me) - won't change the fact that an entry called "Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler" should include it, particularly as it's that short - 4 lines, plus two names. Accusing me of "starting an edit-war" when specifically YOU started it, and continued it, doesn't help your credibility. It's not pertinent whether I've made other edits or not (which I have) - stick with the facts, drop your attempts at mud-slinging. Re soapbox: Seems to me you should find other outlets for your political preferences, than to vandalize the info on old man Hamsun's errant ways: Let the little obituary speak for itself. Your stubborn denial of censoring, even while performing it, only lessens respect for you. That factual arguments "doesn't make really much sense" to you, comes as no surprise, in the light of your demonstrated stubbornness against factual info on Wikipedia. Get real. The obituary-text should absolutely stand, as per Wikipedia guidelines. - You, on the other hand, should leave it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factlover1 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC) — Factlover1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Tried to add tildes, something clashed, trying again Factlover1 (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There are questions of possible copyright violation here. I suggest that this matter be raised at WP:Content noticeboard as it appears that no consensus can be achieved here. Another route would be WP:RFC. Factlover1, you need to understand that edit warring, because you don't agree is a sure and certain way to get blocked. Please read WP:3RR. You have clearly already exceeded this. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

After obtaining permission from Aftenposten, Morten Abel, April 8, 2011, plus Hamsun's publisher Gyldendal, Gerd Hjelmtveit, the copyright-issue is resolved. Obituary thus reinserted, with link and reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factlover1 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, your statement that they have given permission is not enough. The owners of the copyright will need to contact Wikipedia and give permission to use the copyrighted material. Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials is the starting place for process. GB fan (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If the obituary text is still copyrighted, shouldn't it be deleted from wikiquote as well? --Eisfbnore ^talk 16:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have posted about this there. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Outside comment: I believe inclusion of the text would be warranted under "fair use". We have a whole article dedicated to this brief text. If this was an article about a work of visual art, we would include a copy of the artwork as an image. We do this under the fair-use doctrine of US law, and under our non-free content criteria. While the latter are not worded in such a way as to include text content, it does make sense to apply the basic idea of these criteria also in cases of quoting text. So: would our use of the text infringe on commercial opportunities of the copyright holders? Hardly; there is certainly no commercial market for selling licenses to reprint this text (as there might be with bona fide literary works, poems and the like), and the permission obtained from the publishers ensures we're not stepping on anybody's toes. Does the inclusion of the quote add significantly to the understanding of the article? I'd say yes, just as an image usually does in an article about a work of visual art. Given how short it is, seeing the full text gives the reader an understanding of the tone and laconic style of the text that isolated shorter quotes would not. (Note: double-posting this here and on the "editor assistance" page.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The copyright-permitted obituary - permit sent Wikipedia - has now been included, translation approved by representative of copyright-holder.

Eisfbnore: Your latest "cleanup" was a positive surprise, to the point that establishing final concensus now seems well possible (IMHO). If you should wish to remove/change the now rpt obit-parts, pls do - left it in in deference to you. Perhaps link to original obit-text should be included http://www.1sted.dk/2verdenskrig/adolf_hitler/knut_hamsun.aspx ? Apart fm these minor details, the entry now looks good - correct and informative - to my eyes. Hopefully 2u2. Factlover1 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct translation of "Forkynder" being "Proclaimer" or "Preacher"

The translation of "forkynder" as "prophet" is not included as a correct translation in the main Norwegian-English dictionary. It appears to be motivated by political bias against Knut Hamsun - by making his obituary of Hitler appear more unreasonable than it is - rather than adherence to the correct translation of "forkynder" as "proclaimer" or "preacher". Vandalizing an entry on basis of apparent political opinion against a writer is not in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV. Unsourced ref to NYT as justification for erroneous translation does not change the fact of what the correct translation of a word is. 85.165.24.213 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:NONENG. I am myself Norwegian, and I concur that "forkynder" translates more correctly to "preacher" rather than to "prophet". However, since a reliable third-party English-language source cited in this article uses "prophet" explicitly in this context, we should do that as well. --Eisfbnore ^talk 20:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Esfbnore, that's getting silly: falsifying translation because someone else has made the mistake. "Forkynder" does NOT translate to "prophet". Your "reliable" source is not, here. The correct translation should be used, personal political sympaties do not apply. Do not edit-war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.24.213 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Factlover, please read the rationale provided by Eisfbnore above. I have reverted your edit. We follow what the sources say in Wikipedia. Using IP addresses to edit in this manner is sockpuppetry. If you continue like this you will be blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Jezhotwells, pls read dictionary, primary source. "Prophet" does not appear as translation in dictionary (which "Eisfbnore" even admits above). Sanctioning translation documented as wrong, is not reference to correct Wikipedia source. (No "sockpuppetry" - forgot about login, I'd sign full name if allowed.) Supporting wrongful edit with threats of blocking appears uncivil. Pls desist. Factlover1 (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Please have a look at WP:SYNTH (and perhaps also WP:PRIMARY/WP:SPS). Even though most reliable Norwegian dictionaries translates "forkynder" to "preacher" or "proclaimer", they haven't done it in this context. At the time, the NY Times article is the only available English-language source that has written about this death notice. And the NYT wrote "prophet". Full stop. Case closed. End of discussion. Eisfbnore ^talk 19:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Norwegian-English dictionary is the primary English-language source. NYT makes lots of mistakes, even to running faked articles, cf. Jayson Blair-scandal Factlover1 (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No it's not, since it hasn't written a word on Hamsun's Hitler obit. Sorry, but WP isn't the place to "correct" reliable sources, even if they are wrong. Eisfbnore ^talk 19:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is "patent nonsense", Eisfbnore - admitting your source is wrong, while still calling it "reliable"; as remarked, NYT is quite often factually wrong, as here.

A first-rate English-language source for "preacher" "in this context" is the Hamsun-centre's current exhibition on the "Politics" of Hamsun: http://hamsunsenteret.no/en/component/author/page/103-knut-hamsun's-posthumous-reputation Factlover1 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Factlover1 has been blocked for 48 hours. Despite this, I feel that the source that was eventually provided is RS, and maym in this context, be better than the NYT. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Atle Kittang is a noted Hamsun-expert. Eisfbnore ^talk 20:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And the new source includes a well-written (non computer) English translation of almost the entire work. --CliffC (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, 2 Q's: what do the used abbreviations "ce", "-spc", "-toc" etc. in edit summaries mean, and is there a list of such somewhere? Factlover1 (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

ce = copyedit; toc = Table of Content; spc = space. "-" is removal of any content. See Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. --Eisfbnore Tnx, useful! Factlover1 (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hamsun-centre, article on obituary by Prof. Atle Kittang

Re deletion of ref. to article at Hamsun-centre by prof. Atle Kittang: Cf. edit-summary: "Sorry, Eisfbnore, wrong on this being Wikipedia-OR, it's attributed" - pls don't edit-war.

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Knut_Hamsun%27s_obituary_of_Adolf_Hitler"Factlover1 (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

One last detail

The OTRS ticket number needs to be posted here, the template to use is Template:OTRS ticket. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong template (or at least overly generic), but we have now received permission and I've added the template to the top of this page. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

THanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation needs polishing

What is the source of the current English translation? It sounds like something that came out of Google translate: "I'm not worthy to speak loudly of Adolf Hitler, and to any sentimental rousing his life and deeds does not invite." As another example, a partial translation here reads

"...in a time characterised by unparalleled brutality, which eventually overthrew him."

while our translation reads

"...in a time of exampleless [unequalled] brutality, which in the end felled him."

Now that we have legitimate access to the original, can't we get a polished translation by someone who speaks both Norwegian and English at an advanced level? --CliffC (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Very understandable comment. The translation is a collaboration with the right-holding publishing house Gyldendal (as noted above). The main problem is that even in the Norwegian of the day (May 7, 1945) Hamsun's orginal was tricky, somewhat enigmatic and archaic - and probably deliberately so. A rendering true to the original will also carry these problems, or openings for multiple interpretations, whereas a "polished" version will not. E.g. just changing the mentioned sentence to a much better sounding. "and his life and deeds does not invite any sentimental rousing", weakens a probably intended emphasis on the "sentimental rousing". Which is why the stilted version is probably the more correct translation ("probably" as Mr. Hamsun regrettably cannot be consulted fo confirmation). I'd go easy on the "polishing". 85.165.24.213 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation of "rørelse": This connotes both "emotion" and "motion", as in "people in motion" - a likely intended double-meaning. "Rousing" maintains more of the double meaning, cf. "Riksmålsordboken". 'Eisfbnore', hope u see this, could u pls place and insert the ref and link to the original obit-text in the right manner and, if preferred, place? Tnx Factlover1 (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090809034717/http://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/article390532.ece to http://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/article390532.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090809071850/http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/article896537.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/article896537.ece

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) 06:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)