Talk:Translating Beowulf

OR/Use of wiki voice
In the LEAD there is the line which doesn't seem to be supported by the text enough to put it in Wiki voice. In general I'm not sure how well that statement is supported but to the extent it is I think it needs to be attributed to Liuzza. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it certainly isn't OR. It's supported rather directly by material attributed to Michael J. Alexander in the article body (actually, it's mentioned there in two places). I've named him and cited the statement in the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Original research?
I've been revisiting this article now and again since its creation. It's a head scratcher as there's some interesting and good stuff here, but it reads very much more like an essay than an encyclopedic entry. I wondered what other people thought. The original research is so tightly woven with other materials that it does make it difficult to start weeding out. Thoughts?Medievalfran (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no editorial opinion here. The statements in the article are all carefully cited and written to state plainly what the scholars thought. If they sometimes had strong views, that is their prerogative Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I was hoping that some other folks might give their opinion too. Just looking through the first few sections, for instance, there are quite a few 'statements of fact' that don't have any citations. I'm just concerned that if anyone wanted to follow up quite a few of these claims they wouldn't know where to go. At least one ref to what appears to be an undergraduate essay too. Again, curious to hear other opinions. Medievalfran (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * – All opinions are welcome, but the charge is serious and I'd like a) to know if it's not a simple misunderstanding (we don't cite the lead, as it just summarizes what is in the article body; when a paragraph is cited at its end, the implication is that the citation covers the whole paragraph). If statements do need sourcing, of course we can go and find the source - I certainly didn't arrive at the article with a mass of opinions on the subject, so if a citation has been omitted, I'm sorry, and it'll be sorted out; and b) to know what exactly you think is uncited, so I can check the sources. Obviously the question "is this sentence covered by that source" is a matter of fact, not of opinion - it either is or it isn't. On the undergraduate essay, I've removed the source. If there are any further specific issues in the article, of course they'll be fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * - I see, perhaps then I misunderstood about the lede. Even so, it's quite discursive to my eyes. When I have some time I'm going to go through and add some citations that I know of / some 'citation needed' tags - - to flag for me as much as anyone else as I'm really hoping to add to this when I have some time. I'm not sure this is really a 'serious charge', I just wanted to start the discussion. Medievalfran (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh good, I'm glad that's all it was. I'll remove the tag and will set about citing the lead (repeating refs) to minimise future issues among medieval folk. If you spot anything else just let me know. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * - Flagging here for myself/ you/ others. The discussion on eg. Domesticating v foreignizing is well written - if this were an essay. However, the discussion as framed currently is not taken from published sources. Have any academic sources explicitly brought in this idea in these terms? The Lawrence Venuti text cited in this section and in the lede is not explicitly discussing translating Beowulf, but is a theoretical text about translation generally - so more appropriate to a page about translation theory than the specifics of Beowulf. What would be needed, I think, in this and other sections, would be to show how these specific ideas have been discussed in 'Translating Beowulf' circles --- using the language of that discussion rather than adding in analysis. This is what I mean by original research - in places, the article is a (good!) analysis of some discussions going on, rather than an encyclopedic record of them. I do query removing the OR tag as I would like to draw other editors' attention for their opinions on this. Perhaps I am totally wrong in my interpretation of what OR looks/sounds like. Medievalfran (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree that the Venuti theory paragraph, although derived from Magennis, had become disconnected from the logic. I've removed it, and replaced it with Magennis, who is certainly speaking about translating Beowulf. What does OR look like? – it resembles the ramblings one can find anywhere on social media, not attributable to anything remotely scholarly. Oh go on then: "Translators of Beowulf are generally extremely pretentious and full of themselves, such as 'Famous Seamus' Heaney, who was never one to pass up an opportunity for self-publicity. They tend to write translations that glorify themselves as much as Beowulf as you can see by his use of Irish words in his so-called translation." Like that. I don't think that is the case with anything here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Title
It seems that Translation of Beowulf would be a more normative title, per WP:NOUN: Obviously, "translating" is the gerund form, but it's functioning as a verb here, not a noun. —  Remsense  诉  23:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chiswick Chap, what do you think? I wanted to explicitly query the primary author before requesting a move. — Remsense  诉  02:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd Oppose for several reasons. Firstly it's already a correct and clear phrase, and everyone understands it; English permits, no, is entirely comfortable with verbal nouns, whether Understanding Shakespeare, Developing your Business, Growing Potatoes, or Appreciating Philosophy: it's the way we express a wealth of concepts clearly and concisely. Secondly it's appropriately short, better than the suggested title. Thirdly, it does not cause confusion with the existing Translations of Beowulf which the other title does. In short, it's not broken and it doesn't need fixing (or as nom would presumably wish to say, does not necessitate fixation). Nom might also reflect that both "translating" and "translation" are forms derived from the verb "translate", and there is no greater merit in the -ation form. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Chiswick Chap, oh yes! I disagree with your first two points, as the naming guideline linked above is fairly clear—but your third has convinced me. Thank you for the reply. — Remsense  诉  13:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)