Talk:Til Ungdommen

Untitled comment

Why is the Kraakevik rendition particularly notable? Birgitte Grimstad released the song in the early 90's (if not earlier).

Untitled comment

maybe this translation is better: http://home.online.no/~bjni/tilungd.htm SKvalen 01:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing references

Unfortunately, the article includes neither references nor citations. As such, it's not a bad article, but being Danish and not Norwegian, I'm not qualified to improve on it. (I took the liberty of adding it to WikiProject Norway.) One final question, though: Could parts of the article possibly be problematic w.r.t. copyright? Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, that's done on this page, who'd have known? ;) Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

English translation

While the Rod Sinclair translation is poetic on its own, it omits a few verses, has one that I can't match to the Norwegian, and in my opinion, shifts the message of some lines. I'm Danish, not Norwegian, but I can read the language. Below is my own translation which might be a little less poetic, but a perhaps little truer to Grieg's poem.

For the youth.

Surrounded by foes, enter your time. Under a bloody storm – dedicate yourself to battle.

Perhaps you ask in fear, uncovered, open, what shall I fight with what is my weapon?

Here is your defence from violence, here is your sword: Faith in our lives, the value of mankind.

For all our future’s sake, seek it and praise it, die if you must – but: Increase and strengthen it.

Silently the grenades glide in their trajectory. Stop their drive for death stop them with spirit.

War is contempt for life. Peace is creation. Put your efforts in: Death must lose!

Love and enrich with dreams all that was great! Head for the unknown seize answers there.

Unbuilt built power plant, unknown stars. Make them with spared lives' bold minds!

Noble is mankind, the Earth is rich. If there is need and hunger it is due to deceit.

Crush it! In the name of life injustice shall fall. Sunshine and bread and spirit is owned by all.

Then lowered are the weapons powerless down! If we make human worth we make peace.

One who with right hand carries a load, dear and irreplaceable cannot kill.

This is our promise from brother to brother: We will become good towards mankind’s Earth.

We will take care of the beauty, the warmth as if we carried a child gently on our arm! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakobsen1978 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Text may be copyrighted until 2014

The text is not free, it is protected 70 years after the end of the year Nordahl Grieg died (1943). ZorroIII (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

ZorroIII has also raised this issue also in connection with the addition of translations. If the original Norwegian cannot be published, then presumably translations cannot be either. We need to take this issue seriously.
I wonder whether the fact that the poem is already VERY much in the public domain makes any difference. It is already very well known, in detail, so publishing it on a web page (with no intent of commercial profit) is not revealing something that was previously "secret". Within the last week, the full text has been published (in audio form) on national television - at memorial services in Oslo Cathedral and in Oslo city centre. The local newspaper where I live published the full text of the poem on its front page (indeed as the only text there). It seems to me that this aspect of the text already being in the public domain would make a difference, but I am not an expert in this area and raise the issue in the hope that someone with more expertise can express an opinion. (I have noted from some brief web searches on the topic that rules in this area are not completely black/white.)
Another thing to look at is whether it is possible to seek permission to publish. I don't know how to do that in a case like this where the author is dead; perhaps someone can help with that. Joe Gorman (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found a source confirming that the text isn't in the public domain. The current norwegian copyright law was first enacted in 1961, and it is not retroactive. When the poem was written in 1936 it would be covered by the Berne convention and be protected for at least 50 years after the authors death, i.e. 1994. It could also be covered by any national legislation from that time period which might protect it for a longer period, but I haven't found any such legislation. It would be helpful if someone knew what the protected period was in 1936.
If it isn't in the public domain we might still be able to reprint it and translate it here, depending on the wishes of the author. The poem and the ideas it contain was obviously meant to be read and sung and spread to our youth. It was written for use in the Norwegian Students Society, they might know if reprinting is allowed. Conscientiouspirate (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

From the current Norwegian copyright law (Åndsverkloven [1]) you can see in § 61 [2] that it replaced the law "Lov om åndsverker" from 6 June 1930. I'm not very well versed in this kind of wordings but it might look like it also replaced "Lov om forfatterrett og kunstnerrett" from 4 July 1893, revised 25 July 1910. However, finding the original text of these laws online seems to be beyond my searching skills. (Maybe someone is able to get it digitalized from Riksarkivet, if it isn't already [3] ?) -Laniala (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Either way, it is now 2014, so re-added the poem. Hekseuret (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Literal Translation

While the "literal translation" is mostly good, it is not always an entirely literal translation. In particular, there are a few instances where the translator seems to struggle with the nuances of certain words in both languages. Is this translation taken from an external source (in which case it is best left alone and referenced) or is it simply an attempt at a literal translation by a Wikipedia contributor (in which case I will make a few minor alterations to make it more literal)? Maitreya (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me where I can improve my translation. Thank you in advance. (Morten Årstad (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC))

They have already been (more or less) corrected through various edits by different users. -Laniala (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for adding a "third" translation

(Note: this refers to a translation added by me, which was the "third" one at the time. It was subsequently removed, for reasons that I do not understand Joe Gorman (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)).

This poem is deservedly receiving a lot of attention at the moment, and I feel that there may be many others (like me) who want to communicate the ideas of the poem to a wider audience, outside Norway.

I feel that the Rod Sinclair translation is quite good linguistically, and has the strength of following the rhyming structure and rythm of the original - making it suitable for e.g. a song performance. However, I feel that the need to follow the rhyming structure limited the language in a few places, so there was some straying from the message of the original text. In addtion, this translation is incomplete.

I feel that the literal translation is mostly accurate, but misses the nuances a little in the English. Besides, poems are not poems if translated literally.

So I tried a kind of compromise between the two. I have not tried to retain the rhyming or exact rythm of the original, so my translation is not suitable for singing. But neither have I constrained myself to supplying a literal translation; I have taken the freedom to stray a little in the language itself but (I hope) not in the message behind.

I am a scientist and a researcher, not a poet. Although English is my mother tongue, this is my first ever attempt at a translation of a poem. If others more qualified to judge feel that I have failed, I humbly accept their view. But in these special days when people may wish to spread this poem widely, I hope I may have filled a need, even if imperfectly. Joe Gorman (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, as the text is not free and should be removed from the article. ZorroIII (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If it is not allowed to publish the original Norwegian text in the first place, then I agree: the pros and cons of different translations don't matter because they should not be published either. I've raised some issues about the copyright issue in the section above about copyright. Perhaps we can get some clarity from further discussion about that. If it is after all OK to publish the original Norwegian in a setting such as this, or if we can obtain permission through proper means, then the issue of the advantages of different translations becomes relevant. Joe Gorman (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Are citations needed for translations?

Some translations (from Norwegian to English) have been included in the article, and at least one contributor has objected to the names of the authors of some translations being included without a citation.
Wikipedia guidelines indicate that transations are not regarded as "original research". The guidelines also state that the that "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." Taken together, these guidlines indicate that translations by Wikipedians are acceptable for inclusion as part of the body an article.
Wikipedia guidelines also state that citations are needed for material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged". In the case of translations, challenges could be about (a) The accuracy of the translation itself; or (b) About the accuracy of the claim that the translation was provided by the person indicated. Concerning (a), it seems to me not likely that the translations will be challenged. I therefore see no need for citations for that purpose, and propose that citations would become needed only if challenges do in fact arise. Concerning (b), if the information about the identity of the translators is added by the translators themselves, then it is also not likely that that will be challenged. So, if that is the case, no citation is needed. Joe Gorman (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Joe for this explanation. Although user Hirzflag removed my name from my translation within two days I have discovered that my translation has become widespread. Maybe because of youtube user Arkivalia who posted my translation with the sung version by Herborg Kråkevik. It is true that I chose Wikipedia as my first medium to publish the literal translation, yet I feel that by today it has gained acceptance. From 100.000+ hits on youtube to paper in Humanistic Youth Norway's International Summer Camp Paper to a worship flyer by the First Mennonite Church in Denver Colorado and even to the Homeland Security Watch website. Under a selection of publishers recognizing my name as translator for the literal translation. (Morten Årstad (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC))

Published on YouTube by user Arkivalia and republished directly or copied several times all over the world.Over 109.000 hits on Arkivalia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EvhUAIb4jw

Published along Art July 25: http://archive.feedblitz.com/146414/~4048620

Published July 27 by Jojosoppogned http://jojosoppogned.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post.html

Published unknown date at: http://oslove2011.wordpress.com/

Published unknown date at: http://www.hartenziel.nl/shownode/video/nodeId/_EvhUAIb4jw?doNotReloadParent&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=520&width=800&modal=false&height=295&width=480

Published July 30 under video by Elfgirl93: http://beckyskaleidoscope.blogspot.com/2011/07/surrounded-by-enemies-for-youth.html

Referred to and nearly word for word republished July 30 2011 on Homeland Security Watch website: http://www.hlswatch.com/2011/07/30/ut%C3%B8ya-and-us/

Published August 7 in the Humanistic Youth (Norway) International Summer Camp paper: http://www.humanistiskungdom.no/upload/Ungdom/Sommerleiravis%202011/Avis%202%20no%20spread.pdf

Published by the First Mennonite Church Denver Colorado on a worship flyer for August 7 http://www.fmcdenver.org/.cWtools/download.php/mnF=2011%2008%2007%20Worship%20Folder.pdf,mnOD=Worship%20Folders,mnOD=My%20Documents,dc=firstofdenver,dc=co,dc=us,dc=mennonite,dc=net

Reference to my translation on Wikipedia at Reddit around July 24 http://www.reddit.com/r/Norway/comments/iytio/hj%C3%A6lp_til_at_overs%C3%A6tte_til_ungdommen_af_nordahl/

The reference to WP:Verifiability and WP:NONENG I thought was mostly if you used foreign language source material as a reference to backup a claim and you needed to translate it.

While I can understand the desire to put your name below a translation I disagree to using it below the literal translation(s) of this poem. With a specific name under it that person also gets credit and/or blame for edits done by other users. For example this edit on 27th of July is one of several that did some improvements on the literal translation initially provided. The links given above reflects the changes done in that edit and edits done by other users at various dates. Some users have also added their own translations because there was a specific name under the translations, for example [4] [5]

Putting the name below a poetic translation is another thing, but as it is, in my opinion there are already too many alternative translations of the poem on this page, and you need a fairly wide browser window to even see them all without the lines breaking at odd places. -Laniala (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution Lanialia. I agree that the page looks quite horrible. What I do not understand is the choice to remove my name, and leave Joe Gormans name under his translation. Also stating that there are too many translations - yet doing nothing about it. You "disagree to using it below the literal translation(s) of this poem." - That is off course in your right, but without any arguments I cannot take that seriously. You continue with "With a specific name under it that person also gets credit and/or blame for edits done by other users" This is true - yet these changes are against Wikipedia policy and against Norwegian copyright law. Even removing my name from my translation is against that same law. By translating Nordahl Griegs poem I created a new piece of intellectual property. If the copyright holders of Nordahl Griegs poem has an issue with me publishing my translation I suggest they contact me.

http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19610512-002-001.html#3 "§ 4. Opphavsmannen kan ikke sette seg imot at andre benytter hans åndsverk på en slik måte at nye og selvstendige verk oppstår. Opphavsretten til det nye og selvstendige verk er ikke avhengig av opphavsretten til det verk som er benyttet.

      Den som oversetter eller bearbeider et åndsverk eller overfører det til en annen litterær eller kunstnerisk form, har opphavsrett til verket i denne skikkelse, men kan ikke råde over det på en måte som gjør inngrep i opphavsretten til originalverket."

(Morten Årstad (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC))

I only changed the page back to the state it was before you added your name. You on the other hand reverted a whole lot of other changes/improvements done after your first translation. Just like you feel the need to have your name below the translation, other people probably had their reasons for adding several other translations. You and I can disagree with the point of adding names, however, your name had already been removed by other people too. So I'm obviously not alone in sharing that view. Just like you and others are not alone in wanting to add their name below their own translations. Like I said above, there is a difference between a literal translation and a poetic translation. A literal translation anyone that knows the source language can do, there is nothing overly special about it, so I see no reason to have a specific name below it, especially when it isn't accurate because of all the edits done to the text, and also who did the translation first does not have any relevance to the article. A poetic translation on the other hand usually requires a lot more work, so here it might have some merit to add the name, but there were so many of them it was in my opinion too many.

And if you really are going to drag in policies and laws into this you might want to read and adhere to those policies and laws yourself. By translating the original poem and adding it to Wikipedia you yourself might have already knowingly broken the Norwegian law as you so nicely quote it. There is a reason the poem cannot be found on the Norwegian Wikipedia. They are taking the stance of caution. Either way, if it was 70 or 50 years that was the law at the time when Grieg wrote the poem, by adding any text to Wikipedia you, I, and everybody else specifically add it under the Creative Commons license, giving permission for anyone to edit anything and reuse any of it more or less as they please. (Assuming of course you own the copyright to it in the first place, if not it tend to get removed altogether.) And with so many people that can edit it (one person has already improved your original translation after you put it back in yesterday) the only way to find out who to should get the original credit is to look through the edit history. All in all, no reason to add your personal name below it when it isn't even accurate any more. -Laniala (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What criteria have been applied in deciding which translations to retain and which to delete?

I agree that the page was getting a bit untidy with so many translations. This is partly because some careless editing spoiled line alignment, and partly because there were just too many and the page was too broad. But it seems to be that this has been "solved" in a rather simplistic way, just deleting a few translations, with no apparent logic about which to delete. My translation (Joe Gorman) is the only one which includes a rationale in this "talk" for its usefulness (see "Reasons for adding a third translation"). No one has challenged that, or complained that my translation did not meet its objectives. So I find it objectionable that is has been removed. Also, if it is felt useful to offer several translations they could be shown under one and other to avoid formatting problems. That would have been an alternative "tidy up" operation that would have avoided apparently arbitrary deletions. Two recurring themes in the discussion here have been: (a) Should names of translators be shown? (b) Should it be allowed to show the text of the poem at all, due to copyright concerns? I can see arguments both ways for (a). On balance I think that it seems OK to show names, but have no strong feelings on that, and would not mind my name (Joe Gorman) being removed from my translation if others felt strongly about that. On (b), there are also arguments both ways. On the one hand, the poem is VERY obviously in the public domain. On the other hand, it may be true (I am no lawyer) that it really is against copyright rules to display the poem, or a translation of it. BUT: if copyright laws apply, they apply to ALL the translations (and the original). So if copyright is being used as the basis for deleting my translation, and one other, then why has the same principle not been applied to the other translations and the original, i.e. why haven't all the texts been deleted? And if copyright was NOT the basis for deciding which translations to delete, what was? It looks to me like it was a simple "revert" to an older status - which seems too simplistic, and throws away (what some would consider) progress in later translations. Joe Gorman (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the role of a translation on an English Wikipedia page?

What are the reasons for including an English translation in the first place? I think a main reason must surely be to communicate, to an international audience, the content and meaning of the original poem. A second reason might be to allow someone to sing the poem/song in English. Maybe we should agree on the reasons for having one or more translations before deciding which to retain. I think the oldest translation (by Rod Sinclair) does very well for the "singing" role, and should be retained: it rhymes and captures the mood of the poem. But it does not translate the complete text, and strays a bit far from the original meaning in places. I think the literal translation destroys the beauty of the poem, and fails to communicate its underlying message properly to an international audience. For that type of translation, people might as well use "Google translate". I propose that it be deleted. I think the translation I provided was well suited to the first purpose i.e. communicating to an international audience (but it is not suitable for singing). On that basis, I propose that it should be restored. But these are just my opinions. I will wait a bit to see whether other opinions are expressed. Based on that, I will decide what to do. Joe Gorman (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that the translation should tell only what Grieg wrote, not what different people think he might have meant with the text he wrote. That would fit better into an analysis section of the poem, but unless you can find sources to back up the text, that it would be considered as original research. The poetry article and the books written about Grieg might be a starting point to find references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laniala (talk • contribs) 14:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Laniala that the main purpose of a translation should be to communicate what the poet wrote. When I wrote above "the content and meaning", I meant this only at the level of the meaning of the words - not a literary analysis of any deeper meaning behind etc. But, in my opinion, neither of the two translations currently included do a very good job of explaining what the poet wrote. The one by Rod Sinclair is incomplete and contains no translation at all of some of the verses. The "literal" translation is complete - but fails to make use of nuances of the target language to try to capture nuances of the source language (that is what a a "literal" translation means). I therefore still see a usefulness in providing alternative translations. Joe Gorman (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I also note that Laniala (who was the contributor who chose to delete several translations) has not answered my question about the criteria that were applied in deciding which translations to delete. So I detect no objections to the proposal I made some weeks ago to restore alternative translations. Joe Gorman (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It was not me that originally removed the other translations, thus I can not answer that editor's reasons for removing them. Check the page's edit history if you don't believe me, but it's a bit of a mess because of editing back and forth to a state over half a year ago. I just happen to agree that they were unnecessary. In my personal opinion I wouldn't really mind if Rod Sinclair's version gets removed too.

With that said so you know my stance, I really do not see a reason to add yet another translation that is a merge of literal translation and what the poet-probably-meant translation. Translating «under en blodig storm» to «with blood all around» is in my opinion stretching it too far if the aim is to write what Grieg actually wrote. If it is to express what he might have meant, then of course it is perfectly acceptable. But what he might have meant with his poem might be considered original research, and that is why I mentioned maybe having an "analysis section" so there is more room for descriptions and adding references and stuff.

If you disagree to how certain words are translated then I don't think anyone will stop you from improving the translation, but don't expect everybody to agree. Like does «under en blodig storm» mean «within a bloody storm» or «during», «amidst», «under», «below», «beneath»? Even the "obvious" word «storm» can have a couple of meanings depending on if referring to the weather or more figuratively, but here I believe English has the same ambiguous meaning depending on the context. Or if a word can mean several different things in English it is also possible to add footnotes like was done with «jorden er rik». -Laniala (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Words in the text that are not linked

Can words such as this be linked to sections in any of our other articles?

• Højskolesangbogen (:da:Højskolesangbogen)

--Hirzflag (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)