And what if readers don't understand Spanish? As a translator, I have to say I am strongly against the idea that a translation counts as original research. Translating quotes has been practiced in academia for a very long time, and just in the last month I must've read several papers with quotes in languages I didn't understand well enough to read without the translation by the author (German, Latin, etc). If I want to quote an academic paper in Spanish for an article where there are few or no English-language sources available, I should be able to quote directly from the paper but provide a translation so that English speakers who do not speak Spanish can benefit from the quote. The great thing about the wiki process is that if someone disagrees with my translation, it can be fixed (I have fixed a few translations on en.wp myself). 2011/7/29 Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com>
> > No that's not what it would mean. > It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English > language page, we should quote that source in Spanish, and not quote it > using our OWN translation. As editors we should not be creating > publications, only quoting publications. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge > > > On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote: > > I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish > exts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is > that > mportant to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, > a > erifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather > by > reputable author publishing just such a translation. > > his would mean that only English-language references are acceptable > n en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea > no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously > reaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing. > You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you > ersonally think things should be, without distinguishing which you > re describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion. > > d. > _______________________________________________ > oundation-l mailing list > oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org > nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
