Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 May 31

Language desk
< May 30	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	June 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 31

German-to-English translation: the same scholar seems to have provided two diffrent translations

Hy there. I need some good advice because I'm faced with a strange problem.

The whole original German text is the following:

• Ich kenne genug Stämme in Afrika. Sie gleichen sich alle in dem Gedankengang, dass sie nur der Gewalt weichen.Diese Gewalt mit krassem Terrorismus und selbst mit Grausamkeit auszuüben, war und ist meine Politik. Ich vernichte die aufständischen Stämme mit Strömen von Blut und Geld. Nur auf dieser Aussaat kann etwas Neues entstehen, was Bestand hat [1]

The article Herero and Namaqua Genocide mentions the historian Mahmood Mamdani who in a book quotes the two following sentences:

• I destroy the African tribes with streams of blood... Only following this cleansing can something new emerge, which will remain.

The article also states that: 'Mamdani takes note of the similarity between the aims and desires of the General and the Nazis. According to Mamdani in both cases there was a Social Darwinist notion of "cleansing" after which "something new" would "emerge".'

Now two of us suspect that he got the two sentences from the following translation:

• The exercise of violence with crass terrorism and even with gruesomeness was and is my policy. I destroy the African tribes with streams of blood and streams of money. Only following this cleansing can something new emerge, which will remain. [2] (please follow note 174 and you will find this: JBG's translation)

A helpful user found another translation:

• I know enough of African tribes that they give way only to violence. To exercise this violence with crass terrorism and even with gruesomeness was and is my policy. I destroy the rebellious tribes with streams of blood and money. Only from this seed something new will emerge, which will remain. [3] (at the end of the paragraph you will find this: JBG's translation)

IMHO this translation probably isn't perfect but it's simply way better than the first. My main problem is that both translations seem to have been made by the same guy: JBG. Another problem is that Mamdani seems to be focusing himself upon the word "cleansing" which simply doesn't appear in the original German text at all.

Are we supposed to include both translations made by the same translator in the article regardless of their discrepancies? Please notice that these aren't minor discrepancies. Replace the first quote with the second text because it's a better translation of the whole original German text? Remove Mamadani's arguments because of the "cleansing" mistranslation?

We could leave the text about Mamdani unchanged (including the translation he uses) but create a note which clearly explains that he quotes a poor translation, point out that the German text simply doesn't use the word cleansing, but making no comment whatsoever about his written conclusions. IMHO that would be the better solution. But what are the rules and policies to follow upon such a matter? What are we supposed to do? Flamarande (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

After being helped by this very reference desk (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 May 20) I believe that a more accurate translation is the following:

I know enough tribes in Africa. They all follow the same reasoning, in which they only yield to force. To exercise this force with the stark application of terror and even cruelty was and is my policy. I annihilate the rebel tribes with torrents of blood and money. Only from this scattering of seed can something new emerge, which will endure. (Feel free to suggest further improvements of this translation - but I'm quite certain that the article will probably not use it because of the concerns of OR) Flamarande (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is basically an IAR situation. Tell the reader what the reader needs to know in order to understand the true situation, as revealed by the best available sources. If something is likely to mislead the reader, it needs to be either omitted or clarified. Looie496 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

JBG (Jan-Bart Gewald) published the first translation in 1999, the improved translation in 2011. So no problem in using the second one. By the way, quoting von Trotha without context makes his statements absolute. There is a difference between private letters, official letters or statements published in print media. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you pointing out that Mamdani choose to only quote two sentences without the context of the whole paragraph? Flamarande (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If we are quoting Mamdani we have to use the translation he uses. I see no reason for a change.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to only use the older, poorer and quite frankly dubious translation. I see a serious reason for the inclusion of JBG's improved 2011 translation: simple accuracy. More accurate sourced translations should be preferred over poor ones. Flamarande (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That this is a poor translation is your personal view. Mamdani uses this translation in explaining the nature of the genocide. You can't change Mamdani quote as this would falsify the source itself-this is obvious. The Mamdani quote where he uses the translation and explains its meaning is noted as quote from his book. You might personally not like the way he translated and interpreted it,but he is notable and reliable scholar, plus it is somewhat absurd to argue that we should manipulate quotes from scholarly books. If Mamdani is quoted, his exact words the translation he uses need to be used.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So you argue that Mamdani's quote and his interpretation has to stay regardless of its flaws because he wrote it in a book and it shouldn't be removed. I can live with that, provided the article also includes JBG's second translation, which after all also appears in a book. How about a note which provides the original German text? Flamarande (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Please present a reliable source that claims Mamdani's quote is a flaw. In any case we are quoting Mamdani, and there is no reason to remove him. The translation he uses(and his quote is much larger than translation) is commonly used in numerous notable and reliable sources. In any case even if there would be a source that would criticise Mamdani(which so far you haven't presented), than Mamdani would stay regardless, because this is his translation and interpretation which is notable and present by reliable source. You might also read on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've posted above that I can live with Mamadi's quote as long as the 2nd (sourced) translation is also included. Flamarande (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I think this is beyond the reference desk, and moved into WP:NOR and WP:RS territory. In general, it is recommended best practice to also provide the original in a footnote. However, in this case, it seems that what is referenced is not to the original von Trotha, but to Mamdani, so we naturally have to use his text, no matter how he arrived at it. Trying to second-guess which translation he used, and why, would be very inappropriate in any setting. I also have to say that I fail to see significant semantic differences between the two versions in context (and yes, I do read German). Mamdami's version is somewhat condensed, but that's his decision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We can't remove Mamdani's quote, agree upon that. But we can also include the 2nd translation (and make a proper note which shows the original German), right? Flamarande (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Depens on how you do it. As mentioned there is barely any difference in translation. And if you will insert the second translation in the section where Mamdani is, the question will be why? Because if you are doing it to prove that Mamdani made a "poor translation" or is wrong, than that would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. What would be the reason for adding the second translation you found in the section where Mamdani is quoted? Are any reliable sources commenting on Mamdani's translation(which btw. is used in numerous works so it is not restricted to Mamdani only).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I will avoid making any comparision whatsoever and it will NOT appear in the same section. However I hope that we can agree that a sourced translation of the whole original German text can and should appear in the article. Flamarande (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason why Mamdani's incorrect translation should be pointed out is that it undermines his argument that the Herero War was conducted by the Germans on the same premise of "racial cleansing" as the subsequent Holocaust. This is one of Mamdani's key arguments, and it is based on an incorrect translation. To fail to point this out is to abet Mamdani in misleading readers. Everyone who understands German (including myself) can see that Mamdani mistranslated this text. I disagree that this is any longer a case of original research when a group of German speakers in effect confirm the research results. This is an example of a shortcoming of Wikipedia's generally good model of requiring a reliable published source to confirm every single statement. Following this model means that readers will continue to be knowingly misled until some academic publishes a paper pointing out Mamdani's mistake. I would argue that a departure from the requirement of a reliable published source should be made when 1) the issue is a mistranslation, and 2) three or more Wikipedia editors with solid skills in the languages in question confirm the mistranslation. However, I am not involved in these kinds of policy decisions and don't know how to go about winning acceptance for such a policy. Marco polo (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand German and I see no failed translation.Stephan Schulz also agreed that this translation isn't fundamentally different. In any case unless you have any notable or reliable sources claiming that Mamdani wrongly translated the quote, this will remain your personal view, upon which we can't base any article. I am happy to see that acknowledge that doing so would breach WP:OR-a situation that would be unacceptable. Personally I believe that Mamdani's translation is quite ok(which is also completely irrelevant to the article).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I question your understanding of German. How would you translate the word Aussaat? This site defines it to mean "sowing" (i.e., of seed). Can you find a source that defines Aussaat to mean "cleansing", as Mamdani stated? Marco polo (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a misleading question. Von Trotha clearly references his previous statement ("Ich vernichte die aufständischen Stämme mit Strömen von Blut und Geld") in "Nur auf dieser Aussaat kann etwas Neues entstehen...". The extermination of tribes is literally not a "sowing", so von Trotha himself uses a figure of speech. Figurative language is notoriously hard to translate. The first translation uses a different figure of speech that is not a literal translation (but carries, in the context, the same meaning - both "sowing" and "cleansing" are principally positive terms). The second uses a different figure of speech that to some level avoids the original incongruity in von Trotha's text, because the use of "seed" in a generic sense is more established than the use of "sowing". Neither of the translations is quite literal, and neither is "wrong". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any source that says Mamdani is wrong? Otherwise this is a clear breach of WP:OR. Obviously the word can be translated as such. Mamdani isn't the only one using this translation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The word can be (mis)translated as such and if you know German you know that. Whatever: it has to stay because he is a reliable professor. Flamarande (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing misleading about my question. "Cleansing" is clearly a mistranslation of Aussaat and one that serves Mamdani's agenda of equating the (admittedly horrific) Herrero War with the even more horrific (but ideologically very different) Holocaust. I've made my point. If others choose to stonewall it in support of Mamdani's agenda, so be it. I have better ways to spend my time than debating people whose priority is something other than accuracy. Marco polo (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Your question is misleading because the translation of a single, figuratively used word is insufficient to judge the quality of the overall translation. What you are doing now is, at best, classical original research. Based on your perceived difference in two translations, you suggest that Mamdani, a distinguished and award-winning scholar, a professor who holds a named chair at a US Ivy League university, and an expert on late colonial and post-colonial Africa, uses a mistranslation to push his agenda. I'm sorry, but that's preposterous unless you have very reliable sources supporting this particular claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mamdani's quote and his conclusions are held to be reliable and shouldn't be removed. I can accept that (I don't agree with that translation but whatever, I know the concerns of OR). However the second sourced translation (of the whole original German text) also appears in a book and it can be be included in the article, RIGHT? Flamarande (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I think this is far beyond the scope of the reference desk - you should probably take it to WP:NPOVN or WP:NORN. But if you ask me, then no, I would not support inclusion unless you have a good reason for it. What would your reason be? I also think that at least some editors have lost the perspective. It's not as if Mamdani's argument hinges on the particular phrasing. Take the newer translation: "I destroy the rebellious tribes with streams of blood and money" - don't you think one could just as well write "there was a Social Darwinist notion of "destruction" after which "something new" would "emerge" to make the point?

Very well, I will take it to these instances. I already made it clear that Mamdani's quote and translation will remain unchanged because he is held to be a reliable historian. As for the reason: to include a translation of the whole original German text. If that isn't good enough... Flamarande (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Mamdani's argument is impeached by his reliance on a word which simply doesn't exist in the original. Cleansing isn't a side issue, it's the issue, and you can't get from "sowing" to "cleansing." One has to suspect Mamdani is simply ignorant of German and trusted the translation. The other alternatives, negligence and dishonesty are worse. I would be tempted to lose Mamdani as a source. The matter can be raised here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If it is absolutely necessary to retain Mamdani, a big bright flag needs to be raised, which would best best done by noting :"Although it should be noted as per this translation "..." that the word cleanse is not found in the original German.(ref)" μηδείς (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Tibetan script

Hi. What does this image from Qinghai, China, from Google Earth show in terms of meaning? It is a screenshot from Google Earth, which is also available on Youtube. Also, where can I get software to display the script correctly on my computer without necessarily needing to type it? Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 21:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Coordinates: 32°54'35.18"N 97° 2'46.68"E

Use the "timeline" function on Google Earth. Fast forward to 2005 March 29, and it is located in Yushu Prefecture. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 21:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the second and third lines say Om mani padme hum.--Cam (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And the first line says "om mani padme hum hri om mani padme hum hri" (a form of the mantra).--Cam (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)