Talk:Translation/Archive 1

Wikipedia and translation

• Wikipedia Translation — project to aid translation of articles in foreign Wikipedias into English. Sign up at it: "... How little we really know of how much we fail."

Apogr 19:01, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Problems in/caused by translation (into Hungarian) Translation may also be deemed to be a mental process whereby on the input of a text in L1 you produce an output in L2, usually in writing. The process takes place under several constraints, such as to the purpose, time available, the translator's knowledge, the tools used and the format and media of the text, etc. If the idea is to produce, as a result of the translation process, a mutation of the original text (usually fiction) by complying with the rules of retaining the original format or genre, you create a piece of translation that is recognised as a works of art on its own rights. Therefore, such translations are a subject of literary criticism, rather than seeing it as an information technology product that may be judged on the grounds of properly delivering a particular code/message in terms of accuracy, timeliness, completeness, reliability and authenticity. Most translations from English concern announcements, news and reports on facts, policies, novelties and innovations that may not have their equivalent wording readily available in the target language and thus they have to be created on an ad hoc basis. Since the totality of translation works is done in an unsystematic and uncoordinated fashion, despite various modern CAT tools that emphasise the importance of shared glossaries and dictionaries, the resulting condition is that L2, the target language is going through an unwanted and uneven transformation in terms of spelling, vocabulary, grammar and usage. Translation business in Hungary is up for grab and the works may be done by numerous, linguistically unqualified people who may not be aware of the problems of non-compliance with the rules of their native tongue. This may be understood better, if you consider that translation is not a listed profession in the Hungarian DOT, and localisation is another sign of not taking the issue seriously. In localisation the efforts made to sell the product abroad dominate the process, making self-defensive linguistic considerations thereby a low priority only.

comment

see also translation memory, comment. Good editing job done! thank you: originator apogr

insert: localisation has been with us for a long time. It refelects the basic fact that translation is done under a number of constraints, some of which are difficult to resolve. Remember that the titles of movie films, the tranlation of poems, etc. are all examples of localisation, whereas the translation of software components, including on-screen instructions, user manuals, program specifications, etc., pose new constraints due to the economy on space of writing in the source language and the cut on the occurence of repeated phrases.

In contrast to the original defintion and wording of the concept of translation above, I am more inclined to describe this activity at the highest level of abstraction as an activity akin to copying, an other important and universal operation, with the difference that here the resulting copy deemed to be equivalent to the original has no resemblance to the original, yet believed to be equivalent for use in lieu of the source (primarily text) on the agreement by people that have sufficient insigth into and undersatnding of the universes of both languages. Apogr 09:31, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

" Computer and video games usually have Japanese as the source language and English as the target language." seems to be pretty centered around english speakers. It seems likely to me, that more people play computer games translated from English than from Japanase. Generally I think that sentence doesn't belong there -- Fuqnbastard 14:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

miscellaneous

This strikes me as needlessly snarky:

the translation of literary works, which are characterized by more "artistic" pretensions

A friend who is an interpreter for the deaf educated me regarding a subtle problem with this phrasing:

a distinction is made between translation, where both the source and target texts are written

Because there can be sign-language translations of taped performances, which are in turn taped, he prefers "fixed text to fixed text" for translation.

Disambiguation Requested

I came here looking for Translation (geometry) (or Translate (geometry), which redirects to Translation (geometry)), the geometric act of moving vectors across a plane (or higher dimensional space) without changing any of their other properties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.205.200.21 (talk • contribs) .

A link to Translation (geometry) is available on the Translation (disambiguation) page. It was listed as Translation (mathematics) but is now clearly identified. — Grstain | Talk 15:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I should be more precise. In most cases I've seen on WP, any ambiguous word or phrase redirects to its disambiguation page. Translation links directly to the currently unspecified (languages) definition. I was requesting it link to Translation (disambiguation) much the way Scaling links to its own disambiguation page.

placement of reference to fan translation

I found "fan translation" listed under the "see also" under "Translation of religious texts". I suspect that was a mistake, perhaps an artifact of an earlier version of the page.

I wasn't sure where to put it, though, so I just stuck it under the main "see also" heading, since, as far as I know, no one really considers video games to be "religious texts" (although, come to think of it, I know some people who might appreciate the irony). --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:13, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed Links

I have removed the following links as they are in my opinion redundant (be bold!). My reasons are listed. If you think the reasoning is invalid or irrelevant then by all means re-instate the link, but I would appreciate if you could justify it here... --HappyDog 01:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Translation Services — A portal for translators and people looking for resources in translation.

  This is advertising, and not relevant to the article.

• The Altavista Babelfish, online machine translation software

  This is one of the links in 'list of on-line translation resources'

• Google language tools

  One of the items on the page is a translator, but we already have a list of on-line translators. Rest of page is Google-specific (e.g. view site in other languages)

• Open Source translation tools for South African languages

  This doesn't seem relevant, particularly on an English language site.

• Translation Dictionaries

  A hard-to-navigate site that has no instructions. I don't think we should link here even if it's relevant. Too confusing.

• Online dictionary of English and 7 other European and Asian languages

  Seems too specific to include in the article. This is one of the borderline cases though. At the moment it might be useful, but a list of on-line dictionaries would be better and fairer.

The following links I have left. I have included them below, along with my reasoning.

• List of internet translators

  A more complete list would be better, but until then this gives a good selection of translation resources to the reader.

• Internet Language Translation -- English, French, German, Danish, Spanish, Finnish, Czech & Italian

  This appears to be a meta-page which uses other translation engines. Very useful, though a better title could probably be found. Can this replace the first entry? Or is it favouring one site too much?

• Translation Journal

  One for professional translators, I think. Don't know whether to keep or not, but have left for now.

• On the Relative (Un)translatability of Puns

  An article about translation. Quite appropriate to an article on translation. Could do with some more examples like this.

• Directory of Translation Agencies & Freelance Translators

  Can't tell if this is a commercial site or not. If it is a directory of translators and agencies it may have a place here.

• Wikipedia Translation — project to aid translation of articles in foreign Wikipedias into English. Sign up at Wikipedia:Translators available, or view a list of pending translations at Wikipedia:Translation into English.

  Useful to get people involved with translating Wikipedia.

• Translation exchange

  Why this link has been removed? It's an innovative tool that I didn't found anywhere else and it's not a commercial site...

Untranslatable words

It's rather disingenuous to fall back on word borrowing in an attempt to show that difficult-to-translate words can often be easily translated. The article additionally seems to have forgotten the criteria it set in the previous section, namely fidelity and transparency — pâté de foie gras meets neither of these. The argument that this is better than "inflamed liver paste" is a strawman: nobody would present the latter as an accurate translation. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 01:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also wonder why it was translated as "inflamed", which seems to have little to do with either the product or the French name. I have changed it to "fat liver paste", in the hopes that someone later will try to fit in better with the explanation. I do think it's useful, however, to indicate that the names of typically foreign items are usually not translated. Lesgles 18:03, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Translation associations

Is there any need of listing all translation and interpreting associations, even from non-English speaking countries? If that's the case, then look at this link! [1] Regards --Adriano 19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Separation

This article really needs to be split into translation and translator. Right now, both topics are handled here. Scriberius 16:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! --Cultural Freedom talk 07:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Noted translators?

The list of noted translators is so skewed and full of holes, I wonder if there is any use having this section. What are the criteria for listing people here? Real contributions? Recognition in the field? Or the whims of contributors? For instance, I have nothing against Nancy Andrew, but what is the justification for having the translator of one very recent work of Japanese fiction in the list, but none of the other greats in that field (except for Arthur Waley, who I myself added)? What about such great past translators of Russian literature like Constance Garnett? I am sure that one could keep adding people to the list, but in the end, what is the point of a raggedy list of translators with no guiding principle on who should be in it? Surely it would be better to simply have a link to the List of translators, or perhaps the Category:Translators to English (bad enough as that is) or other relevant categories. I really feel that this is an area in which Wikipedia definitely does not excel! Unless a better way can be found to come up with a decent (if not authoritative) list, would it not be better to leave this kind of list out? Bathrobe 04:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Though I am not sure that Constance Garnett qualifies as a *great* translator, she probably is notable. More to the point, you are right about the arbitrariness of this list. It does belong more to an article on translator(s) as has been suggested elsewhere in this discussion page.Maxschmelling 02:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the "Noted translators" section of the "Translation" article be removed and set up as a separate "List of noted translators."

To be sure, there is already a "List of translators," but it is organized differently and is not user-friendly to someone who may want to locate a particular translator.

Nihil novi 03:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Pursuant to above discussion, I have deleted the "Translation" article's "Noted translators" section. Anyone is, of course, free to resurrect it as a separate "List of noted translators" and link it to the "Translation" article. Nihil novi 21:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam?

Are many of the things that 24.149.57.49 is adding linkspam? I ask sincerely, I'm not quite able to judge. Thanks, --Cultural Freedom talk :26 (UTC)

And then there's Drkpp --Cultural Freedom talk :33 (UTC)

Translation vs. interpreting

I'm not sure that the oft-repeated definitions are adequate — ie. that both refer to a transfer of meaning between two languages, but translation refers to written forms and interpreting to spoken forms. It seems to me that the essence of the difference is time, not mode. Interpreting is delivered "live", while translators have the time to deliberate, consult, revise, etc.

I'll give a couple of examples to illustrate: a team of translators have a 1-minute recording of a speech, and are given one day to produce an equivalent recording in another language. This may happen between two sign languages which have no written form. It seems to me that this is best understood as translation, not interpreting. Conversely, an interpreter may be simultaneously interpreting a video-recorded presentation, when a few words of text momentarily appear on-screen, which the interpreter interprets.

There are a number of other scenarios that make me question the above definition (written vs. spoken/signed). I had a go at distinguishing interpreting and translation on the interpreting article, if anyone wants to have a look. Anyone aware of academic discussion of these issues? It would be good to tighten the definitions here. ntennis 04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As a sign interpreter explained it to me, sign translation and sign interpretation are two different things. Sign-interpreting is live. He defined sign-translating as going from "fixed text to fixed text" (that has a nice, official-sounding ring to it), eg, a written English text to a videotaped signing performance (or vice-versa). Likewise, working off a tape in one language to produce a written text is translation, not interpreting. As a rule of thumb, if you have a chance to hide your mistakes, it's translating. adamrice 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Translating from English in Wikipedia

I would like to know how to translate a page in Wikipedia, from English to another language, say, the 'Redox' article. If I create a new page, named Redox, it already exists and I don't know where to specify the language in which I write. Could somebody give me an advice? Thank you.

First, looking at the "redox" article, it already exists in many other languages. If the language you want to translate it into is already there, have a look at it and see if you can improve it with new information from the English article. If it's a language not listed there--for example, Norwegian--it's possible the article really does exist at no.wikipedia.org, but hasn't been linked from the English yet. Look for it on the target-language wikipedia site and then link to it in the English Redox article. If it really does not exist, then go to the target-language site and create a new article there. Link it back to the English Redox article, and edit the English Redox article to link to it (and, if you are ambitious, the French one, the German one, etc). When editing a Wikipedia article, links to the equivalent article in other-language wikipedias always appear at the very end, in the form [[en:Redox]] (links to English) or [[de:Redoxreaktion]] (links to German). Also, please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. adamrice 20:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Target language: redirect

Why does "target language" redirect to translation? Studying or speaking in a second language doesn't always necessarily have to do with translation. The two are hardly synonymous. Roehl Sybing 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I just tried to find an article on target language and was re-directed here. I do not make the connection. Perhaps target is a technical term for translators, but target language is also the L2 or other language being learnt by a group of learners. A bad re-direct I think is.219.166.179.99 08:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC) I should have signed in.DDD DDD 08:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Faux amis

Anyone up to adding a section on faux amis (false friends/cognates)?--Gilabrand 10:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In German the german word "Gift" in english means posion

See the False friend article and the List of false friends. —Grstain | Talk 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, I linked the page to False Friends.

--Gilabrand 19:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

"Consequently, as has been recognized at least since the time of the translator Martin Luther, one translates best into the language that one knows best." While I tend to agree, this is still an opinion rather than a fact. In practice professional translations are not always done by native speakers of the target language. So I am removing this phrase unless somebody wishes to qualify it or at least source it. Lfh 16:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, there is even more material in here that is in desperate need of citation or qualification. The following assertions cannot be left to stand unsourced:

"Many newcomers to translation erroneously believe it to be an exact science, and mistakenly assume that firmly-defined one-to-one correlations exist between words and phrases in different languages ... They assume that all that is needed in order to translate a text is to encode and decode between languages, using a translation dictionary as the codebook.[2]" (Citing one single instance is not enough.)

"Most translators will agree that the situation depends on the nature of the text being translated."

"The industry expects interpreters to be more than 80% accurate; that is to say that interpretation is an approximate version of the original. Translations should be over 99% accurate, by contrast."

"In fact, in general, translators' knowledge of the target language is more important, and needs to be deeper, than their knowledge of the source language. For this reason, most translators translate into a language of which they are native speakers."

Also, the sentence:

"If translation be an art, it is no easy one."

not only lacks meaningful content but also reads like it was written in the 16th century! Lfh 11:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Process

I feel the "decode/re-encode" paradigm is a wee bit too jargonny. Could these terms be replaced with understand and retell? Decode is actually problematic since there is no neutral medium outside of language (the code) to decode the text into before re-coding into another language. Maxschmelling 20:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Why don't you give it a try? User:nihil novi, 8 July 2007.

Trying to come up with an alternative, I thought, why is this section there at all. It seems to belong more rightly to the machine translation section (where it also appears). In fact, the 'misconceptions' section higher on the page lists thinking it is possible to simply decode and encode as a translation misconception. Would the Translation entry suffer without the "process"?Maxschmelling 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The "The process" section may be deleted with no loss of substantive information, and with a positive gain in clarity. Nihil novi 04:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed "The process". A stub entitled "Translation Process" still exists and is referenced in the article on machine translation. Translation is still awfully long, but I think it's better/clearer now.Maxschmelling 23:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Measuring success"

It seems to me inappropriate to be introducing massive, indigestible, bureaucratese citations from one specific translation manual ("The European quality standard EN-15038:2006"), "referring to 'causa finalis' (WHAT)', as the higher-ranking legal contractual principle and base objective for the detail specification of a project work package...."

"WHAT," indeed, does this gobbledygook mean? And not every translator translates for the sake of a "legal contractual principle."

I suggest, rather, that what useful substance there is in all this be summarized encyclopedia-style, with inline citation of the source. It is much too early into the article to be introducing massive citations from one specific translation manual, without even an introduction to justify it.

Compare the August 17, 2007, 20:57, version of "Measuring success" with the version as of August 12, 04:28.

Nihil novi 16:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The ranking of Purpose and Fidelity of a translation are the 2 valid principles to determine translation success. This is the issue. Several international standards have determined this to be relevant for the quality assurance of translation services.

EN-15038:2006 is an empirical and valid fact. It is inappropriate to cut it out without indulging into the links and their content.

The previous DIN 2345 was replaced by this standard. DIN 2345 contained the same reference to the Purpose of a translation, nothing new.

Where was the previous Standard DIN 2345 published here? Where is ASTM F Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation?

This article needs serious updating.

Significant 2cd generation developments need to be exposed.

Here are tons of deductive justification:

• Quality Assurance Translation
• DIN 2345
• EN-15038:2006
• ASTM F Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation

• causa finalis

• causa finalis translation this one is very revealing

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.176.107.133 (talk) 23:14:35, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you consider doing the usual thing in Wikipedia: write articles about EN-15038:2006, DIN 2345 and ASTM F Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation, and provide links to them in the "Translation" article — not dump a lot of undigested, apparently verbatim bureaucratese into the "Translation" article. Nihil novi 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this article needs to be seriously re-structured with new tree branches to include all standards mentioned before the content comes.

This also includes the restructuring of this subchapter to include the very significant differentiation between causa finalis and causa efficiens, which was properly and significantly verified as factual. I dissent to the notion that translations are only governed by the self-purpose principle causa efficiens. This is also the intended focus of the standardization organizations.

Tree references to the sub-branches quality management etc. AND translation are a must and significant for an up-to-date description of translation. There is no need to exclude factual information from a structural viewpoint. My content sizes to each tree branch relate and fit to the proportions made under other tree branches, and are definitely not dumps. Continuous improvement is a principle of Wikipedia, and also of the quality principle Kaizen. Please update yourself on these conceptions. May I add some more deductive material to support this:

• Quality Management Translation
• Project Management Translation
• Contract Management Translation
• Risk Management Translation
• Kaizen Translation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.137.69 (talk) 07:36:28, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

• Requirements Management Translation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.137.69 (talk) 07:54:21, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.176.107.133 (talk) 00:34:11, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Since continuous improvement (aka kaizen) is a principle of every rational human endeavor, why bring it up in the article on translation? Nihil novi 07:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it links to the basic terms you need to know, in order to orientate yourself with quality management, and how quality management implements to translations. Thus, building the motivation to create "translation quality standards" from the very beginning. An understanding of the industrial history in this direction helps to understand the significant impact it is having to translation as an international quality standard. The list of translation problems in this article delivers material for continuous improvement from a quality management viewpoint. It is not a law of nature to leave these issues untouched, and accept the un-quality costs incurred by these problems. The greater the list of translation problems, the greater the need of kaizen and translation quality standards. The translation problem list is indeed an excellent starting point for translation quality management. This is a very valuable contribution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.137.69 (talk) 08:05:17, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

This article is about "translation," not merely "industrial translation," whatever that means. Dragging, into an early part of this article, "European quality standard EN-15038:2006," which (you state in the following section of this discussion page) "is effective for all 23 European languages within the European Union as of August 1, 2006..." is inappropriate, if only because the European Union represents merely 0.5 billion of Earth's 6.5 billion human inhabitants. Nihil novi 08:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly appropriate. What about the USA version (ASTM F Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation) that has been published?

What about it? Nihil novi 09:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The USA population of translators is also faced with quality management. If I look at my search machine, I furthermore discover that China is now interested in ISO 9001 and EN-15038:2006. This article needs serious restructuring and content updating. Your competencies have proven to be inappropriately updated. At least a decade of furthering development within the translation environment has not reached you yet. Psychological resistance to these issues is not appropriate. The Chinese have passed you already.

China EN-15038:2006

The underlying conceptions are definitely spreading out, as the uprise of the Japanese industry has proven in other areas of life due to quality management, profit and non-profit.

You are trying to bend the reality of things in order to support un-quality. There is enough raw data about quality management to make it applicable to translations, e.g. ISO 9001 quality management for services.

I would, once again, encourage you to write Wikipedia articles about EN-15038:2006, DIN 2345 and ASTM F Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation, and provide links to them in the "Translation" article. If these "translation standards" that you keep mentioning are as important as you say, they deserve their own articles. Nihil novi 09:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would again encourage you to accept the structural tree changes to this article. They are valid and relevant.

ISO 9001 Translation

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.137.69 (talk) 09:17:55, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "structural tree changes to this article"? Nihil novi 09:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This comes from the XML corner. XML defines structure and content in the form of a tree-like composition (see also Mindmap). Just understand Table of Contents at this point, if you are not acquainted with XML. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.137.69 (talk) 10:46:31, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Really, what has all this business management mumbo-jumbo to do with the essence of translation? I can see that you are interested in business, but have you ever successfully translated a book for publication? Do you think that a competent translator needs this business jargon in order to translate? Or that business types going through their "procedures" can guarantee a decent translation? What are needed are competent soldiers, and you keep going on about medals ("ISO 9001 service quality certification is would truely be the ultimate goal of a translator"). Nihil novi 12:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The majority of translators work for money and live a competitive environment. The list of translation problems in this article points at potentials for quality improvement. For those who do not want to change, i do not really care. It is not my problem. It is also not my problem to argue around about facts actually. All the issues added are fact-based and relate to translation. What is your problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.137.69 (talk) 12:31:01, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

You have not answered my questions. Nor have you provided evidence for a particular relevance of your business models to translation in general. Your business models shed no light on what a translator does or the knowledge and skills he must possess to do competent work. Nihil novi 12:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The required tasks and competencies for translators and other roles, such as project managers, reviewers, revisors, proofreaders, and final verifiers are specified within the standards themselves, see EN-15038:2006. As well as the task relationship of the mentioned roles to the purpose and use of the translation. I think it is time that you read the content of the standard, before I refer to it 100 times, and still not reach you. The according meta lists of raw data are within the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.137.69 (talk) 13:52:47, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Problems commonly faced by translators, listed in the article and referred to by you above, have always existed and have always had to be addressed by translators, for millenia before business administration, kaizen, TQM, etc., were identified under their present names.

However, the need for a definite translation quality standard remained, and now it is here. Those are the facts.

I have looked at your "meta lists" and found nothing enlightening.

I will eagerly read your Wikipedia article laying out the essentials of EN-15038:2006, when you've written it. Nihil novi 14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As a cross-cultural QM and TQM trainer since 1994 with experiences in many branches and peoples, with over 600 participants, no sweat... From a padegogic viewpoint, I found the industrial history of the quality management issue to be a good starting point, which is well compiled in the famous 5-year-long MIT study 1990, written by Womack, Jones, Roos. The Machine That Changed the World : The Story of Lean Production. Check out Womack in Amazon.com

And read the quality standard too..

Wow, this is a spirited argument. Would whoever it is who is excited about EN-15038:2006 please sign your posts? I concur with Nihil novi. If translation quality control and its industrial standards are such a big deal they deserve their own article rather than becoming clutter in an article where people come to see what Translation is. I do think there is plenty to write on the subject, both in terms of legislated standards and common practice standards, standards for different types of translation.Maxschmelling 22:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that our anonymous editor has now moved most of the gobbledygook out of the article's early, "Measuring success" section, save for "causa finalis" and "causa efficiens," which are terms more suitable to a philosophy article. Now if (s)he can only drop those terms and give us links to his Wikipedia articles on "EN-15038:2006," "DIN 2345" and "ASTM F Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation"...

Nonsense: Purpose (causa finalis) is a central conception of EN-15038:2006 spread out among all roles within the standard. What kind of ignorants took this out? Measuring translation success is not alone goverened by causa efficiens, this is factually false.

May I add this source a second time:

• causa finalis translation this one is very revealing

Causa finalis (purpose) is relevant for measuring translation success Aristole. These are the facts.

Learn about continuous improvement kaizen first, before delivering your un-quality remarks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.158.72.185 (talk) 08:32, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, some people must have some grave coping problems with paradigma change, if not even Aristotle is convincing enough.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.158.72.185 (talk) 08:13, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

All the specific points in his "Quality standards" section (as will be clearer, now that I've edited it for English usage) are either irrelevant to an understanding of the translation process, or introduce nothing new. I request that he reduce this section to links to his Wikipedia articles on EN-15038:2006, DIN 2345 and ASTM F Standard Guide..., yet to be written. Nihil novi 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"EN-15038:2006"-spam revert

I have reverted the recent massive imports of spam related to "EN-15038:2006." Nihil novi 18:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, EN-15038:2006 is an international standard, not spam. Update yourself please. EN-15038:2006 is effective for all 23 European languages within the European Union as of August 1, 2006, and replaces the previous DIN 2345.

Please see my remarks under "Measuring success," above. Nihil novi 00:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added a new section on quality standards for translations, removing the link spam. I'm not quite as familiar with the situation in English-speaking countries as I should be, I guess, so I'd welcome new sections on other relevant standards I missed.--Margit Brause 13:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

unquality?

What on earth is this word "unquality" that someone insists on putting in here? Some new-fangled terminology from business school?? What ever happened to good old words like "poor" or "inferior" quality?--Gilabrand 13:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be a neologism from the anonymous editor who for over a week has kept reinserting ungrammatical and irrelevant or redundant passages and overvalued ideas. Please feel free to revert his versions. Nihil novi 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

All the work I did this morning to get this article into shape has been reverted by someone. I guess I'm just wasting my time.--Gilabrand 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Translation unquality costs are a problem and result from many sources, just look at the listing of sources. And also consider the Kaizen conception.

Check the meta-list: unquality costs It is a well-known term, you need to update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.173.122.24 (talk) 07:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

"Translation Quality Standards" section

In the course of editing, User:Maxschmelling has raised the question of whether the present "Quality standards" section belongs in the "Translation" article.

If that be a motion to delete the section, I second it. Particularly as it adds nothing to the understanding of the topic of translation and has become a bone of endless reversions. Nihil novi 03:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I dissent such a motion, because translation is not just positioned in self-purpose. This motion displays a lack of holism, over-emphasis of self-purpose (concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.182.52.240 (talk) 08:14, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor. I agree that the purpose of a translation is an important thing to take into account when trying to measure the success of that translation. Translations have many different reasons for being performed and as far as I can tell, that simple sentiment is at the heart of a ridiculous amount of text that you have added. The real issue is how much talk of the bureaucratic standards belong in this wikipedia article. To answer that, I would say: As little as possible. Maxschmelling 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Amen! Nihil novi 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Collaborative and horizontal workflow, even cybernetic, structures are nowadays up-to-date. These are post-beaurocratic. Beaurocratic is a vertical structure, Maybe you should read the content of some links to get updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.83.76 (talk) 03:43, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Since you have so much you want to say about "translation quality standards," why don't you write a separate article about them and link it to "Translation"? That's what we usually do when an aspect of a topic exceeds a certain mass. Nihil novi 06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You make yourself ridiculous. There is no mass here. This is mass translation quality standard You want to censor structure and content that doesn't fit into your horizont. Your contribution is psychological resistance against paradigmatic change. You are far away from the generic idea of Wikipedia, and your own self-beaurocrat by only finding, bending, and bouncing around on formatting rules to censor structure and content. Example: The reversal of rock-hard answered call-for-citations like this,

The ISO Survey 2005 - http://www.iso.org/ (just enter ISO Survey 2005 to search, and click on the free, abridged version)

Without looking at the nonsense of even positioning a call-for-citation in a fully self-evident text context. Welcome to Absurdistan. This is the article where you should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.83.76 (talk) 08:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

English translation, please? Nihil novi 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In earlier days, people thought the world was flat, now they know the world is round... paradigmatic change... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.83.76 (talk) 16:50, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous is as ridiculous does. Your link to the ISO Survey leads nowhere. You spell bureaucrat wrong and include nonsense words like unquality. Sign your posts.Maxschmelling 17:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

U spel it right, as a good spellchecker, but u are not aware of the content, now check the meta-list: unquality costs It is a well-known term, you need to update.

Now the other one works too...otherwise use this: The ISO Survey 2005

I've gone ahead and deleted the "Quality standards" section in the "Translation" article, in the absence of any comprehensible arguments on the part of its sole, anonymous proponent. Should anyone wish to create a separate article on "Translation quality standards," or individual articles on any of the standards that have been offered to the public, and link them to the "Translation" article, nihil obstat. Nihil novi 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gone ahead?? You have gone fully backwards again now.

Is your hair falling out because of quality management for translations?

This shows that you actually want to censor the issue.

It is better that you work on the Absurdistan article. You are useless here.

You are flatly shielding the reduction potential of unquality costs.

Anyway, your flat world is not flat, it is round if you look at this:  :translation EN-15038:2006

Yet, now you have advanced to become a quality risk...great. There are other ISO tools to remedy this.

Risk Management (ISO/IEC Guide 73)

and many other revealing documents and tools: Risk management in SMEs

user jbhood noted in a revert that this same anonymous character has been blocked from German wikipedia for these same kinds of additions. He/she seems to be blatantly disregarding the consensus view on this article, not responding rationally to other editors, etc, becoming, what is the word, an un-quality factor? Maxschmelling 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This statement does not comply with scientific (deductive and statistical) requirements.

My argumentation is based on the accepted findings of Aristole, International ISO/EN Standards, and

from meta-search-quiries within a search machine that also offers the functionality of document clustering

to enable further categorization of the hits found. The arguments and behaviors presented here from

vandals are unqualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.180.224.113 (talk) 07:50, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

The word "unquality costs" was indeed defined. Censoring vandals (some disquised as administrators)

only deleted it. Formatting issues are being abused to censor structure and content. Just check the

archive. It is also in the section above. A complaint about this has been escalated to Wikipedia peers.

Here it is again as meta-list:

unquality costs

Yes, indeed. As new knowledge emerges, old structures become obsolete, and some are gripped in fear about the changes.

Actually, in the old days of Rome, it was usual that the person bringing bad news was put to death.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.180.224.113 (talk) 08:23, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 

New Article: Translation Quality

I propose that the issues of Measuring Translation Success, Translation Problems, and Translation Quality Standards should be structured under a new article called Translation Quality. This is based on the scientific consensus on Translators' Liabilities.

So, I've gone ahead and deleted these sections in this article, in the absence of any comprehensible and qualified arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.180.224.113 (talk) 06:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

A subsection on Translation Quality is probably a good idea. I do think that the Fidelity vs Transparency conversation belongs in the article. It is a separate issue. It has a long academic history and so I have put that text back in, but with a less provocative title. One hopes. Maxschmelling 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree Translators' liabilities should be the heading for Fidelity & Transparency and Equivalence. You have to understand that much of the scholarship on translation is not based on translation as a business transaction, but rather translation as an artistic endeavor. If a translation is not contractually undertaken for a "client", no liability exists. I am willing to work with you to include a section on liability and quality measurement, but you need to listen to the views of other editors and to respond rationally. Remember, this is supposed to be an article about translation, about what translation is. maxsch 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Rationally" is the operative word. 172.176.208.17 (his latest numerical incarnation) has demonstrated over the past several weeks that he is irrational and impervious to rational argument. He is running amok and making a hash of "Translation," without any regard for the efforts and views of others. He clearly will have to be banned, or the article protected from anonymous editors. How does one go about this? Nihil novi 19:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My IP service provider changes the IP address automatically. I am protected by data protection law. I also have the opportunity to use TOR (anonymity network), which further protects and shields my surf behavior against stalkers. You need to indulge in the content presented, and not in formatting issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.137.54 (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Update needed: Fidelity vs transparency

Based on:

Jody Byrne, "Caveat Translator: Understanding the Legal Consequences of Errors in Professional Translation," JoSTrans, The Journal of Specialised Translation., Issue 07 - January 2007:

• "Even literal translation, which is considerably more sophisticated than word for word translation, cannot satisfactorily cope with every translation eventuality. So by accepting that translation involves some form of intellectual addition to or processing of the information in the source text, whether by adding, removing, clarifying, interpreting, rephrasing, recontextualising or recasting information for the target audience, we are in effect accepting a role for translators which is subject to a greater degree of liability than a mere conduit of information."

• "translators have a clear duty of care to their clients and they must elicit from clients WHAT PURPOSE translations are intended to serve" (HOW you do it ranks second)

• "The translation community itself is entitled to expect that its members do not tarnish its image or prejudice its reputation as a result of careless, negligent work."

This sounds rational to me...WHAT you do ranks higher than HOW you do it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.176.208.17 (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

also: "Happiness comes from 'fidelity to a worthy purpose' (Helen Keller)" based on the Final Cause conception from Aristole

It is a waste of time for you guys (the true vandals). Structuring and formatting tricks will not change the content fact that Final Cause ranks higher than Efficient Cause. This is a rational fact going back to Aristole. I don't usually quarrel about facts, I embrace them. So, what do you do about people, registered or not, who don't embrace facts? Go to Absurdistan, and stop vandalizing facts.

I have not seen one shred of evidence from you guys that makes this fall. You guys are just running around in circles looking for structural and formatting tricks. Where's the beef (content)? I deliver content. Go and join this article: Flat Earth Society

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.176.208.17 (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, keep cool. Your German counterparts are much more rule-minded as we know the Germans to be (Buchstabengläubig, meaning faith in alphabet letters) (or Bauchnabelblick, meaning belly-button looking). I know meine Pappenheimer (meaning, my cardboard puppets). Wikipedia peers should crack down on this abuse of using structure and formatting issues in order to censor validated content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.48.148 (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Where are the arguments of those rogue agents of risk and unquality?? Your behaviors are a breach of Wiki's 5 pillar principles.

" Reverted to revision by Nihil novi. using TW" Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TWINKLE

Be advised that even when using these scripts, you take full responsibility for any action done using them. You must understand the :Wikipedia policies and use this tool within that policy, or may be blocked for its misuse.

This is not the proper response and argument, Mr. Nikil novi. Your rogue behaviors are a breach of Wiki's 5 pillar principles. You are disqualified.

I propose this tool is blocked for this discussion. I have expressively been invited by Wiki to participate anonymous. Just check my IP discussion.

Please stop this ignorant behavior Mr. Nikil novi, and get back to the basic 5 Wiki principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.137.54 (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop playing the three wise monkeys you guys, or turning a blind eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.137.54 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Added Cleanup Tag

I am new to editing wikipedia, so please excuse me if I am stepping on any toes here. This article needs a lot of work in the area of readability. A wikipedia article should be accessible to anyone who reads it, and as of right now this article is WAY too technical. Too many categories, too much specialized info that definitely belongs in a textbook on the subject of translations - not on its wiki page. Right now the article reads as if it was written by professional translators for professional translators. As a non-professional I found it to be pretty unreadable. I'm not saying it should be dumbed down, just that you need to consider your audience. Also a lot of problems with the writing: sentences should be readable, grammatically correct, and arranged in groups to form paragraphs. I will do my best to help.

As a final note, one thing that absolutely does not belong on a wiki page is a disclaimer at the beginning of a section that reads: "The following section or chapter is wrong and outdated for the following reasons....." To add such a disclaimer is a little childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Man It's So Loud In Here (talk • contribs) 16:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Things were being over-dumbed down, this was childish. The disclaimer was just a response. I am still waiting for arguments in the discussion. You will probably wait for this too.

As to readability: Yes, the text unfolded between professionals, but a lot of new content and structural design evolved from this process. Yet, the antangonists have trouble swallowing the facts presented. They want the old structure, which has become obsolete due to legal litigation and standardization processes. The content of those chapters is OK. The issue is the new structuring next to other higher-ranking approaches. So, we need a structure discussion first, then we can look at the readibilty of content.

It is time for somebody from Wiki to moderate this to a consensus within the discussion area. So thanks for appearing with this objective. Call me eurominuteman. I prefer to stay anonymous, The potential for stalking is too big, considering the no-change & no-discussion & scapegoating behaviors presented up to now, even against indisputable facts and sources.

Eurominuteman, your desire to remain anonymous is working against you here. I don't think its official policy here at wiki (like I said I'm new here), but edits by anonymous ip's are a lot more likely to get reverted than those by registered accounts. I don't really know what you mean about stalking.

Also, I think you are too emotionally involved in this article. You view those with differing opinions as 'antagonists', and every time they revert your edit its an insult against you. The same happens to me when my edits are reverted, which is why I am going to walk away from this article after I talk here to let cooler heads prevail.

Here are my thoughts on the article as a non-expert:

• Its too long, and repeats itself several times. I get that there are two main methods for translating. In one, you try to do a literal word for word translation. In the other, you try to convey the original message which therefore requires considerable judgement on the part of the translator. I feel like this point is made SEVERAL times in the article. The sections "Misconceptions","Fidelity vs. Transparency", and "Equivalance" all seem to say the same thing. Condense all these into one short section.
• The section "Specialized Translation" is bloated. Most of the 12 subsections aren't notable enough to be included, while the subsection "literary translations" is important enough to be a section of its own.
• Just because you say a source is "higher-ranking" does not make it so. I haven't read the books you reference, but somehow I doubt they are "undisputable".
• Finally, I still don't know what you mean by "legal liability and standardization". I understand how liability can come into play, and certainly see how a mention of it is warranted. However I think it is by far not the most important concept for THIS page. Perhaps a page on "Legal implications of translations" is warranted, and that page can be dedicated to this issue.

Man It's So Loud In Here 18:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wiki has already invited me and verified to talk anonymous. There is no MUST in this issue, though many think this is apparently a law of nature. On the contrary, from where I talk there is clear data law protection about this. It is clearly within my discretion to register or not. Nobody has any tool on hand to focus on this. I prefer to focus on the structural and content issues here. Stalking refers to the continuous avoidance of getting to the structural and content issues, and pressing on formatting issues, and the follow-up tort occuring.

So, how long does it take to get there? Continuous re-iterating around formatting issues has no purpose, registered or not. eurominuteman.

Well, things were in a short section called Measuring Success before. Under this, Final Cause and Efficient Cause were positioned based on Aristole. This is where the antagonists chose to tear apart the structure in order to promote their unchanged traditional view after realizing that I had presented valid facts about Aristotle. These steps were written in the discussion above. You just came in later.

So I chose to argue a level higher, and now i included Liabilities and Risk management, which lead to the English article on liabilities. This unfolded into more structuring around Risk, but it also reinforced my structuring about Final Cause and Efficient Cause, and also uncovered the citation about Liabilities and Literary translation that overlap. This fits even less into the antagonist's view. So they kept vandalizing it and made calls about formatting rules.

Yet, Wiki's 5 pillar principles talk a different language. First come the 5 pillar principles, then the formatting rules.

My argumentation chain now has Risk, Aristotle, Final Cause, Efficient Cause, then Fidelity vs Transparency, and Equivalence, finally Quality Management. Quality Management is the final extract of what these people want to avoid. Due to the facts unfolding, now they must avoid Risk, Aristotle, and Quality Standards. So they put their topics outside of this chain to the top. That is where I inserted the disclaimer to direct the topics down again.

Misconceptions and Specialized Translations are not from me. This is not my arena.

Again, Fidelity vs Transparency, and Equivalence are OK from a content view. They are just structured wrong. They are not the most upper reading at the top of the article implying that they are the most important. They belong under Efficient Cause, and Efficient Cause again ranked under Final Cause. This is clearly described in Aristole. The antagonists do not accept this fact, even though judges in a court have ruled in litigations using this ranking.

"Legal liability" means judges in a court of law have clearly defined and decided on the ranking rules. Read the English article about this litigation. Due to this, international standardization organisations have clearly reinserted the legal rules into the standards.

So, the antagonists reject and disregard this summary. They want the old ways to remain. This is clearly structurally obsolete. Many valid facts have been lined up now to support this.

No shred of evidence has been brought forward to break this line of proof.

I still wait for the structural and content arguments. No feedback here. None will come because the line of facts is clear and valid.

A single article for Translator's Risks and Obligations is justified, as long as Fidelity vs Transparency and Equivalence are structured inside of it under Efficient Cause, and not outside of it, as if there was no overlap to any risks involved. Exactly this is being undue vandalized. eurominuteman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.137.54 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that I have delivered my burden-of-proof, now it is time for the reverse burden-of-proof by these antagonists, and not formatting nonsense and other playgardens. eurominuteman

So, now we know. Mr. Nikil novi continues to vandalize these line of facts, and disregard this discussion. Nice guys you have that are registered. I reversed his rogue changes, and I will continue to do so.eurominuteman

Your facts could all be correct (I don't know if they are) but your writing style is completely unreadable to a native english speaker. I am not trying to be rude, just explaining why I revert your edits. Man It's So Loud In Here 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UT

It is time for the reverse burden-of-proof by these antagonists, and not formatting nonsense and other playgardens. First structure, then content, not formatting. Wiki's 5 pillar principles exclude style from consideration. Maybe you are a fake otherwise you would know this. Spellcheckers and style hunters... Birds of a feather sit together eurominuteman

Non-conclusive linkspam claim

I added a few more tags to the ariticle, there is a lot of unreferenced content and what looks almost to be original research. I've reverted anon's contributions that look like linkspam additions from a single source, but I'm no expert in this subject. It's a mess, as far as I can tell - to me, the layman, the article lacks readability, and I think we're writing for the general reader not the experts in the field. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. Dreadstar † 06:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Earlier today I attempted, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, to get "Translation" semi-protected on grounds of its vandalization for the past three weeks. The request was turned down, with the comment that "this looks like a content dispute. Semi-protection is not a valid option where it would have the effect of locking out one side of the dispute."

It's hard to see how work on the article's problems, described earlier, can be attempted when an irrational contributor keeps altering the text non-stop with his illiterate, illogical and nonsensical contributions. Nihil novi 06:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a content and structure dispute based on valid challenging fact presentation. It is time for the reverse burden-of-proof by these antagonists, and not formatting nonsense and other playgardens. I would suggest to report and escalate the abuse of formatting issues for the purpose of censoring factual content contributions and structure, which violates Wiki's 5 pillar principles (by the way, these are the Final Cause items here. What you do ranks higher than How you do it, thank god. So keep running in circles if you prefer. Simplier, just embrace the facts. Why dispute about facts? This make no sense.). eurominuteman

Truly, the foregoing makes not the least sense. And we've been hearing this for the last three weeks. Nihil novi 14:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is time for the reverse burden-of-proof. This your next step. eurominuteman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.177.248.14 (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest reporting the anon user to WP:3RR, there's a clear violation there, it would have a similar effect for protecting the page. On the surface, it does look like a content dispute, so I think 3RR would be the best way to go. It may even lead to a better discussion and fruitful collaboration. I'll go ahead and warn the user now, since he's clearly violated 3RR, if it continues, then report. Dreadstar † 07:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You will have to post warnings on ALL the anonymous IPs. See the page history. Cbdorsett 07:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This problem seems to have been going on since about mid-August - I ran out of time and could not determine the exact date. There are quite a lot of reversions by anonymous editors. It sure looks like the work of one person, using a lot of different IP addresses. I saw one comment that the user has been banned from the German Wikipedia. I don't think this is a sock-puppet problem, but it is definitely something an admin should look into. This is NOT a content dispute or even a question of repeatedly inserting copyrighted text (which is part of the anonymous editor's strategy). The admin that claimed it was just a content dispute is clearly basing that opinion on a short-term view of the edit history. Cbdorsett 07:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the problem, too few admins and too much work - that's what I meant by it looking 'superficially' like a content problem to an admin quickly looking at the evidence. I didn't look at the page protection request, so I don't know what the real problem was. Perhaps this should be taken to WP:ANI and have an administrator look into it, if the same user has an unlimited number of anon ip addresses to use. Protecting the page would be a short term solution in any case, perhaps they can address it at the source, perhaps blocking a range of IP addresses? In this way, I think 3RR is still a viable option. Dreadstar † 07:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If anon is inserting copyrighted text, that's a big problem. Can anyone identify it? We can take action on that, as well. Dreadstar <spanclass="Unicode">† 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The text at the beginning of the "Translators' Liabilities and Obligations" section is directly copied from the article by Jody Byrne that is linked (published in the Journal of Specialized Translation, Issue 07). Also most of the text further down under "risk findings" is verbatim from the same article. I would imagine that to be copyrighted text. maxsch 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am doing some editing of the article right now, and have been a little brutal as far as taking stuff out. If I removed something anyone thinks is important, feel free to add it back in. I have a particular opinion of what a wikipedia article should be (and I know others may feel differently): as condensed and to-the-point as possible without being childishly simple. In many cases I think overly long articles actually detract from the content if it isn't done properly. That being said, I am not an expert in this field so it is probable I will delete something important without knowing it. Man It's So Loud In Here 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is time for the reverse burden-of-proof. The delivery of content that resolves the content dispute first. This is the next step. eurominuteman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.177.248.14 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How can these 2 pieces of content fit together, from a content view, gentlemen? eurominuteman

A. For the most part, the concepts of "fidelity" and "transparency" remain strong in Western traditions [citation needed].

B. Factual contribution > Final cause (Aristole): Due to legal litigation rulings, risk & quality standards, like ISO/IEC Guide 73 and EN-15038:2006, now specify the implementation of "Purpose and Use of the Translation (Final Cause)" among all roles of a translation project (translator, reviewer, revisor, proofreader) in order to align role attention to the Final Cause for quality improvement, and now legally overrule the weight of this topic making it a liability risk for translators. Jody Byrne, "Caveat Translator: Understanding the Legal Consequences of Errors in Professional Translation," JoSTrans, The Journal of Specialised Translation., Issue 07 - January 2007. "Translators can be found liable under both contract law and under tort law.".

All contributions should be factual, but I don't think they need to be labeled as such. I appreciated Man It's So Loud In Here's edits, as I'm sure many watchers of this page did. maxsch 20:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for a content assessment, not formatting assessments.

In B., I see a lot of raw data in form of case studies that impact in contradiction to A.

Something is not conclusive. Where is the raw data for A. ?

How can these 2 pieces of content fit together, from a content view, gentlemen? eurominuteman

My answer is:

A. is the flat world

B. is the round world

And a lot of people have trouble accepting this transition. This is our content dispute, gentlemen. eurominuteman

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.177.248.14 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and throw the "burden of proof" back into your court, eurominuteman. Option B, listed above, is not a sentence in the English language. I've read it a couple of times and I can't figure out what you are talking about. I am not insulting you, the fault could be mine in not understanding. But my point is that this encyclopedia article must be accessible to the non-expert.Man It's So Loud In Here 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the content must be conclusive and up-to-date, this overrules any formatting for the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.178.166 (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the content of the Jody Byrne article unter B. and compare the content with statement A.

A. is the old way, B. is the new way. B. makes A. obsolete. So no reason to delete and censor information about B.

B is actually an update of what judges have newly defined in a court, thus changing prior conceptions.

It is easy to understand, really. It should reach you.

If it doesn't reach you, you have a more serious risk problem. eurominuteman

A. is the flat world

B. is the round world

And a lot of people have trouble accepting this transition. This is our content dispute, gentlemen.

It is time for the reverse burden-of-proof. The delivery of content that resolves the content dispute.

I have not seen a shred of evidence input in this respect. eurominuteman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.178.166 (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

back to business

The page has been semiprotected. Hopefully this will give us an opportunity to make the article better without spending so much time having to revert disruptive changes. maxsch 18:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all who have contributed to the restoration of sanity to the work on the "Translation" article. I would not wish to re-experience the last several weeks' stomach-turning roller-coaster ride of endless reversions.

I have followed through on the suggestion I had made to the anonymous contributor, of creating a separate article on "Translation-quality standards," linked to "Translation." It is based on text originally contributed a couple of weeks ago by Margit Brause and edited by Maxschmelling. Constructive additions and edits are welcome. Nihil novi 04:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

True, back to business...

And a lot of people have trouble accepting this transition. This is our content dispute, gentlemen.

It is time for the reverse burden-of-proof. The delivery of content that resolves the content dispute.

• Jody Byrne, "Caveat Translator: Understanding the Legal Consequences of Errors in Professional Translation," JoSTrans, The Journal of Specialised Translation, Issue 07 - January 2007
  • "At the very heart of translation studies is the issue of translation quality. Yet, while there are numerous methods for assessing the quality of translations, little is known about what happens when a translator produces a bad translation. This paper will show that translation error, as a whole, can have significant consequences for both translator and client and by examining a number of case studies gathered from official reports and communications, court records, newspaper articles and books it will illustrate the diversity of situations which can arise as a result of translation errors. The paper will then examine the issues of liability and negligence to illustrate the legal means by which translators can be held accountable for the quality of their work. By understanding how liability for faulty translations arises, it will be possible to see the implications of laws and directives governing technical translations which are subsequently examined. This paper examines specific legal requirements relating to technical translation and discusses the consequences of translation errors using specific case studies relating to technical translation."
• Translators' Liabilities and Obligations

I have not seen a shred of evidence input in this respect. eurominuteman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.176.122.244 (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is time for the reverse burden-of-proof. The delivery of content that resolves the content dispute first. This is the next step. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.176.122.244 (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The artistic descriptions of these now lower-ranking Efficient Cause approaches traditionally implied an almost sure-shot law-of-nature "how should you do it" and self-purposed prescription to the measuring of translation success, on the one hand.

Yet, on the other hand, the weeping toils and the most-extreme difficulties of translators with words and meanings were also artistically well-described, thus actually delivering a well and efficiently compiled list of risk and unquality sources, in artistical reverse.

This now emerges in the light of the quality conception called Kaizen (continuous improvement] as the actual gap:

How can you thump on your chest about traditional translation approaches and success on the one side, and then create a non-exhaustive list of word, meaning, and case study problems on the other side, without wanting to talk about risks and unquality costs? This is not conclusive and hardly convincing.

Some traditional antangonists of these topics yet go even further, and blindly continue to dangerously downplay the actual and live litigation and liability risks incurred, even though a growing body of translation error case studies exist. It was only a matter of time until judges in law courts brought this illusion down in 1990, and then the stalemate until Jody Byrne's expert paper was published in 2007. 17 years in between... It was not really that quick.

Even Wikipedia administrators get caught up in Efficient Causes (like mechanical formatting, editing, and blocking rules - they are simply under-staffed), and do not observe the Final Causes of Wikipedia's 5 pillar principles (from a generical and organical content viewpoint). Antagonists have at times an advantage here by faking some mechanical "rule-breaching" processes, then they make the "wolf's cry" for the administrator for the purpose of actually censoring inconvenient content, instead of participating in the content dispute and Wikipedia discussion by contributing substantial evidence of their view. This is detrimental to Wikipedia's central purpose for up-to-date and conclusive fact-finding.

Rowing in circles will not help our fact-finding, gentlemen.

Eurominuteman 13:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Literary translation

Literary translation needs this addition in order to be complete and up-to-date:

• Jody Byrne, "Caveat Translator: Understanding the Legal Consequences of Errors in Professional Translation," JoSTrans, The Journal of Specialised Translation, Issue 07 - January 2007 "Even literal translation, which is considerably more sophisticated than word for word translation, cannot satisfactorily cope with every translation eventuality. So by accepting that translation involves some form of intellectual addition to or processing of the information in the source text, whether by adding, removing, clarifying, interpreting, rephrasing, recontextualising or recasting information for the target audience, we are in effect accepting a role for translators which is subject to a greater degree of liability than a mere conduit of information."

Eurominuteman 14:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that literal translation (as mentioned by Byrne) is not the same as literary translation, which is difficult to define, but roughly the translation of literary texts. There is very little need to discuss legal liability in the context of the production of art. Especially since, in the case of translated works, the translation is legally considered the work of the translator. I.e, the translator holds the copyright to the translated text. So, I disagree, literary translation does not need that text to be either complete or up to date. maxsch 20:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope for you that is a water-tight argument in front of a law court, because in the final a judge will rule over any filed civil and tort damages incurred. So you better think about defining things right, instead of drifting into any generalizations and foggy statements. The concept "purpose and use (final cause)" is standing legal jurisdiction since 1990, and now adopted by risk and quality standards. This is the implementation phase now. We need not quarrel about these standing legal, risk, and quality driven :

Translators are "like artists" that battle about every spelling and word. Dr. Jody Byrne wrote this article for the University of [Sheffield, UK. It is an expert article accepted by an expert magazine. All the source information needed is mentioned in the article.

Meanwhile, in version 8 of this magazine, a follow-up article already cites Dr. Jody Byrne:

Tim Martin, Directorate-General for Translation (European Commission) "Managing risks and resources: a down-to-earth view of revision" JoSTrans, The Journal of Specialised Translation, Issue 08 - July 2007 Eurominuteman 06:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. Did Byrne mean "literary translation," or was he actually writing nonsense about "literal translation [being] more sophisticated than word-for-word translation"? Nihil novi 05:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Why should I speculate? By spell-checking or by performing analysis under the use of ineffective principles? Byrne follows up in this sentence by describing that enhanced "sophisticated" translations are subject even more to a liability risk. This includes both the literary and the literal translations actually, if a civil or tort damage occurs. Breach of "duty of care" is what a judge in a law court looks at in the final, who has the job of drawing a line on civil or tort liability damages. But ask Byrne, he has an email. Yet, it seems not very effective for a translator to predict what a judge will consider, if not preemptively prepared.

2. The judges' legal ruling from 1990 regarding "purpose and use (final cause)" is the initial starting point anyway. This where the presented principles of the attacked party lost their ranking effectively, which also demonstrated the risk potential unfolding. I don't see any conclusive arguments that effectively overturn this ruling of 1990, other than being prepared preemptively. For translators, there is a factual risk of losing civil and tort litigation.

3. So, this basically results into building the capability to perform risk management. In this context, risk retention is not a sound and healthy response. Translators have an obligation to demonstrate risk mitigation, risk elimination, or risk insurance measures in order to preemptively prove their fulfillment of "duty of care". Eurominuteman 08:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

English translation, please? Nihil novi 14:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Any questions now? By the way, this is the new gig I found...I think it fits pretty well.

Intangible risk management identifies a new type of risk - a risk that has a 100% probability of occurring but is ignored by the organization due to a lack of identification ability. For example, when deficient knowledge is applied to a situation, a knowledge risk materialises. Relationship risk appears when ineffective collaboration occurs. Process-engagement risk may be an issue when ineffective operational procedures are applied. These risks directly reduce the productivity of knowledge workers, decrease cost effectiveness, profitability, service, quality, reputation, brand value, and earnings quality. Intangible risk management allows risk management to create immediate value from the identification and reduction of risks that reduce productivity. Eurominuteman 19:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Byrne meant literary, because there is no (legal) liability to literary translation. The 'original' work, which is the original author's property, is untouched, and thus unharmed by any translation. A publisher may choose to publish a translation or not. Where is the damage, and to whom might it be done? Standard literary translation contracts (which, remember, are made with publishers) allow translations be checked by peers (other translators) before they are deemed complete. So a translator is only liable to himself/herself. If the translation is inadequate it won't be published. The translator might then lose an advance (if he/she was lucky enough to get one), but literary translation quality will never become an issue in a court of law. maxsch 17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Duty of care" from the viewpoint of a judge at a law court is the relevant guiding compass. This is a committing and obligating duty of the translator. Not how Bryne juggled with any words. I don't think you will find a way to steal yourself out of this duty. There are enough case studies listed that were based on single words and phrases. Read about them and the impact. If a damaged party decides to litigate, the translator needs proper means to prove his/her "duty of care". This is actually a reverse burden-of-proof. These are the actual requirements. Eurominuteman 19:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that in a literary translation there cannot be a damaged party. Discussions of liability may be applicable to other types of translation, but they do not belong in the section on literary translation. maxsch 17:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought you meant that actually, but how do you know if "duty of care" is always applied. You seem to think that some safe havens exist where "duty of care" does not apply. It is thus somehow god-given that substandard translations simply do not occur, just because it is a literary translation. And that automatically no damages could be litigated from another party. This is not the legal thinking of the 1990 ruling. The litigation risks still do indeed factually exist. I do not see conclusive grounds for a safe haven.

Tim Martin from above goes on to cite Byrne: "Byrne nonetheless goes on to conclude that “…it would be unrealistic to interpret this lack of cases as proof that translators do not make mistakes or that the issue of translator liability is not something with which we should concern ourselves. […] ..the implications of substandard translations must be treated seriously.” (Byrne 2007: 2)." Eurominuteman 20:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tim Martin, "That seems to me a very sane and sanguine conclusion to draw. Perhaps the lack of litigation reflects translator skill and reviser acumen, but perhaps too it is just luck and lack of customer expertise. Either way, we should retain a healthy fear of translation errors in texts with a serious legal, political or commercial dimension — which account for most of what’s translated where I work and must surely account for a large chunk of most corporate and freelance workloads." Eurominuteman 20:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that substandard literary translations do occur. I can think of several off the top of my head. I don't think that substandard literary translation should be encouraged or condoned. However, the recourse in the case of a substandard translation of a literary work is not through lawsuits. What usually happens is that the publisher chooses not to publish a substandard translation. Then, either the translator is given a chance to improve the product, another translator is contracted, or the project is abandoned. There is no injured party, there are no damages, there is no basis for a lawsuit. I am not arguing with Tim Martin's contention that corporate and freelance translators translate mostly legal, commercial, and political texts. I am saying that there is no reason to have a section on legal liability in the "literary translation" section of the wikipedia article. Is that clear? maxsch 20:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is inside or outside the subchapter. An overlap exists anyway. Eurominuteman 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this sounds antagonistic, but I think it does matter. I feel like I have just explained why it matters. I also don't understand what you mean by "an overlap exists anyway". What overlaps into literary translation and how, and what else does it overlap with, and why does it matter? maxsch 20:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

May I express the overlap as a Boolean equation: Literary AND Translation AND Duty. Please notice that this meta-list also includes clustered subcategories. Your purist approach lacks a holistic view of these issues. Your purist approach is validly questionable due to this lack of holism. The contributions are not up-to-date and conclusive, serious updating is needed. Eurominuteman 23:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish it were possible to sue some literary translators I can think of for malpractice. I've never heard of it being done, though, and I fear that the courts would simply say, "Caveat emptor!" (Which perhaps is just as well, as otherwise most literary translators might be driven out of business.) Nihil novi 03:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Or even "Caveat venditor" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurominuteman (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed possible based on the breach of "duty of care" since 1990, and the lack of risk and quality measures.

These people have a factual duty to adhere to all translation requirements instead of taking the shortcuts.

Taking the shortcuts has deemed to be unsatisfactory from a legal, risk, and quality viewpoint.

This is translation in the year 2007. I don't know what other year some people here are referring to.

This is to their advantage actually. Eurominuteman 11:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second. It is, indeed, not possible to sue literary translators under any statute you have mentioned. Oh wait, you haven't actually mentioned any statutes. This 1990 decision you keep referring to concerns the provision of information services. Jody Byrne argues that technical translators can be considered to fall under the scope of that decision. Literary translators, however, are not in the business of "information provision", and never will be. There is no "factual duty," in fact, I think that term is probably an oxymoron. I admire your persistence, but it is misplaced. maxsch 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't read the full article from Byrne about the liability risk in the case of civil and tort damages. Are you implying there is no risk and no quality management measures to be performed. Everything can return to business-as-usual. Hardly. Even the German sources mentioned are in line with these requirements and duties. Risk retention is breach of duty of care in front of a court nowadays. So, risk mitigation and risk elimination significantly improves your standing in front of a court. The recent US real-estate disaster just gives you a flavor of what happens if you disregard risk management.

Besides, it saves your money by preventing unquality costs. Quality management consulting projects have been those consulting projects with the best payback since over 20 years.

So where is the problem? You are benefiting from this information on the whole line. Limiting the issue Translation to the core processes from the traditional purist view is not up-to-date, and the Wikipedia article needs to reassess this here. There are definitely more information structures to be added. All the formatting rules, other whatnots, and "yes, buts" apparently do not end in the main purpose of Wikipedia. This driftaway and structural block does not fulfill the core purpose of Wikipedia, as an up-to-date and conclusive information source.

Eurominuteman 19:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Eurominuteman. I have read the full article by Prof. Byrne. You accusing me of not having done so is not helpful. Please assume good faith. Byrne in fact states that he knows of no cases in any country in which translators have been held liable in court for faulty translations. What he does give are examples of instances where faulty translation may have contributed to damages and the translators perhaps could have been held liable in court, if lawsuits had ever been filed. In large measure Bryne is creating this issue of potential translator liability. I have two important points that follow on these facts. 1 The Byrne article is entirely speculative and does not warrant a wikipedia article on translators' legal liability. 2 The Bryne article does not mention literary translation (literal translation is not the same thing as literary translation) and his arguments do not apply to (nor do they intend to apply to) literary translation for reasons that I believe I have adequately explained. maxsch 22:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This conflicts with what Tim Martin above summerizes, when he cites Bynre: " Byrne nonetheless goes on to conclude that “…it would be unrealistic to interpret this lack of cases as proof that translators do not make mistakes or that the issue of translator liability is not something with which we should concern ourselves. […] ..the implications of substandard translations must be treated seriously.” (Byrne 2007: 2)."

"That seems to me a very sane and sanguine conclusion to draw. Perhaps the lack of litigation reflects translator skill and reviser acumen, but perhaps too it is just luck and lack of customer expertise. Either way, we should retain a healthy fear of translation errors in texts with a serious legal, political or commercial dimension — which account for most of what’s translated where I work and must surely account for a large chunk of most corporate and freelance workloads."

But now I am just repeating arguments already presented above. I think there is too much actionism and rowing in circles. This exactly reflects the drawback and risk of disregarding Final Cause principles and holding on to Efficient Cause principles. In the course, risk retention is not an acceptable strategy nowadays. Risk mitigation and risk elimination are the proper responses to the "duty of care" requirement. Your arguments are no base to realistically assume a non-risk. Yet, if you prefer to make this basic assumption of non-risk anyway, why don't you poker it out and offer a liability insurance coverage for this risk, and profit on the non-deployed risk premiums. Eurominuteman 08:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1) I am not assuming that there is no risk of litigation. I am arguing that the potential for litigation is no basis for a wikipedia article.

2) I agree that translators make errors, and I take it seriously. I do not, however, think that discussion of (untested) legal liability is the proper way to address issues of translation quality.

3) Literary translation is a kind of translation and an established field of academic study. And what Byrne, Martin, and Eurominuteman are talking about has no bearing on literary translation. This discussion does not belong here! maxsch 21:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well said. Nihil novi 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Intangible Risk Management" identifies a new type of risk - a risk that has a 100% probability of occurring but is ignored by the organization due to a lack of identification capability. For example, when deficient knowledge is applied to a situation, a knowledge risk materializes. Relationship risk appears when ineffective collaboration occurs. Process-engagement risk may be an issue when ineffective operational procedures are applied. These risks directly reduce the productivity of knowledge workers, decrease cost effectiveness, profitability, service, quality, reputation, brand value, and earnings quality. Intangible risk management allows risk management to create immediate value from the identification and reduction of risks that reduce productivity.

Why untested? The 1990 ruling is a valid ruling clearing principles made by Aristotle. It vividly clears the question about the use of Final Cause vrs Efficient Cause. This must be added to the field of academic study you are talking about. Efficient Cause principles are not the end of the world. You just want to cling onto an obsolete way of viewing things instead of embracing change. This is hardly what academic study is about. Risk retention is not the academic way. You are implying that your capability maturity has reached the final stage, this is not true and untested. You are trying to make this article a place of town and gown. It remains, this whole article needs a new structure and content posture to include these developments. Your academia and practise are not up-to-date. Eurominuteman 07:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here is some more empirical academia to chew on.

Brian Mossop, "Empirical Studies of Revision: What we know and need to know," JoSTrans, The Journal of Specialised Translation Issue 08 - July 2007 Eurominuteman 08:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the video interview of Dr. Jody Byrne, it becomes clear that he indeed did focus on "literary" risk liabilities. This overturns your reservations about any slight differences to be made with "literal". The 1990 legal court ruling also did not make any differentiations. Video interview Dr. Jody Byrne

itskoolman 09:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

back to antagonist monkey business

Eurominuteman, why have you been deleting your own and others' previous contributions to this discussion? In the case of the others, did you obtain their permission to do so? Nihil novi 05:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't delete others contributions, this is false. I just amend my own to complete a thought. You are coming up with the usual tricks to distract from the core issues. My arguments are indeed strong enough. On the contrary, people are rowing in circles so I have to repeat arguments. I have no trouble repeating as long as you want. And take a look at the unresponsed contributions below. Eurominuteman 07:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You deleted your own and Huelga's texts on 13 September 2007, 05:06. Nihil novi 07:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Repetition ad nauseam of the same irrelevant drivel is not legitimate discussion. Nihil novi 07:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I revised my wording within my text. I do not know about deleting anyone others texts. I don't do this. This is false. I never heard of Huelga.

Repetition of obsolete and unvalidated arguments is ridiculous. How about presenting conclusive up-to-date verifications. The reverse proof-of-burden on your part is not very satisfactory and convincing up to now.

The fact is, your position (non-risk, non-liability) has validly been made obsolete since 1990. "Duty of care", "final cause", and "purpose and use of translation" are standing conceptions, applicable to all types of translations, not just the simplier types. Not a shred of evidence has been produced to overturn this. Personal preferences may be nice-to-have. Yet, fruitless falsification attempts do not deliver the verification that your claims are now again valid, conclusive, and up-to-date as before 1990. Just look at the unanswered contributions below.

Eurominuteman 11:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nihil novi is only one continuously deleting valid calls-for-citation in the article,

instead of delivering some beef as to gaps and contradictions in the article structure and content.

Eurominuteman 07:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Nihil novi is heading toward being sued for tort if he continues to make personal remarks within his vandalized deletions without delivering anything to the discussion matter in reverse burden-of-proof.

Eurominuteman 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree: Fruitless falsification attempts do not deliver the verification that opposite claims are now again valid, conclusive, and up-to-date as before 1990. It is time for up-to-date validation that the pre-1990 situation is now still valid.

Disregard of these new emerging facts and evidences cannot be justified much longer. It has well been proven that a new situation has overruled the pre-1990 era.

itskoolman 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Translator duties

This could be the name of a new chapter. This is an indisputable factual status.Eurominuteman 22:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Workflow Process modeling

Administrative duties

• duty of care
• purpose and use of the translation
• Requirements management
• data protection —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurominuteman (talk • contribs) 07:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Core duties

And this could be the text... "The translator's job is to translate. If he or she translates badly, he or she will soon find himself or herself out of a job. If he or she translates the wrong text badly enough to cause actionable damages, he or she may also find himself or herself in court." It seems rather obvious. I don't understand your insistence on adding loads of incomprehensible text to express simple ideas. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if that information is factual. maxsch 22:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not comprehensible? The 1990 ruling is easy to understand. You have a gap in your translation requirements.

Liability risk retention, discrimination of duties is not acceptable. You don't have to understand. It is not necessary.

After weeks of actionism, maybe you will never get it anyway.

It is about the 1990 ruling. "duty of care" "liability risks" "purpose and use of the translation" "risk mitigation"

"risk elimination" "risk insurance" "quality management" How often do you need it?

If it doesn't reach you, you have a serious risk problem.

I have seen no shred of evidence that overturns this, so now it time to publish the facts.

If not we have to escalate to the next level. You are not authorized to censor this information in any manner.

Translation Duty

Translator Duty

The contributions are not up-to-date and conclusive, unproportional gaps exist. Objectives and means are out-of-proportion. Serious updating is needed.

Eurominuteman 00:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Up-to-date and conclusive to the 1990 ruling definition: EN-15038:2006 Standards Chapter 5.4.1

Translation includes: The translator shall transfer the meaning in the source language into the target language in order to produce a text that is in accordance with the rules of the linguistic system of the target language and that meets the instructions received in the project assignment. Throughout this process, the translator shall pay attention to the following:

• Terminology: compliance with specific domain and client terminology, or any other terminology provided, as well as terminology consistency throughout the whole translation.
• Grammar: syntax, spelling, punctuation, ortho-typography, diacritical marks.
• Lexis: lexical cohesion and phraseology.
• Style: compliance with the proprietary or client style guide, including register and language variants.
• Locale: local conventions and regional standards.
• Formatting.
• Target group and purpose of the translation (final cause).

Checking includes: On completion of the initial translation, the translator shall check his/her own work. This process shall include checking that the meaning has been conveyed, that there are no omissions or errors and that the defined service specifications have been met. The translator shall make any necessary amendments.

EN-15038:2006 Standards chapter 5.4.3: "The revisor [see Standards chapter 3.2.3: Professional competencies of revisors] shall be a person other than the translator and have the appropriate competence in the source and target languages. The reviser shall examine the translation for its suitability for purpose (final cause). This shall include, as required by the project, comparison of the source and target texts for terminology consistency, register and style.")

Revision

EN-15038:2006 Standards chapter 5.4.4: "If the service specifications include a review, the TSP shall ensure that the translation is reviewed. The reviewer [see Standards chapter 3.2.4: Professional competencies of reviewers] shall carry out a monolingual review to assess the suitability of the translation for the agreed purpose (final cause) and recommend corrective measures. NOTE: The review can be accomplished by assessing the translation for register and respect for the conventions of the domain in question."

There are more roles and functions to be considered, and all are aligned to the purpose from the core view.

Eurominuteman 16:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Support duties

Professional competences (EN-15038:2006 Standards Chapter 3.2: "The Translation Service Provider shall have a documented procedure in place for selecting people (recruitment) with the requisite skills and qualifications for translation projects. Translators shall have the professional competences as specified in 3.2.2. Revisers and reviewers shall have the professional competences as specified in 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 respectively."). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurominuteman (talk • contribs) 01:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Risk management
• Quality management

Fidelity vs Transparency

"For the most part, the concepts of "fidelity" and "transparency" remain strong in Western traditions."

This statement needs substantial conclusive citation, because it conflicts with the following legal ruling of 1990.

• Jody Byrne, "Caveat Translator: Understanding the Legal Consequences of Errors in Professional Translation," JoSTrans, The Journal of Specialised Translation, Issue 07 - January 2007 "There are various definitions for duty of care but perhaps the most relevant to our purposes here as translators comes from the case of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] which dealt with the liability of a firm of auditors to potential investors. In this case the auditors were engaged as information providers, a role which, it can be argued, is quite similar to that of translators. In dealing with the case, the judge developed a four-part definition for duty of care which consists of the following:
• the information is provided for a purpose (Final Cause)
• this purpose is made known at the time of commissioning
• the information provider knows that the information will be provided to the recipient in order to be used for the specified purpose
• it is known that the information is likely to be used without independent inquiry or verification for the stated purpose"

The four-part definition for "duty of care", which stresses "purpose and use (final cause)", clearly overrules the concepts "fidelity and transparency (efficient cause)" in front of a legal court. This is valid jurisdiction since 1990.

So it is actually no wonder that translation quality service standards adopted this approach too.

The concepts "fidelity and transparency" will continue to significantly weaken because legal, risk, and quality support are missing. This is up-to-date and conclusive. Stop drawing people to believe the illusion that a factual liability risk is not existent. This is not professional, it is a breach of "duty for care". The nonsense activities here were "gross negligent" from a legal view up to now. The "quick and dirty" way has become obsolete.

Eurominuteman 15:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Final Cause vrs Efficient Cause

This chapter needs to be added too:

5.1 Final cause

• From the viewpoint of Aristotle

The final cause is that for the sake of which a thing exists or is done, including both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities. The final cause or telos is the purpose or end that something is supposed to serve, or it is that from which and that to which the change is. This also covers modern ideas of mental causation involving such psychological causes as volition, need, motivation, or motives, rational, irrational, ethical, all that gives purpose to behavior.

• From a legal viewpoint

Jody Byrne "There are various definitions for duty of care but perhaps the most relevant to our purposes here as translators comes from the case of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] which dealt with the liability of a firm of auditors to potential investors. In this case the auditors were engaged as information providers, a role which, it can be argued, is quite similar to that of translators. In dealing with the case, the judge developed a four-part definition for duty of care which consists of the following:

• the information is provided for a purpose (Final Cause)
• this purpose is made known at the time of commissioning
• the information provider knows that the information will be provided to the recipient in order to be used for the specified purpose
• it is known that the information is likely to be used without independent inquiry or verification for the stated purpose"

• From a risk & quality standard viewpoint

For the above reason, risk & quality standards, like EN-15038:2006, now thus specify the implementation of "Purpose and Use of the Translation (Final Cause)" among all roles of a translation project (translator, reviewer, revisor, proofreader) in order to align role attention to the Final Cause for quality improvement.

• From an organizational design viewpoint

This approach also has the advantage of enhancing cooperation, thus impacting the success of larger collaboratively-structured translation tasks (even Mass collaboration).

"Happiness comes from 'fidelity to a worthy purpose' (Helen Keller)". It is like getting everybody back on track, and outpacing self-purpose.

5.2 Efficient cause

• From the viewpoint of Aristotle

The efficient cause is that from which the change or the ending of the change first starts. It identifies 'what makes of what is made and what causes change of what is changed' and so suggests all sorts of agents, nonliving or living, acting as the sources of change or movement or rest. Representing the current understanding of causality as the relation of cause and effect, this covers the modern definitions of "cause" as either the agent or agency or particular events or states of affairs.

As the goal of translation is to ensure that the source text and target text communicate the same message, while taking into account the constraints placed on the translator (such as the Aristotle causality principle Final Cause), a successful translation (under the Aristotle causality principle Efficient Cause) can be judged within the scope of the following topics:

• Fidelity vs transparency

See Translation in the obsolete higher-ranked version downplaying risks and liabilities. Risks and liabilities must be added as high-priority: Jody Byrne "Translators can be found liable under both contract law and under tort law"

• Equivalenz

See Translation in the obsolete higher-ranked version downplaying risks and liabilities. Risks and liabilities must be added as high-priority: Jody Byrne "At the very heart of translation studies is the issue of translation quality. Yet, while there are numerous methods for assessing the quality of translations, little is known about what happens when a translator produces a bad translation. Translation error, as a whole, can have significant consequences for both translator and client."

• Literary translation

See Translation in the obsolete higher-ranked version downplaying risks and liabilities. Risks and liabilities must be added as high-priority: Jody Byrne "Even literal translation, which is considerably more sophisticated than word for word translation, cannot satisfactorily cope with every translation eventuality. So by accepting that translation involves some form of intellectual addition to or processing of the information in the source text, whether by adding, removing, clarifying, interpreting, rephrasing, recontextualising or recasting information for the target audience, we are in effect accepting a role for translators which is subject to a greater degree of liability than a mere conduit of information."

Eurominuteman 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandals Refuse to Resolve Edit War

I will continue to revert if you continue to add this stuff in. You have not listened to a single argument besides your own on this talk page. Your prose is unreadable to native English speakers, and the content you keep adding is far too specialized to belong on a general encyclopedia page. Man It's So Loud In Here 17:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Eurominuteman should be banned permanently from "Translation" and probably from Wikipedia. Nihil novi 17:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The reverse burden-of-proof contributions seem to still be pending. Why does literary translation conceptions take so much space here, even though it is only about 5% of the volume translated? Where are the conceptions governing the 95%? --Eurominuteman 22:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree: Fruitless falsification attempts do not deliver the verification that opposite claims are now again valid, conclusive, and up-to-date as before 1990.

It is time for up-to-date validation that the pre-1990 situation is now still valid. This has not been performed.

Disregard of these new emerging facts and evidences cannot be justified any longer. It has well been proven that a new situation has overruled the pre-1990 era. The pre-1990 situation is legally obsolete and presents a liability risk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itskoolman (talk • contribs) 20:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The presented chain of evidences are very clear and convincing. Where is the evidence that the pre-1990 situation still now applies?

I see no proof that no liability risk exists, on the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itskoolman (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no proof and reasoning why the conceptions "duty of care" and "purpose and use of translation" cannot be added next to the other conceptions in order to update the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itskoolman (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no proof and reasoning why it should not be pointed out that the legal 1990 ruling overrides previous conceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itskoolman (talk • contribs) 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to fake your way out of your burden-of-proof by trying to argue with falsifications against a legal court ruling that makes your position obsolete. This does not work. Your pre-1990 era position is clearly and validly obsolete. This is not what an encyclopedia wants as content. Obsolete content must be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itskoolman (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

itskoolman 22:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandals Prevent Update of Verified and Applicable Information

You fake your way out of your burden-of-proof. (It's So Loud In Here, Nihil novi etc.)

You have no material to compete with this above evidence, not a single link of validation

has been presented. Vandals prevent the updating of valid information.

Your deletion and revert spree has no valid grounds.

You have the obligation to prove your claims, else you will need to accept the restructuring

and the updating of valid new information.

itskoolman 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)