Wikipedia:Featured article review/Duino Elegies/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC) [1].

---

Duino Elegies

Notified: FAC nominator blocked, Khazar2, Curly Turkey, Johnbod, Gerda, WP Germany, WP Poetry, WP Switzerland, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord.

Review section

This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I see Gerda Arendt is combing through this one, making helpful edits. What is most urgently needed on all six procedural nominations is for someone who has access to the sources to do a source-to-text integrity check. What has been found in the other FAs is that the sources do not verify the text, and it appears that at no time did any FAC review scrutinize sources, which allowed the hoax articles to grow to seven FAs via FACs that only nitpicked the prose. It seems that none of the sources for this article are available online, so unless someone accesses a majority of them and does a through source review of most of the article, I envision entering a Delist declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda I have been invited and feel responsible as this is about German literature. I am not familiar with the elegies, though (but read Malte Laurids Brigge when growing up), and I have often trouble recognising what something given in English might have been in German. Often - in this article - only English is given, and even when there are both, there's this trouble, such as "aus der Engel Ordnungen" (from the legendary first line) which has no hint of "hierarchies".

I did a round of copy-edits, dropping some extra years of people with a link, removing links to common terms, such things. I tried to use the past tense for Rilke's writing process throughout, - a major change - thinking that this was clearly written in a past, and doesn't profit from a construed immediacy. I left the present tense for the writer of the last lines, - no idea yet who that is and what his evalution counts.

I did this today in fond memory of Brian Boulton whose birthday is today, and who supported the FAC in 2013, hoping that in the end, we can support his view. I plan to do a round of source-checking, and may also look at the equivalent German article. Both probably not today.

Last time I dealt with a poetry article by the same author, Victoria was very helpful, but I don't know about her availability and readiness for this subject. That article is now part of a featured topic, thanks to Eddie891 who might also be a good advisor here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Gerda, I'm finding no indication of a Featured topic in the articlehistory template on talk; was that missed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, never mind ... I see you were referring to "that" (a different) article; sorry! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, no problem. This is my first FAR, so I hope for understanding that I am not familiar with the process such as "no sections". I don't understand it, though, because with several editors busy commenting, that just invites edit conflicts, no?

As for sources, while many were not given online, they may be available. Example #61 Gadamer: The Relevance of the Beautiful: Art as Play, Symbol, and Festival. Will take extra search for the position in the book because no page number is given in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The practice here is more typically to work on the article without listing each and every nitpick, or if there are many editors at work at once, to use the talk page associated with the FAR, and then ping in the broader audience when the article is ready for a new look. That is, we tend to leave you to work in peace, at the pace that suits you :). (I deviated from the usual practice of using the talk page in the Palladian architecture FAR, only because I'm the only editor entering commentary, but hesitate to make the changes myself, and didn't expect any edit conflicts.) As you find sources available online, hopefully they'll get linked in the article; thanks for working towards a "save" here. And I guess the missing page nos will also have to be dealt with ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kusma Not sure if I'll manage a full review, just wanted to comment on something Gerda said: I find the "hierarchies of angels" not implausible at all, and this translation also uses "angelic hierarchies" for "angelic orders". May check back later. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Just saw this. I'll work on verifying the integrity of text to source where I can. Though, the next three weeks will be touch and go until I have time to focus. I'll also edit as I go, hoping to keep it light as the article looks thorough on the surface. Gerda, if my edits get in your way, let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Awesome; thanks, Wtfiv, as we know you have serious (albeit at times unpleasant :) experience when it comes to source-to-text integrity! As you know, the FAR Coords will allow all the time necessary ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Update?

If this is trying to be retained as featured, it should probably also be updated. The last translation mentioned dates from 1981, but by now we have also 2000, 2013 and 2014, among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Gerda pinged me here. All I have to add is that many years ago I made a few clean up edits to When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd (same editor) and did find some issues - though don't remember exactly what off the top of my head. The editor uses the "rp" citation style, so it's easy to find their additions. Victoria (tk) 19:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

See the source check at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geology Hall, New Brunswick, New Jersey/archive1, which is similar to what has been found in every ColonelHenry FA looked at so far; every source will need to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think those are two different topics. Duino Elegies is World Literature, with many relying on these same sources, compare example. I think we can work like this: we look at the sources, and those transformed to sfn have been checked as supporting the facts, or the wording has been changed to match a source better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Status? User:Gerda Arendt is it your intent to save this star, and if so, has every source cited been checked for source-to-text integrity? If not, we need to get moving to FARC ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's my intention, but - please see my talk - I didn't edit for the last three days, vacation - no connection in the mountains, and not today, funeral, nor tomorrow, travel back. Have mercy? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  ps: quotation in the sermon today was a Rilke poem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  Not a problem, FAR is patient, but please keep the page posted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  back home, and I transformed a few more refs to sfn and checked the. So far, refs support what the article says, saying it often in quotation. It's tough to say these things in paraphrases, easily loosing the meaning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from wtfiv Working with Gerda and Grimes2, We've fully converted the article to sfn. Citation page numbers are now linked. Between Gerda and I, they have all been verified. (I looked at them all, but as you know Sandy, my work could use spotchecking. So one more pair of eyes wouldn't hurt). I checked sources for cite-text linkage. Removing both sources and text when it didn't align, and seeking out new sources to preserve the general form of the article. Overall, I think ColonelHenry did a pretty good job with this article. There were a few...how do you say...interesting non-alignments, but most could be saved with a new source. I even learned that some of the language in the article has taken on a life of its own, being published in multiple books without attribution, one even in an academic publisher!

In addition, I'm also suggesting deleting "Further Reading". That section always strikes me as problematic, as it can be used as an ever-growing source of promotion and even self-promotion that seems quite arbitrary from the outside. Beyond that and minor changes, I feel we've addressed the major FAR concern, and I've done what I committed to: cleaning up citation integrity and creating verifiable sources. Though, I'm still available if needed. Wtfiv (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Wtfiv! See my comment on Gerda's talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Victoria

Chiming in re this discussion I noticed on Gerda's page. Short version is that the sentence should be deleted. Long version is that the evolution is interesting: the idea is added here, expanded here, cited to primary source, rewritten here, cited to Rilke, beauty/suffering cited to Gass here. What Gass says here is that angels, who embody perfection, fail to intervene in human suffering. I don't quite get "weigh beauty and existential suffering" from Gass's text. The sentence definitely isn't a quotation from Gass (and similar such artifacts should be checked), and in my view should not be presented in Wiki voice in the lead. I've not looked to see whether Gass is a Rilke scholar and definitely merits inclusion. If yes, then Gass should be properly paraphrased in the body and then those points distilled and maybe re-added to the lead w/ different phrasing. Victoria (tk) 15:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding: I just noticed that I thought I was following the link to Gass from this version of our article. But in fact the book is not at all Gass, so I have no clue what's going on here atm. Victoria (tk) 15:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Me neither :) But this is a brilliant example of why we can't let any of ColonelHenry's work out of here without considerable scrutiny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

In the present version, the book by Gass (quoted by ColonelHenry but not accessible) is gone. And yes, intermediate versions had mistakes, and this one was by me, sorry about that. I'm sure the present version still has mistakes, please keep checking. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It is also important that Lindsey40186, who is working on another of ColonelHenry's articles at FAR (Alcohol laws of New Jersey) see this discussion and the level of scrutiny required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify (and I don't want to get too bogged down here). The phrase "that weigh beauty and existential suffering" is right now at this moment in the article, first sentence, second para. To repeat, the first iteration of the phrase (without source or attribution) was added here, shortly thereafter cited here directly to Rilke (primary source), then rewritten again, cited to Gass, without a page number. We can speculate, but in actuality we don't know the source for the phrase. It really should be deleted. Victoria (tk) 17:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

So as not to give the impression I've not looked closely enough at the history, in this edit the phrase is made a quotation (it's not) and cited to Gass, but that citation goes to this book on German g-books. It's not Gass, although it was Gass before the cite became an sfn. In other words, the citations also need to be checked as well, because it's concerning and I can't figure out what's going here. Victoria (tk) 18:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I said already that I made the mistake. Not Colonel Henry. I used a wrong url when I transformed the ref, my fault, a url that Google gave me when searching for the phrase. I didn't inquire who copied from whom, again my fault. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually no, he introduced the phrase. Your edit, switched the url and added the quotations, which wasn't great. But the phrase was introduced years ago and we don't know its origin. The url you swapped out here went to this page - which is no more than a search for "translation" in a book, so that url was basically useless. Swapping it out for another source wasn't great either, which is the reason I'm concerned. These articles require more than wrapping refs in curly brackets. It can actually be a fair amount of work to figure out where something comes from and if it can't be found, then we delete. That's what source verification is. Victoria (tk) 20:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

All I tried to explain wasn't the introduction of the phrase, but to answer "But in fact the book is not at all Gass, so I have no clue what's going on here". What went on was that I looked for the phrase which I expected only in the Gass book, found that url, which had the same page number, and was sure I was in the book. I wasn't, you pointed that out, and I am sorry. I saw the phrase on that page, so thought it was quoted from there, so added the quotation marks. I am sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional comments from wtfiv I think I need to reiterate a point I made and then respond to Victoria's point, as I raised the "weigh beauty and existential suffering" issue in the first place.

• Citation to text integrity for all citations in this article should be good. All sfn's have been checked at least once: citations were added, changed, or points removed to ensure alignment. To help verification, all citations go to a linked page, webpage, or article.

This was the major issue of the FAR, and I believe it is addressed. I may have missed one or mis-pasted a link. But all cited points can be verified. A check or spotcheck would be much appreciated.

• The source of the phrase "that weigh beauty and existential suffering" was the last issue in terms of source I could find, and it was unique both because of its editing history and it's influence on the Web. I consulted with Gerda on the six word phrase on her talk page. (e.g., discussing all the online citations I could find antedate it's unquoted occurence in this article, I discuss the citation in the e-book Victoria mentions, though I use the English Google Book cite; I checked every online reference I could find.) If it helps, I could cut and paste my point here.

My own vote is that "that weigh beauty and existential suffering" it is a good phrase that should be kept without quotes. It was originally put in the article without quotes, the quoted version was added later, and the evidence that it is a quote not existent online.

My reading agrees with Victoria, but the first citation appears to use all of Gass, and when I was checking the source, the phrase seems like a good summary of points Gass was making. So I saw it as it as a summary of Gass, not a quote. The quotes and incorrect attributions were added later (to Rilke and then to an actual page number). But web and books have been using it without attribution, and the context of those quotes clearly suggest the source is Wikipedia, though it is possible those sources are plagiarizing some unnamed ur-source preceding 2012. (Google Diuno Elegies and this phrase from Wikipedia is the first thing that pops up.)

In lieu of deleting, a compromise would be to just reword it without attribution, as it is in the lead and summarizes the criticism: "address beauty and the suffering of existence" or something similar. Clunkier, but gets the job done. But again, I think it erases the Wikipedia legacy. (Which is nothing new... the web and literature is full of unattributed Wikipedia quotes.) If the consensus is to delete, I understand. Wtfiv (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The possiblities are endless. Basically we don't know what the source is; it may be Gass, or it may not be. I can't find a viewable copy of Gass to look. Basically there are Wikipedia artefacts that we don't want to keep, especially not in an FA - for lots of reasons that I can spell out if needed but are best to leave in the past. From the very tiny bit of Gass that I can glean he's saying that angels are terribly beautiful but not interested in human suffering. But trying to interpret a source is moot if it's not available to check and we shouldn't be keeping it even if it's been in a article for almost a decade. More than ten years ago we had some serious problems with a serial plagiarizer and the only way to scrub the articles was a top to bottom rewrite and rev-del of the text but that was only done for the single FA we knew about. It's a tangential case, but the point is that we can't keep it if we can't verify it. Victoria (tk) 20:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• I would like to re-emphasize that except for this one phrase, the article's citation-text integrity has been checked and seems solid. (I rewrote a substantial part of the first half to ensure citation-text conformity. It'd be great if the links to both page citations and full book sources could be checked by others. A second pair of eyes is always good! That would address concerns about any other at-large plagiarism issues, (which I think there are few of at this point).
• The entire Gass book can be checked via archive.org link here, which can be accessed in full if the reader registers for a free account. I looked it over while working on the article, and read through a bit of it. The quote isn't there but, I think the quote summarizes points made by Gass. If I had used Gass, I would've left the linked source in the article. To cite the phrase as a paraphrase of Gass would require multiple page references, and I'm don't like putting citations in the lead anyway...except for quotes... But the lines do summarize points made in the main text. Again, I will defer to other editors to decide what to do with those six words. Wtfiv (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Wtfiv. I started to look, but I knew this would turn into quagmire that I don't want to drown in, so I stopped. Basically we should always let the sources lead, not the article. My fear is that here we're trying to find a source for a phrase that sounds okay, good, nice to have in the lead, but we don't know where it comes from so it should be deleted. The reason I used the example of the serial plagiarizer (knowing it would come back to bite me) is that there are problematic editors whose FAs shouldn't be enshrined. For lots of reasons, but there's history and maybe someone else will do better job than I am at explaining. I'm not impugning the work any of you are doing, though I realize it's coming across that way. What I'm saying is that these articles require digging and if something can't be verified, there's no good argument to keep it. Victoria (tk) 21:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, I'll let the other reviewers decide. It's a tough argument. There's two sides. I'm in favor of "innocent unless proven guilty" even in the case of problematic editors. I did a thorough search, but I fully recognize the line could be tucked in an inaccessible pre-2013 work somewhere. But we have no evidence at this point. If evidence emerges, we remove it. The alternative, is that we assume "probable cause" based on previous behavior and just delete (or modify). As to doing the digging, I hope it is clear that I've done a bit of it in this article. (I raised the issue about these lines in the first place, as part of my digging.) There may be more, but I think most problematic issues have been excavated. Wtfiv (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I get that I'm coming across as a bitch, but it's not directed at you. You've done stellar work! I have issues with articles that need scrubbing, knowing backstories blah blah, (and probably am no longer cheery enough to agf, based on experience). Let's just leave it at that. I'm still seeing some issues in the article, but I need to stop now. Will try to get back to it. Anyway, please excuse my grouchiness :) Victoria (tk) 23:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Victoria! We just had an editing conflict, so I was writing below while you wrote above. I think it makes clear that you are not coming off negatively. Or, if you are, it is no more than my coming off as defensive. I'm just glad to see your presence, as the below edit shows! Here is what I was writing when our edits conflicted:

Victoria, I'm excited to see you editing this article! (It brings back thoughts of the James Joyce). Beyond the citation integrity issue, I tended to avoid almost any editing of the criticism section. I'm not fond of it, and am not sure I agree with some of the points. But, I didn't want to rewrite that section, as it would be a slog to do it the way I thought it should be done. I figured since it had passed FA review once before, I figured the prose should be okay "as is", as long as the citations- which were the given problem stated for the FAR- have integrity. But in my opinion, it could use a cleaning! If, during your adventures, you would like me to clean up any citaton issues, or I can be of use in some other way, just let me know.Wtfiv (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Citations in themselves are not the issue. The issue is that the citations, which are fine, might/may/will cite material that is problematic. I've done a quick dipstick and what I've found is that either the sentences leading into quotations aren't in the cited text, the quotations aren't transcribed properly, or that the text is lifted from the cited source, or a combination thereof. That's what we need to be checking for. I really have to stop now, but take a look at the few edits I've made if what I've described is confusing. I'll try to write up tomorrow why I've had to make those edits. Thanks for the nice words! Victoria (tk) 23:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I just took a look. I have no questions why the edits are made. Each one strikes me as an improvement (though I tweaked one slightly.) Wtfiv (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional comments (Victoria) This should have been a procedural FAR, the article delisted, and probably stubbed back to its pre-Col. Henry, 5 Dec. 2012 version, per the account's original ban discussion and per today's comment from the blocking admin (Risker who says "I'd suggest taking the article back to bare bones of what can be sourced with confidence and then delisting it," (diff). Instead there have been 300 or more edits, the referencing style has been overhauled and made robust, attempts have been made to match text to references, all of which is a tremendous amount of work that shouldn't be overlooked and cast aside. That said, the questions now are a.) are there still textual problems; and b.) is it FA quality? From a brief look I believe there are lingering textual problems, and despite the robust citation syntax the article fails Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.

I've found the following issues from looking at "Publication and reception" and only portions of "Symbolism and themes" and "Influence".

• Although titled "Publication and reception" the section only has a single sentence about publication. The reception portions are filled with quotations (the section comes in at 296 words, 165 if the quotations are stripped away. In other words it's a WP:quotefarm.

In some instances the citation doesn't support the text introducing the quotation and needed fixing or deleting, e.g. here where an adjustment was made, and and here. In some instances the quotion doesn't match the source's text, i.e. here where something is inserted that's not in the source and again in the same quote here a sentence is left out mid-paragraph, not indicated by an ellipsis as is customary.

In the second para about Adorno, the first sentence cites Adorno for an extended quote; the next sentence has a double citation to an abstract at "Philipine e-journals"? Why? If we have access to Adorno, then we should be paraphrasing him; otherwise suggest deleting. Only a single page of Adorno is viewable - the page with the quote - so it's impossible to contextualize what he's saying. My interpretation is he thinks the elegies are poorly written, bad poetry, not actually literally evil. But again, without the full text it's impossible to tell. Adorno is 1964, so the reception section spans immediately post-publication in 1923 and stops in 1964. Seems there should be more?

• "Symbolism and themes": section comes in at 831 words, 571 with quotations removed, again a quotefarm. Note, I've only looked at the first two paragraphs. End of first para the long sentence starting with "Rilke explores the nature of mankind's contact with beauty ..." is uncited. That paragraph has a citation to Dash's article in Language in India and one to Martin Heidegger, which seem weak sources. Second paragraph, first sentence about the angels appears to be cited to Campbell or only to this FreeLibrary abstract. Note the abstract url has a search string for "Duino+angels+the+angels+of+islam", which is problematic. Fourth paragraph, the text that starts with "Rilke used the images of love and of lovers as a way of showing mankind's potential and humanity's failures ... " is uncited.
• In the "Influences" section I tried to sort out the sentences about Thomas Pynchon (one my favorite writers). It took a few tries and I'm not sure even now that it's right. A sentence not in the source had to be deleted; the "phrase "portraying the screaming descent of a V-2 rocket" is verbatim from the source (NYT) but not in quotation marks, fixed here, here, and here, and here; another misuse of quotation fixed here

In all it took six edits to fix two sentences, [2].

Obviously the article has seen tremendous work and improvements but judging from those few sections there are still sourcing issues, i.e a search on Google scholar for Rilke "Duino Elegies", here gives a large number of results. Of the first three secondary sources on the first page of the search result, Gass, Bell, McDonald, Hollander, we quote one from a separate source and don't use any of the others. Probably a lit search is in order, rather than trying to fit existing text with search strings to pages viewable on the internet. In other words of the criteria, 1 is not satisfied, 2.c. is satisfied, not sure about 3 or 4.

Bottom line, we should go ahead and delist. Victoria (tk) 19:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Victoria, I will defer to your decision. I joined this edit because I (mis)understood it would be fairly minor: the major issue was that claims weren't back by citations. I had assumed that beyond ensuring the text supported the citations, the article had relative integrity and other editors could clean up the loose ends. I did substantially rework the first two subsections of the "Writing and Publication" because a bit of it was factually incorrect. But I avoided heavy editing as the third subsection (Publication and Reception) and all of "Themes and Symbolism", as it struck me as subjective, heavily reliant on Leishman and Spender's (1963) commentary to the exclusion of much else, and I didn't agree with the analysis anyway. (But I didn't feel that's my role, given literary criticism is highly subjective.) I have no interest in reworking the "Symbolism and themes", which would also force a reworking of the lead. Maybe others are interested in a salvage operation? Wtfiv (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv I should have been clearer in my initial comments here, I forgot to put the article on watch when I put the FAR on watch, I'm absent for too long (in other words, I'm good at beating myself up!) and I feel bad about this. But the work you and Gerda Arendt and Grimes2 still stands and you all made the article better. The article will still be here in its improved condition, simply not eligible for TFA - which is ok. You all add great value to the project and time is a precious commodity. That you're not happy with the themes section is telling - you're a very intuitive and responsible editor. As a final note I decided to remove the beauty/suffering phrase. Victoria (tk) 23:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Please make a note about your decision to snip the famous line on the article talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to reiterate one of the posts above, the first iteration of that phrase shows up here and we haven't found a source for it. Before this closes, the issue should be buttoned up on this page so it's documented. Victoria (tk) 23:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:DENY; take it out. We don't honor hoaxsters and sockmasters on Wikipedia, and we have no idea of the origin of that phrase, as Victoria has amply illustrated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. It's taken out. All I asked is please make a note about the decision on the article talk (not here where nobody will see). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

FAR pages are (often) more likely to be seen than talk page sections, which vanish into talk page archives; the FAR page is enshrined in {{Article history}}, and easy to find at the top of the talk page. But yes, I did misinterpret the remark, "your decision to snip the famous line", and apologize for that misunderstanding. It read as if you valued the content that someone decided to snip. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What I value and not is of no concern here, nor if I spent or misspent my time. The sentence made it into literature about Rilke, with attribution to Wikipedia (if I understand Wtfiv right), and people from outside might be interested in what happened. They are not likely to find a FAR, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Gerda, I very much value what you did! I'll respond in detail on your talk page. Wtfiv (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

And they are equally unlikely to find it in talk archives then.

Are you saying that we need to add a {{Backwards copy}} to the talk page for the original sources that seem to have copied it from Wikipedia? Unless I am misunderstanding the history, we can't be sure they did copy it from Wikipedia, because we don't know where it came from. But if Victoriaearle thinks a backwards copy can be employed here, see the example at Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies, where the template allowed me to link to an entire talk page where I laid out the entire history of everything that ninny lifted 100% from Wikipedia. To add a backwards copy, we make the claim that we had it first; I don't think we know that we had this first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that there's no way of knowing whether the phrase came from a source verbatim, whether it's a paraphrase, etc., what the source is, or whether there is one. The only hint is that it's cited to the Duino Eligies. I've spent the past almost two hours trawling through introductions and notes in various pre-2014 translations and that phrase nor any of the words used in conjuction exists. No critic agrees what the Eligies are about, which is as it should be - a critic's job is to speculate and make an argument. Any phrase that's so definite has to be attributed (rather than in wiki voice, because many other critics will disagree).

I found a good description in a 1998 translation, here that emphasizes that there's no way of knowing what the poems are about (in other words, our definite phrase might be wrong):

The Eligies raise a number of questions. What is their subject? Is it primarily the creative act – the life, death, being, transformation of art, of poetry itself? Does Rilke take Life for his subject? Or is it primarily the Life of Art? I believe that the Eligies must be seen as the experience of being human, which includes the experience of art ...Cohn, Stephen. "Introduction", in Duino Eligies, A Bilingual Edition, (1998) p.18,

In terms of backwards copyvio, apparently that's happened, but I'm not in a place today to be able to do the necessary documentation. Sorry. Victoria (tk) 21:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Since I cannot foresee anyone !voting to keep this, no matter how much work is (mis)spent on it, I agree that we should follow the original recommendations, and Risker's current recommendations, and lose the dog now. We have many high-value, high pageview articles begging for attention at FAR, and we are entertaining a hoaxster here. We need to do the same with Alcohol laws of New Jersey before someone wastes any more time on it. So, per Victoriaearle, I am at Expedite a move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

FARC, accelerated process per Victoria and Sandy. This is the sort of article that really should be reworked outside of the FA process. Hog Farm _Talk 04:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Or just plain procedural Delist, without going to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

A procedural Delist would to expedite the stated preferred outcome of Victoriaearle, Wtfiv, Sandy and myself, and move forward the inevitable, so uncontroversial. For the star to be kept, the article would need to be torched and rebuilt, rather than modified and Wtfiv above has effectively confirmed my gut feeling. Well done however to those who have carried out the repairs in the last few weeks; very good work indeed. Ceoil (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Expedited delist, article should have been reverted to pre-hoax last version long ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Procedural delist and expedited without FARC. Victoria (tk) 01:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Expedited delist and agree that anything remaining of Colonel Henry's work is automatically suspect and should be removed. Hog Farm _Talk 01:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.