Talk:Moomins/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Synopsis and Characters section

The "Synopsis and Characters" section contains several statements which seem to me to be opinions rather than facts, to whit:

1 Moomintroll and Little My can be seen as psychological self-portraits of the artist.

2 Moominpappa and Moominmamma are often seen as portraits of Jansson's parents Viktor Jansson and Signe Hammarsten-Jansson.

3 The Moomin stories have a very humane message.

4 The novelist Alison Lurie has described the Groke, a black, hill-shaped creation with glowing eyes, as a walking manifestation of Nordic gloominess - everyone she touches dies, and the ground freezes everywhere she sits.

Some of these have been tagged as needing citations, but it seems to me that even with citations they cannot be justified. Statements 1 & 2 fall under Wikipedia's concept of weasel words, whether or not they can be given citations, and I have been so bold as to remove them. While I totally agree with statement 3 it is an opinion, not a fact, and I feel it is not justified. Any opinions to the contrary? If not I shall remove it too. As for number 4, is the opinion of some individual who has read the books noteworthy? Does the fact that the opinion is expressed by a novelist make it more relevant than my opinion, or yours?

I think the statement that Tuulikki Pietilä's personality inspired the character Too-Tikki needs justification, so I have tagged it for a citation. Merely stating "Tuulikki Pietilä's personality inspired the character" without giving justification is not a lot different from saying "I think Tuulikki Pietilä's personality inspired the character".

Finally I am removing the statement that Sniff is a rodent. When he is first introduced in The Little Trolls and the Great Flood he is described merely as a "small creature", and nowhere in any of the books, nor anywhere else that I have read, is it made more specific. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find about Tuulikki Pietilä's being the inspiration behind Too-Tikki. I have read this many times in reliable third party publications, and I seem to remember reading it in interviews with Tove Jansson. -Thibbs (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I also believe I've read statements 1 and 2 above in reliable third-party sources. If I can find something that backs them up I'll re-add those lines. The lines (especially #1) are poorly written and may contain weasel words, but I don't think that makes them per se excludable. -Thibbs (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for statements #1, #2, #4, and the Tuulikki Pietilä statements: this graduate thesis from the University of Jyväskylä suggests that:

"The Moomin family lives in a house where there is always space for guests and parties, Moominmamma holds the family together and never gives up, while Moominpappa is a bohemian and forges his own path. Moomintroll loves his mother more than anything in the world, but also finds his pappa's memoirs exciting. He is easily overcome by conscience and he finds it difficult to say no. He wants to explore the world, but always returns home again in the end. Eventually he somewhat releases his need for his mother. All this goes back to Tove Jansson's own childhood. The environment in which she grew up has largely put a mark on her works. (Salonen 1983, 28; Jones 1984; 12; Ørjasæter 1985, 92, 98, 132-133.)"

Given what we know about Tove Jansson's youth, the evidence clearly shows that Moominpappa and Moominmamma are at least influenced by Viktor and Signe Jansson. For those that would question my translation of the Swedish source above, I have tried hard to recover some English sources on the topic. This English source clearly spells out that:

"Based as it is on her recollections, the core of the Moomin family is very reminiscent of her own. The figure of Viktor Jansson is the same as that of Moominpappa, who occasionally becomes depressed by the verdant calm of Moomin Valley, packs his family into a boat and moves to an islet far out to sea. Just as similar to each other are Moominmamma and Signe Hammarsten-Jansson, fluctuating as they do between creativity and housework. In interviews Tove Jansson has spoken openly about the backgrounds of and possible models for her other characters. The lively and rational Too-ticky ... bears a clear resemblance to ... the graphic artist Tuulikki Pietilä. Moomintroll can be regarded mainly as a self-portrait: with its modern, sensitive and insecure, illogical tolerance, the figure is a prototype of today's often destructive human being. A second figure portraying Jansson is certainly Little My, an 'arch-child' - rational to the point of cruelty, unscrupulous and brazen."

Again, this other English source explains that:

Jansson's companion in life was the graphic artist Tuulikki Pietilä, whose personality inspired the character Too-ticky in Moominland Midwinter (1957). Moomintroll and Little My can be regarded as the artist's psychological self-portraits. The Moomins, in general, bore a strong resemblances to Jansson's own family - they were bohemians, lived close to nature, were tolerant towards the peculiarities of other creatures, and fond of Moominmamma's cooking."

According to the same source, Ros Coward in the June 30, 2001 edition of The Guardian wrote: "Sometimes, Jansson's characters border on the sinister, like the Hemulens, who are always officials, or the strange Hattifatners, who move in a singleminded, menacing crowd. Novelist Alison Lurie has described the Groke, a dark, mound-shaped creature with staring eyes, as 'a kind of walking manifestation of Scandinavian gloom; everything she touches dies, and the ground freezes wherever she sits.'" If the words of Pulitzer Prize-winner, Alison Lurie, are notable enough for The Guardian, I submit that they are good enough for this article. I am confident this addresses any concerns editors have as to the verifiability of the information that used to be in the article, and I will make the executive decision of re-inserting it together with the sources I found. If there are problems with these sources, I can supply additional ones. There are quite a large number of sources (especially in Swedish and Finish) which advance similar arguments. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think thanks are due to Thibbs for putting in the effort to find citations for some of the statements here. However, the fact remains that "can be seen as" and "are often seen as" are unmistakably weasel words within the meaning of the Wikipedia policy. To say "Joe Smith sees Moomintroll and Little My as..." would not be weasel words (though there might be other issues, such as whether Joe Smith's opinion is noteworthy). Some time when I find the time I will rewrite this passage to improve it, if nobody else beats me to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It only took a few moments on Google. Converting the cites to wikicode took me longer than finding them to be honest. Also I'm not sure if I gave the impression that I was contesting the weaselness of the words used, but what I intended to say was that weasel words do not make statements per se excludable. By this I mean that sentences with weasel words should be rewritten to remove their weasel nature but they should not be excised from the article unless they are unsupportable by citations. I'll leave the rewriting of those words to you, JamesBWatson, and thanks for taking that on. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sniff as rodent

Long mostly wikitheory discussion leading to consensus

• I probably shouldn't have even searched, but this source suggests that Sniff is a rodent. It should be given a fair amount of weight, too, since these are the current publishers of the comic books. Nevertheless I agree with JamesBWatson that I haven't seen a word about him being a rodent in the books. I'm not sure, then, what we should do. Should we reinsert the line and change it to something like "They also have an adopted son, Sniff, who is not a moomin. He has been described by Drawn and Quarterly as a small rodent."? Would that work? -Thibbs (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  Hmm... Scratch that. The review comes from The Beat, a The Nation blog. Still a reliable source, but less canon if you ask me. My new suggestion: "They also have an adopted son, Sniff, who is not a moomin. He has been described by Michael Brown of The Beat as a small rodent." I think if any editor was to kick up a fuss about excluding the line and used a source like this to back it up that we should discuss keeping it, but as long as nobody objects I think we can exclude this statement under IAR if we have consensus to do this. Thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  (1) I would have thought that Tove Jansson's writings were the definitive source. Anything else is just someone's opinion. Is my opinion noteworthy? Is the opinion of my next door neighbour noteworthy? Does someone's opinion become noteworthy because they happen to work as a journalist? In answer to "It should be given a fair amount of weight, too, since these are the current publishers of the comic books" (from Thibbs): I don't see why. If I had negotiated with the copyright owner to be allowed to publish the comics in book form, and had then said that the Moomins were hippopotamuses, would that make them hippopotamuses? Of course not. This is again just someone's opinion. I have known examples of publishers' blurbs written by people who have clearly not understood the authors' intentions: I have even heard an author complaining that his publisher has done so. (2) I think one of the charms of the Moomin stories is the sense of distance of the fantasy world portrayed from our world. Moomins look rather like hippopotamuses, but of course they aren't. Snufkin and the mymbles look rather human, but it is not clear that they are actually human; in fact I am inclined to think they aren't. A hemulen is clearly not any species we have ever seen. Goodness knows what a fillyjonk is. Sniff looks rather like some sort of rodent, but then again he looks rather like a kangaroo in some ways. I feel it is a mistake to try to tie any Moomin character down to any species which exists in our world. I think it is no mistake that Tove Jannson introduces him merely as a "small creature": she does not want to tie him down, and his whole character would have been different had she done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  Well there's always problems where sources conflict, but in this case they don't even. Rodents most often are small creatures. I think it would be quite hard to find sources that say sniff is not a rodent. I know it seems like published third-party opinions are less reliable than the opinions of editors who know the series better, but because we editors are not published third-party sources, wikipolicy is that their opinions (even though we call them mere opinions) must prevail. The underlying theory is that we are amateurs and they are professionals - we have no authority but ourselves, and they have the authority of the institution that has published them or otherwise aligns itself with them.

  Now, the problem does come up when sources conflict with each other, and as far as I know there is no objective way to decide which source is used and which is rejected. In fact, most often I see both opinions put forth as differing views under different sourcing.

  Where sources (even reliable sources) are clearly wrong or highly dubious then wikipolicy slants against the editor's opinion even if it is actually true - the underlying assumption being that wikipedia is written according to a Verifiability standard and if a true statement is not verifiable then it is not worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. The only remedy I have found at wikipedia has been the doctrine of Consensus together with the WP:IAR policy under which by consensus we can agree to ignore the rules that if a sentence is sourced then it is includible. This IAR policy is a subset of WP:UCS which allows us to use common sense in editing even when it conflicts with the rigid sourcing rules. By now I think you and I, JamesBWatson, have a 2-person consensus to exclude the line about Sniff being a rodent, but as with the talk archiving, I think we should at least wait for a few days before definitively claiming we have consensus. It would be nice if we could get agreement from some other editors, for instance, that: "Yes, we as a body of serious editors agree it is highly unlikely that Sniff is a rodent and are therefor consenting as a body to the exclusion of this claim (present in only 1 source) due to its potential to confuse readers." Without this, we can still gain silent consensus but it will take some time before this matures into real consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  I find this quite puzzling. I am honestly surprised to find that it does not go without saying that, concerning the nature of a fictitious character, the only authoritative source is what the author has written or said. I cannot find any support anywhere in Wikipedia for the idea that "they have the authority of the institution that has published them"; the fundamental principal espoused by the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources is that "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", not that they have had their work published by an institution that has authority. Consider the statement above "because we editors are not published third-party sources, wikipolicy is that their opinions (even though we call them mere opinions) must prevail". Where is this policy? I can't find it. On the contrary, it is easy to find Wikipedia policies etc which make it quite clear that merely being published does not give authority to a statement. For example, from the reliable sources guideline again, "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact", and it is not hard to find other examples. No matter how many hundreds of totally reliable and verifiable sources we may find telling us that Joe Smith said Sniff is a porcupine, they only go to show that that is Joe Smith's opinion, which is not at all the same as showing that Sniff is a porcupine. Of course Sniff is not really a porcupine, nor a rodent, nor even a small creature: he is a fiction occurring in Tove Jansson's literature and art: thus the only objective things one can say about him are about that fiction in that literature and art, because that is what he is. And in that literature Sniff is a small creature of completely unspecified species.

  JamesBWatson (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  The view of a third party with no special information has no more weight than the unsourced opinion of a random editor, and is hardly notable. Sniff is described as the off-spring of a Rådd-djur and a Sås-djur (a Muddler and a Fuzzy in the English translations), neither of which is ever characterised as a rodent any more than he is. David Arthur (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  Look, we're all in agreement that the "Sniff is a rodent" line should not be included so as far as that goes, I for one need no further proof. I've agreed that I personally am of the opinion that he isn't a rodent, and it is wikipolicy that consensus against inclusion of a statement can override its inclusion under WP:IAR. Here we are, three of us now. We all agree "Sniff is a rodent" is most likely the opinion of a writer unfamiliar with the subject.

  However it is clearly incorrect that the opinion of a "random editor" has equal footing with the opinion of a third party journalist whose opinion is published by The Nation. The difference is the fact that the journalist, in being published, is presumed to be subject to some level of peer review that the original research of the random wikipedian is not. I'm not saying that the Wikipedia editor might not be more correct in his analysis of the matter, however Wikipedia doesn't give truth much if any weight. Obviously I'm not suggesting we take this to arbitration, but believe me when I say that if this was taken before them by the person who originally included that line in this article, the arbitrators would give much more weight to the journalist's published opinion than the opinion of JamesBWatson even if we who know JamesBWatson to be right all stamped our feet and held our breaths. The reason for this relates directly to the fact that while JamesBWatson has truth on his side, the journalist has verifiability, and the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -Thibbs (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  One more thing just to specifically address some of your questions, JamesBWatson.

  1. As far as authority of the author versus the authority of the critic, the article on Authorial intent gives a good overview of this unanswerable debate. (Note especially Intentional fallacy and Deconstruction for counterpoints to your equally valid view)
  2. My contention that the weight of the institution comes into play runs deeper than the true statement that "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative." Why are the authors regarded as trustworthy or authoritative? The reason for this seemingly arbitrary bias is because the institutions that hired these authors have screened them and have provided them with oversight in the form of peer-review. This principle again comes into play when conflicting sources are compared as self-published and questionable sources are generally less highly regarded than "reliable sources" due to the weakness of their source - not the in the individual author but in the presumed lack of peer review from the institution they work for.
  3. I agree that the "Sniff is a rodent" line is nothing more than the opinion of the author. I don't agree, however that "the only objective things one can say about [Sniff] are about that fiction in that literature and art, because that is what he is." The line I had proposed in case any editors pushed for inclusion of the line was "They also have an adopted son, Sniff, who is not a moomin. He has been described by Michael Brown of The Beat as a small rodent." How is that not objective? -Thibbs (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  It's verifiable that he said it, but how is it relevant? JamesBWatson – or anyone else – can cite Jansson's description of Sniff, which does not characterise him as a rodent. No amount of peer review (and magazines, for that matter, aren't really peer-reviewed sources) can give him special insight, and the Death of the Author doesn't authorise overlooking the original text. David Arthur (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  I'm just saying it would be hard as a random editor to succeed against opposition using the line of argument that "this verifiable, published, third-party journalist's opinion is of less value than mine because I'm right." I probably should have just used the word "review" earlier instead of peer-review, but I think my point is still clear - in one case there is oversight (editorial review, etc) but in the other there is no review. As I said earlier, the claim of the journalist in this case does not conflict with the words of the author, thus the author need not be overlooked. Even if they did conflict I would never advocate an approach that disregards authorial intent, but depending on the situation (and this Sniff issue is not one of them) I might side with editors who wished to present both viewpoints. -Thibbs (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  PS - Really the point is pretty moot by this point since Davémon's Feb 5 edit nicely reworded the line to avoid this issue. -Thibbs (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  I agree with Thibbs's point that, since we agree that the "Sniff is a rodent" line should be left out, there is not a lot of point in further discussion, and so, unless someone else comes up with something either very new or very interesting, this will probably be my last comment on this issue for now. However, there are 2 more points I have not yet made, and I should like to make them before dropping the issue. (1) I never suggested, as Thibbs seems to think, that my, or some other editor's, opinion should take precedence over that of a published journalist. What I said was that, when we editors choose what third party opinions to give weight to, the fact that someone has had their views published does not ipso facto give those views more weight. The notion that merely having had one's views published indicates that those views have been subject to a review process indicates, I think, an ignorance of how magazine and newspaper publishing works. (2) The article concerning Authorial_intent is largely irrelevant. It concerns a debate as to whether evidence of the author's opinions have authority, or whether only the text has authority. It does not even touch on whether the opinion of a third party should be given weight, except for the one remark concerning "deconstruction" that "the critic's will and intention are superior to the author's", and that remark is simply quoted, without any explanation or discussion. My own position is in agreement with the position quoted in the Authorial intent article as: "The text is the only source of meaning, and any details of the author's desires or life are purely extraneous". If "any details of the author's desires or life are purely extraneous", then all the more so are any details of some third party' opinions extraneous. The text is the only source of meaning and the text does not say, nor even suggest, that Sniff is a rodent. I wrote above "I would have thought that Tove Jansson's writings were the definitive source", which is the same thingas "the text is the only source". If, on the other hand, you take the opposing view, namely that extra-textual evidence of the author's opinion has authority, then you will see above that I referred also to Tove Jansson's opinion, as a concession to those who might think it relevant, and doing so does not weaken my position at all: there is, as far as I am aware, no evidence at all that she intended Sniff to be a rodent. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  I apologize if I misunderstood your questioning of the inclusion of published third parties as a desire to exclude their opinion in favor of your own. I think it was statements like "is the opinion of some individual who has read the books noteworthy? Does the fact that the opinion is expressed by a novelist make it more relevant than my opinion, or yours?" that made me believe you were trying to equate the opinions of editors here to those of published third parties. If I misunderstood or overgeneralized your argument then I am sorry about it. Hopefully you can see why I may have begun to think this, though. Anyway, as long as we're all in agreement about the issue then all is well.

  To respond to your second point, I think you haven't given the articles I suggested a close enough reading. The statement that "The text is the only source of meaning" is by no means meant to invalidate all critical analysis of the text and defeat the critic, but rather to elevate his interpretation over arguments based on the details of the author's life or the later interpretations of the author herself. In other words, if we were writing a critical analysis of Ms. Jansson's novels instead of a reportative encyclopedia article on them then, indeed, going beyond the text to use the opinion of another critic would be largely inappropriate. Instead, however, this is an encyclopedia based strictly on verifiability. If a published third party suggests that something is a certain way and he comes from a reliable source and the only argument we can make against it is that it just plain wrong then we are doomed to play second fiddle. Even if we claim that our conflicting analysis is based on the primary text of the author then we are merely shedding the editor's visor and adopting the robes of the critic to engage in original research. If the statement we disagree with is rebutted by other 3rd party sources then we would have to present both viewpoints or agree by consensus to exclude one of them under IAR. It all goes back to verifiability in the end. As ridiculous as it seems (and trust me I've stood in your shoes arguing truth many times) this project is only intended to provide a forum for readers to view material that has already been published by a reliable source, and not a forum to view material we think is true. -Thibbs (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  Yes. Despite what I said above, this is interesting enough I will answer at least part of it, but this is definitely my last comment on the matter, at least for a month. (1) It is at least partly my fault that you misunderstood my position on use of third parties. When I wrote "more relevant than my opinion, or yours?" I just meant "more relevant than the opinion of some arbitrary individual. It was an unfortunate choice of words. (2) I did not think that "The text is the only source of meaning" was meant to "invalidate all critical analysis of the text and defeat the critic". However, if it was meant to elevate the critic's interpretation of the text over the critic's interpretation based on the author's life or the later interpretations of the author then I stick by my claim that it supports my position: interpretation based on some third party's later opinion cannot be more valid than interpretation based on the author's later opinion. If, however, "The text is the only source of meaning" was meant to elevate the critic's later interpretation over the author's later interpretation, then, to be blunt, I think it is nonsense. In any case, the crux of my position is that an interpretation has to be based on the text to be even tenable, and I contend that there is no basis in the text for the rodent theory. (3) On the Wikipedia Verifiability versus Truth doctrine, what you say is largely true. However, I disagree with your application of it in this case, for two reasons.

  (a) Where do you draw the line between one the one hand using Joe Soap's published opinion as verifying that Sniff is a rodent, and on the other hand using it to verify that Joe Soap thinks that Sniff is a rodent? Wikipedia makes a distinction between the two. My own view is that what Joe Soap says is evidence for no more than Joe Soap's opinion, unless supported by Tove Jansson's text.

  (b) Wikipedi's Verifiagbilty policy says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". However, in this case whether we regard it as true is not in issue: presumably we all know Sniff is not really a rodent, or anything else: he is fictitious. What we are trying to verify is not whether Sniff is really a rodent, but whether the text really says that Sniff is a rodent. The statement of an authority on a question of objective fact (such as whether evolution takes place) has authority for verifying that objective fact, but here the only objective reality is the text.

  JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  A few specific responses:

  (2) - Indeed what I meant was "the critic's interpretation of the text" is elevated. I may have misspoken as well: What I intended to say was that the critic's interpretation is elevated to the same level as the author. Beyond that point, the various opinions are only as strong as the arguments which support them and the rhetoric used. I know you've already taken the view that this is nonsense, but as the articles I suggested on authorial intent show, there is legitimate debate about whether or not the critic's later opinion can possibly supersede the later opinion of the author based on the strength of his arguments as they rest on the original text. In other words, some critics believe that the author loses control of the text as soon as it's released and then a critic's opinion can prevail if he argues forcefully enough from the text. That you deny a basis in the text for the rodent theory works well as an analytical conclusion, but unless you have something to point to, it's just original research. Furthermore, there is the equally valid opposed view that critics can argue from outside of the text. My reason for directing your attention to the articles on authorial intent was not to show that one side or the other is correct, but to show that there is a legitimate debate about the issue. Apart from simply choosing sides, the only thing we can be certain of is that if it's reliable and verifiable then it is includible on Wikipedia.

  (3)(b) - I don't see it this way. If we were writing a critical analysis then I would recognize the validity of your argument, however your presumption that "the only objective reality is the text" is in fact nothing more than a (perfectly valid) analytical standpoint. In point of fact I actually do agree with your preferred analytic technique on a personal level. Going back to the articles I suggested on authorial intent, however, I think it's clear that there is debate over this standpoint. As reporters, we are bound to report both views if reliable and verifiable and we are barred from censoring one view if our only reason is because we are pure textualists and our personal textual analysis reveals no support. As such, I think we can alter your earlier assertion to look like this: Neither are we trying to verify whether or not Sniff is really a rodent, nor whether the text really says that Sniff is a rodent, but rather we seek to verify whether any reliable source says he is a Rodent whether based on text or not.

  • Finally, just as you've said I'm also going to make this my last post on this topic. We're in agreement about the original question and we've now drifted from the topic of the article into strict theory. I suggest that we continue the remainder of this discussion in userspace talk from now on. If you don't mind, and if nobody else objects, I think I'll also collapse a few of these lengthy and off-topic discussions into frames here. They'll still be viewable but they won't take up nearly as much space. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Finland vs Sweden

This has gotten to be kind of ridiculous. Tove Jansson was a Finnish woman who wrote in Swedish. I think we should source this and present both nationalites in places where this can be sourced. We should put "<!--" comments at all places where these nationalistic battles erupt to explain this and this should be our general rule of thumb. Does that sound good to everyone? -Thibbs (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case, Swedish is a language, not a nationality, so there shouldn't be any issue – the infobox, where the recent issues have occurred, offers fields for both language and nationality. I think the problem is not a nationalistic one, but simply the common misconception in English-speaking countries that these books were written in Finnish (since most people are unaware of the status of Swedish in Finland). David Arthur (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but surely this sort of thing could be better sorted out by properly sourcing the matter and adding a comment, no? -Thibbs (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah OK I see you've added a comment. I source would be nice too, but what we have currently will probably be enough to keep anybody but a vandal from re-inserting the wrong info. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The books themselves are more than sufficient source here. Any copy in English (or Finnish) will credit a translator, and probably give an original title in Swedish, whereas a copy in Swedish will not. David Arthur (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. You're describing original research. I don't really care if stays unsourced, though. I'm not one of those who needs every obvious thing sourced. The only reason I brought it up was as an idea to help keep good-faith-but-wrong editors, nationalistic-POV-pushers, and vandals from changing it, but maybe the comment alone is sufficient. -Thibbs (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not describing original research – I'm describing citing the book itself, which is about as far in the opposite direction as you can get. But a mistaken assumption, no matter how widespread, isn't nearly enough to overcome the common knowledge among anyone who genuinely knows the circumstances of these books, so I agree that any citation at all would be overkill (and probably would have no effect on anyone stubborn enough to want to change correct information). David Arthur (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate to contradict you, but that's definitely original research. How can you cite an oeuvre? How do you cite the absence of a translator? Even if you could do that what have you proved except that one book listed no translator and the others all did. Unless you mean to cite a passage from a particular book that states "Tove Jansson was a Finnish woman who wrote in Swedish," you're asking the reader to draw the same unsourced conclusion you drew. Review just the lede of WP:OR. I'm sure you'll see I'm right. -Thibbs (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Original research is 'I have conducted this experiment which proves Einstein wrong', or 'I was an eyewitness to this historical event'. It is not in any sense 'original thought' to read an inside cover page which says 'Original title Trollkarlens hatt' and recognise (as anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of either language could do) that this title is in Swedish, rather than Finnish. David Arthur (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Original research is everything from asking readers to blindly accept your assertions to asking readers to draw the same unpublished inferences you have. Just because it's TRUE doesn't mean it's not OR. Quoting WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that ... directly support[s] the information as it is presented." What you are suggesting is a means to obliquely support the information as it is presented. I recognize that it's frustrating. This is one of the major reasons why so many good-faith editors get sick of the bureaucracy here. This issue normally only arises when the matter asserted is challenged, and right now nobody's challenging it so let's leave it as is, but if someone did come here to challenge it then we'd have to find a source that directly states the information. Thankfully I'm sure there are a great many such sources available. The real frustration comes when true information is hacked out by some editor who doesn't know the truth simply because you (the good-faith editor) are unable to find a published source that directly supports the true statement. I've been in that place a number of times. -Thibbs (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

PS - Since we're in agreement as to the basic issue, perhaps we should move whatever more of this discussion that there is into usertalk. -Thibbs (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Of the two fairly recent occasions where "Swedish" was replaced by "Finnish", one (by an anonymous editor at IP 88.195.248.134) could well have been an innocent error by someone who assumed the books were in Finnish because they were written in Finland. However, the other was by an anonymous editor at IP 84.248.3.178, who has a history of inserting references to Finland and Finnish into articles, and on some occasions also gratuitously removing references to Sweden, so it seems likely that it is motivated by some form of nationalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

New Changes

Hey guys. After the most recent edit I've had enough. I added a citation that discusses the very issue of whether or not the books are Swedish or Finnish, and among other things the source says that both cultures claim the books as their own national literature. So rather than endlessly monitoring and reverting things here, I think we should include both languages with the citation I added. Now the new form of the debate will be what order to put them in. The solution I see most often elsewhere is to put them alphabetically, however I have temporarily left Swedish before Finnish due to the fact that the original language was Swedish. So they're in chronological order. IF this sounds like a good compromise to everybody then I suggest we replace the warning tag that was deleted by the last IP editor and replace it with one explaining the chronological order scheme that we've gained consensus for. So do we have consensus for this? -Thibbs (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Thibbs's recent edit summary: "OK this is now officially ridiculous" pretty well sums it up. The anonymous editor at IP 88.195.248.134 has ignored the warning tag, and his/her one non-Moomin edit is also on a Finnish theme, so maybe this editor too is motivated by nationalism. As for the suggested solution, it would be nice to find an easy consensus, but I'm afraid I don't agree. Swedes and Finns may well both regard the Moomins as part of their own national literature, but the language in which the books were written is Swedish, so I can see no justification for listing anything under language other than Swedish. I have written a note on the anon IP editor's user page. In my experience notes to anon IP users rarely produce any effect, but I think we should try every method of persuasion: I am reluctant to let one editor with a fixed idea over-rule consensus by sheer persistence. For the present I am leaving the double reference "Swedish, Finnish", as I think it is more helpful to try to reach consensus by discussion, rather than each of us endlessly changing things to our personal preference. However, unless a justification can be given for stating keeping the reference to Finnish I do not think that it should remain for long. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

JamesBWatson is right that language and national identity are quite different. Reading from Template:Infobox Book, Language is defined as "Language of original book." That's definitely Swedish in this case, so only Swedish should appear under "language." The Book Infobox Template contains a special note for translations however, and perhaps this would be a good place to go for a compromise for those Finnish nationals who feel cheated. An example is provided at Template talk:Infobox Book#Translated books case study that shows a workaround that may be used to cite two or more books in the infobox if two or more books are important to cover. It should be noted that even in this example, however, the language line is still the original language. I suggest we use this method to cite the first Finnish translation (and we could even do the first English translations as well since this is en.wiki) but that we change language back to Swedish and retain the reference since the reference directly states that "Tove Janson, creator of the Moomins, [] is a Swedish-speaking and writing Finn". Thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Thoughts?" asks Thibbs. Well, my first thought is to agree 100% with one of Thibbs's edit summaries: "OK this is now officially ridiculous" pretty well sums it up. This is one of the kinds of things which make Wikipedia frustrating. I have looked at the example case study linked by Thibbs, and perhaps the idea could be used. I have made a draft version here. I find this a cumbersome arrangement, however. The point of the infobox is to give one neat, concise summary: having more than one infobox somewhat defeats this purpose. Perhaps a single box could be made giving all three versions, but it would have to be custom-made, as the standard Book Infobox does not provide the necessary flexibility. I am also not sure whether this will achieve the desired purpose of bringing the problem to an end, but I am not against trying it. Any comments? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Since writing the above I have made a try at a custom info box listing Swedish, English, and Finnish. It is not perfect, but I think it has advantages over separate boxes for each language. It is available here Any comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBW (talk • contribs) 11:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks great! Unless there are objections I move that we adopt it. -Thibbs (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Right: I have put it in place. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Other literature/tv shows with characters sharing similar appearance?

I find some of the characters in The Backyardigans bear high resemblances to the Moomins. Do you know of others? If there has been trademark or such disputes that would be interesting information for the article. Then again there has been copying of the Mickey Mouse going on as well. Now they certainly don't look 1:1 identical but my first reaction was "Sue Nick Jr!" given that series has the looks of a cheap knock-off.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.172.94 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) 09:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they would claim that the shape of the characters (rounded creatures with big noses) is just a common shape and that it was too basic to trademark and probably aesthetically functional. Giving trademark protection to such a common shape would produce a strong negative effect on competitors unrelated to the source-identifying aspect of the trademark. For other examples of similar characters, see the Trouble for Trumpets series by Peter Cross or even Nerds (candy) or Hungry Hungry Hippos. I agree, though, that if anyone can find any litigation in this area then that should be added to the article. I just don't think it's very likely that we would... -Thibbs (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Schildts (publisher)

The original publisher, Schildts Ab, has a no-article link. Their website seems to be only in Swedish and Finnish; Google has a cached copy of their English Moomin page, which is currently not available on the publisher's site.

I've added a reference after "Schildts", linking to the Swedish Moomin page, with a note that that seems to be the only version. Even when you click on the Finnish flag labeled "SUOMEKSI" you just get the same (Swedish) page. -- Thnidu (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)