Talk:The Three Ravens

September 2005

I thought that "Twa" meant three

Nope. If you don't believe us, check it out here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Analysis of work: “The Three Ravens Explicated,” Midwest Folklore, Vol. XIII #3, Summer 1963, by Vernon V Chatman III.

That's nice. Be sure to add this reference to the article if you decide to incorporate any information from it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't add anything to the article, so I'm cutting it. As far as I can tell, no information from the reference has been added to the article so it's not a useful citation, and a single analysis in an obscure journal published over 40 years ago isn't sufficiently notable to mention as a point of interest. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I see I'll have to explain this in more detail. So far, all the edits concerning this article have been about the article. This page isn't about the article; it's about the song. If the article has interesting information about the song in it, then use it as a source. But the bare fact that such an article was written, and a very sketchy summary of what it was about is not in and of itself of interest here.

Bibliographical information about the article doesn't belong in the body of the text anyway, but in the "References" section (which would have to be created in this case.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I know nothing about the publication in question, whether it's a scholarly journal or merely a newsletter of some kind, and I'm not at all clear what the author's qualifications are. If the refrain is anything but the kind of "filler" material very commonly found of songs of the period -- one might as well sing "fa-la-la" or some such -- you'd have to go a long way to convince me of that. There is no doubt interesting symbolism connected with the doe which would be of interest, assuming there's more to it than the first paragraph of the "Lyrics of the Ballad" section alludes, but merely telling us of the existence of some written ruminations on the subject is, again, not of interest. This is an encyclopedia article about the song. Tell us about the song. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

About Midwest Folklore

Midwest Folklore is (renamed and now superceded) a scholarly journal. First pubd. v. 1-13; Apr. 1951-winter 1963/64 Description 13 v. 23 cm Alt author Indiana University Alt title Midwest folklore Continues Hoosier folklore 0731-213X (DLC) 47035585 Cont. by Journal of the Folklore Institute 0015-5934 (OCoLC)1753020

ISSN 0544-0750 LCCN 52062586 //r82

http://web3.unt.edu/untpress/catalog/detail.cfm?ID=68:

“… this collection of Texas folklore, … features a symposium on "Folksong and Folksong Scholarship" by five men eminent in the field of folk music [including] … W. Edson Richmond, editor of Midwest Folklore and teacher of courses on the ballad at the University of Indiana.”

Analysis

This is much better than before, so I thank you, but there is still much that can be said. What has been added so far is rather elliptical. And when the conclusion that are presented are surprising or non-obvious it's best to give some of the supporting evidence.

• Could you present some of the argument from the reference about the refrain? On first glance, the refrain appears no different in nature than the numerous refrains of the same sort in songs of the period. ("Fa la la", "Hey nonny nonny", "With a down down derry down down", etc.) You could look just through Meliamata and see many, many examples. Why is this one different?

• What is meant by "war song"? Again on first glance, it's obviously not a fighting song; the melody is highly unsuitable. If it just means a song about a war, that's nearly tautological.

• Irish? That's very surprising given the complete lack of Irish dialectical expressions and the characteristically English style of the refrain. Could we see some of the supporting argument for this? Anglo-Irish maybe? Or is the idea that something like "Twa Corbies" was the prototype, recast by an Englishman?

• A "host of difficulties"? Most of it seems fairly clear, and indeed you only mention two.

• If this is "difficult" for the modern reader as asserted, what were the conditions of its original context that rendered it intelligible to a listener of the time?

• The "Find it in a library" link would be more useful if it actually set up some of the query. And there's no reason to use TinyURL here since the URL itself need not appear in the text. Edit: Actually, I'm cutting this. It appears as if searches on that site are only available to subscribers. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Library search from link that was provided does not require a subscription.

I used tinyurl because in my experience long links can be corrupted when multi-line in some texts. Sorry.

In that case it would be helpful if you included at least some fragment of a search. I could find no non-subscription search engine from the page you pointed to. (There seemed to be a trial version that limits the search somehow, but I wasn't clear if you had a limited number of searches available, or of the scope of it was somehow limited.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, but I'm forced to revert again. You added more words, but not very much information, with no actual argumentation from the article, and the information you did add is among those extraordinary claims that require extraordinary proofs. A very great number of English folk songs from period use similar refrains, without a hint that "derry" means this Derry or that the words are chosen for anything but a pleasing or suitable vocalism. One fact that ought to refute the claim on its face: The walled city of Londonderry was only built in 1613-1618, while the song was recorded in 1611 and is probably far older. Yes, Derry was inhabited much longer than that, but I see nothing to indicate that is was such a remarkable place before the late 16th early 17th centuries. Thus, this is really a claim that cannot be made so baldly.

I'm tempted to revert all your recent changes, but I'd really like to see the information from your source developed so I can express an informed opinion. I'm at a complete loss as to why you're not doing so. Although I must say that given the fragmentary information you've provided so far it's sounding less and less like a credible source, in any event certainly not the majority opinion on the song and not deserving of a prominent mention in so brief an article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm basically with TCC on this. The recent additions spend an inordinate amount of time on the opinions of a single guy who seems to make some broad assumptions and treat the story as historical fact rather than a mystical poem. If it isn't "original research" it's only because it's been published once in a minor journal. Many songs have refrains that are more complex than fa la la and wack fol the diddle but are still generally accepted to be basically meaningless. Moving the song to Ireland because of the single mention of the word "Derry" seems quite extreme. Is that Chatham who said that, because he use of the EB makes it seem like original research? The fact that the mext paragraph says that "Derry" means "oak-wood" sort of shoots down that theory as well. This has now gone from an article to an essay. I'm not sure of a wholesale reversion is necessary, but severe editing is. -R. fiend 15:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, but I have a touch of the flu this evening and my head is pounding too hard to make the necessary edits. I'll get to it in the next day or two. I'm not really certain how closely we can identify User:Vvchatman3 with the apparently eponymous author of the Midwest Folklore article: he's never offered a positive identification himself, and with a 1963 publication he would now have to be well above the median age of Wikipedia users. (Which of course doesn't make it impossible, just unlikely.) If it is the same author, then this seems to be in origin nothing more than a vanity edit, since at first all he did was to mention the publication and it was only after considerable browbeating on my part that he was persuaded to actually present the argument. If that is indeed the case, I will be highly miffed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

PS - I wikied "flu" above. Am I pathetic or what? (If I were really pathetic I'd go back and dab it now, so maybe I'm not as bad off as I think.)

I did haul out the OED though, and Mr. Chatman would have been well advised to consult the definition of "derry" before he embarked on his harebrained theorizing. We discover that its sole definition is, "A meaningless word in the refrains of popular songs." WRT "down", the meaning he's relying on here is first attested in 1610, too late to have been the primary meaning in a ballad that long predates its recording in 1611. Since there are 8 columns of definitions for "down" one suspects that the evidence was carefully selected to support the theory rather than the other way around. Especially when we come to adv 26: "Used in ballad refrains, without appreciable meaning". Amazing what you find when you check the references. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Using the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1956) we find that Londonderry was once named 'Derry.'

It's easier than that. You could just click on Derry and discover that not only was it once named that, a goodly number of the locals still call it that. But so what? "Derry" is a common nonsense word in old ballad refrains according to the OED, so when we encounter it in a ballad refrain there's no reason to think it's anything else. There is absolutely nothing about this song pointing it to the town. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course, "absolutely nothing" is wrong. One can read the entire case in the Chatman reference.

I did read it. It's ridiculous. By that reasoning half the ballads of the period are about Ireland. Somehow we're supposed to believe that in all the centuries of English folk music no one ever even suspected that any of these songs were about Ireland until this Chapman guy comes along and sets everyone straight. Sorry, but I don't think so. I'll believe the OED before I believe Chapman. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, you exaggerate: the argument was not that 'derrie' is a reference to Ireland in all texts.

I don't exaggerate. No reason was offered as to why in this song alone "derrie" meant the Irish town, but not in any of the others. The same logic is therefore applicable to all of them. If not, some reason needs to be presented, but none was. (And if so it would be a case of Special pleading and an instance of circular logic, not proof of anything. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Not so. Position was not taken that: in this song alone "derrie" means the Irish town," so no reason 'why' is required as a matter of logic.

Whoah. You just said, "the argument was not that 'derrie' is a reference to Ireland in all texts." Either it was or it wasn't: make up your mind. Let me be generous and assume that you claim that "derrie" means Derry in some songs but not others. We have had no criteria at all presented that allows us to tell the difference, let alone any that are for one moment credible. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference style

I changed the reference style to use <ref> instead of {{fnb}}, I hope nobody minds. If you are adamãnt about using it, I won't protest you reverting me or anything (hell, I just got here ;), but please replace it with {{note}}. fnb is deprecated. Oskar 22:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Twa corbies

As far as I am aware, being a Borderer myself, the lyric for this version was a 15th/16thc. parody of the by then common English Ballad, telling of the murder of a rival and abduction of his lady. This is a common motif in Border legend, and the sentiment in the song is in keeping with the gallows humour of those lawlwess times on the Scots and English marches. Brendandh 00:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"God Send..."

What does that stanza mean? Thanks. Xiner (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It expresses that this knight was particularly fortunate in the companions who surrounded him even in death. His dogs died defending him, his hawks defended his body from carrion fowl, and his lover gave him a proper burial before either pining for him so wholeheartedly that she died later that same day, or died giving birth to his child, or possibly both simultaneously. (The reasons here are implied rather than stated outright.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Versions in other languages

I am told by a German friend that there are versions of this song in many other languages across Europe.
I don't have any more detail on this.
217.146.112.205 12:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• A parody of the German version, Rabenballade (as I'm told), about lawyers: Three unfair Ladies and a fair Lad (folkoloco). "Rabenanwälte und Abmahnkrähen" (in German). Arne Babenhauserheide. Retrieved 2007-08-20. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |datepublished= ignored (help)
• Pushkin's partial Russian translation of a French translation of Twa Corbies is in the Russian article.

--AVRS 13:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Natan Altermann translated it beautifully to Hebrew in his translation collection, Songs of England and Scotland. Siúnrá (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Twa corbies

Im in LA3 right now and were learning about ballads. We just read the Twa corbies story in our text book, and it was sort of interesting. But when I saw the story here, I noticed that it had some different words then in the book. Should I change the words to what the book says? Tythesly 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, it says “There may be a few different versions of this anonymously authored poem. The full text of at least one version of the poem is as follows:”. --AVRS 22:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the link to the Child collection at the bottom of the article, you can see several different versions of both "The Three Ravens" and "Twa Corbies". TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Three Ravens

Very likely Pushkin (Russian) was inspired by this to write DVA VORONA (Two Ravens). It's remarkably similar. 99.151.255.169 (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Donald L Richardson 352 Caprino Way #13 San Carlos, CA 94070

There is a song based on the story but with completely reworked lyrics and tune by Judy Henske and Jerry Yester on their album "Farewell Aldebaran". Check it out on Youtube (I can include the link. Is it appropriate to include a reference on this page? 15 Feb 2015 James Robertson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.188.199 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

analysis of the ballad

i think the poem is about two different worlds;that of humans and that of animals.the human wordld represented by the narrator, the dead knight,and the lady fair. and that of the animal world is represented by the two crabies,the hawk and the hound. the human wordld depicts a society of betrayal(from the lady fair ), immorality (of the lady fair which might have reulted in the knight's death) and murder(slaying of the knght), although humans are supposed to be civilized. that of the animal world depicts a socity which is not governed by any norms and values,an amoral societywhere thetwo ravens do what they have to do to the dead and the haund and hawk continue hunting even after the death of their master. the narrator who is indifferent while telling the poem, leaves the reader in a state to choose which word to belong to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.206.239.201 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Breton?

To say, as we do, that the song, or the melody is originally Breton really requires a secondary source; but there is no evidence here that the Breton version is older than Ravenscroft, even - and there will be some difficulty finding any. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The events behind the Breton song 'An Alarc'h' are in the 14th C, and the tune has an early feel to it. As I understand it, the Breton tune was applied to the Scottish words in fairly modern times - well post-Ravenscroft. My copy of Goss's 'Ballads of Britain' gives three tunes for the ravens, one for the two crows, and one for an American song involving three crows. None of these bear resemblance to the Breton tune. I've seen in writing somewhere that the use of a very much slowed down 'An Alarc'h' came in in Scotland in the second half of the 20th C, but can't find the book. (If I'm thinking of the right book, it's called 'Marrow Bones'.) The tune caught on because in the slowed down version, it is rather spooky and bleak and can make one really feel the winds blawing for ever mair... (In the original Breton version, it's a rousing 'Agincourt Song' number - see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Alarc%27h - with a chorus line of "Dinn, dinn, daoñ, d'an emgann, d'an emgann, o".) Peridon (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

deleted paragraph

I deleted the following:

One might note a further distinction in the two poems, that being the theme of perfidy. The reader cannot hold the hawk and the hound to task for going off to do what they do, but if the knight's "lady fair" knows where he is, then she obviously either contracted his murder, or performed this act herself. Since the corbies do not mention blood on the corpse, we might assume that our "lady fair" poisoned the knight. However this viewpoint is doubtful because the crows clearly mention he was "slain", and at any rate the manner in which the knight died has little importance to the story.

All that is obvious from the text is that the lady fair knew about the knight's murder. Her part in it, if any, remains obscure -- and wild animals might be more sympathetic to Tajomaru's viewpoint anyway :).

In any case none of this analysis is cited, and this isn't a blog or personal webpage. —Charles P._(Mirv) 03:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the "Three Ravens" image

The image accompanying the text of "The Three Ravens" has a cervid centauroid, a beast which appears nowhere in the text. There is a fallow deer, metaphorically representing the knight's mistress, but the two are not combined in one form. Also, she doesn't look pregnant. I suggest that the image be removed. 76.118.227.30 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree - it has three black birds which do not to me look like ravens (or corbies), and the central figure is definitely a centaur of a cervid (based on deer not horse) variety. The picture is signed FL so far as I can see, and looks rather modern. If it is (as stated in the description) the work of the uploader, I would thank him/her for providing it, but ask (pretty please...) for a corrected version. If it is not, there could be a copyright issue. As to the pregnancy point, I don't think it would be visible as things stand - the corpse would obscure it. Peridon (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"This 'fallow doe' is a centaur-like woman, presumably possessing nymph-like qualities" from The Three Ravens Explicated. "Critical debates about the ballad have focused on the 'fallow doe' in the poem" from The Facts on File Companion to British Poetry before 1600, Sauer, 2008. The image reflects a recognized reading of the ballad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValtinX (talk • contribs) 22:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is that this is not a fallow doe - a fallow doe being a smallish deer. This is a centaur. I've performed versions of this song and in none I've used, none I've heard, and none I've read, has there been any mention of a centaur-like figure. In most versions as performed in the UK, where the lady comes to the body, it is the woman as a woman. The fallow doe is less than a metre (yard) high at the shoulder and could not possible carry a man. A woman could, and the doe is a poetical reference. This centauroid figure in the song is no fallow doe either in shape or in size. Please do not put it back. I notice you have only edited in this context. May I ask why you are so set on restoring this image, and if you know from whence it comes? I can't remember who uploaded it at the moment. Peridon (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I take it you have not read The Three Ravens Explicated article. Also, "many scholars suggest that the doe is a supernatural creature, perhaps a wood-wife...--a wood fairy that takes human lovers" from The Facts on File Companion to British Poetry before 1600. I do not understand why you are so insistent on removing the image and on your interpretation that this is a fully human woman. I uploaded the image; please do not remove it again—you may wish to add an ‘as interpreted in/by’ notice to the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.8.89 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what some American associate professor says. I have not read the article, and see no reason why her interpretation should go over the actual words of the song. This is an English / Scottish song originally, and no centaurs of any sort are part of our folklore. As I said, a fallow doe would be acceptable as an image - being mentioned in one version of the song. It would be extremely unlikely that a fallow deer could perform the task, but the words are there. In most versions of the song, the knight has a perfectly normal 'leman', and she is not a wood-wife. To quote Monstropedia, "They are native to and inhabit in the heart of the old forests and dense groves of Scandinavia and Germany" http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Wood-Wife In any event, a fallow doe is not a centaur. A wood-wife is not a centaur. Who are the 'many scholars'? Does this picture occur in the book you refer to? Peridon (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

1. The actual words of the song imply that there are talking ravens. Are we to take that literally? Even you argue that 'fallow doe', over the actual words of the song, is not literal. A central debate regarding this work is the interpretation of ‘fallow doe.’ Your preference for reading it as a fully human woman is not without its problems. 2. You say "no centaurs of any sort are part of our folklore," but bi-formed and centauriod (e.g., sagittary) creatures do occur in British/Scottish literature and heraldry. See, for example, http://community.livejournal.com/mcotd/3364.html and/or http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Centaur. This is not the place for a debate about origins and interpretation. The posted image reflects the interpretation in a recognized reference.ValtinX (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the Centaur Inn (?fictional? - and anyway probably derived from someone's arms), and heraldry (which is a little world of its own, living by its own rules), those links do not show any folklore centaurs here. Talking animals are commonplace in most folklores; besides which, many corvids can be taught to 'talk' so there is nothing out of the ordinary there. A 'recognised' reference? Not by me, if she talks drivel like that. Is the picture in the book? I don't plan to spend $85 (or whatever) on buying it to find out. Why is there a problem with regarding the 'undertaker' as being fully human? It's a more logical interpretation than some sort of centaur. Peridon (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Recognized. You say of yourself, “not by me.” I’m not sure what to make of that. See: Further Reading reference in the Three Ravens article itself and Midwest Folklore; also, The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, Vol 1, 600 – 1600, ed. G Watson, 1974. Logical. “She was dead her self ere euen-song time,” presumably without giving birth to the knight’s “yong”, and thus became available to be eaten (and not buried). To repeat, this is not the place for a debate about origins and interpretation--which has gone on for years.ValtinX (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Do any other sources than Sauer mention centaurs? Why will you not answer me about whether or not the picture is in her book? Or what its origins are? Peridon (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Some medieval bestiaries refer[] to...half-human,...half deer...centaurs", http://community.livejournal.com/mcotd/3364.html. "[T]he doe is understood to be both human and animal", http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6726203/The-beast-within-animals-as.html. Clearly, neither a literal reading nor a direct taking as a fully human woman will do.ValtinX (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still concerned about the origins of this image from the copyright point of view. Is it in Sauer's book or not? If not, where is it from? Peridon (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Its description page says it was created by commons:User:ValtinX, which raises the question of who this person is and why their drawing, representing a minority analysis of the text, is worth including in the article. Gorobay (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I am also concerned with the appropriateness of the centaur image on this page. The 'fallow doe' is primarily taken in interpretations to be a human female, or secondarily as a deer/woman shape-changer, but not as a centaur, that is a very minor view. I suggest that this image be removed due to it's prominence as the sole image of the 'woman' on the page which thus gives too heavy a weight to a minor interpretation of the 'fallow doe'. If there were other images to balance it out, it could be acceptable as an alternative though minor view, but in the absence of such images I suggest that it is removed. Hart Wud (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation of "een"

The translation of een in the reference list is incorrect: "een" is the Scottish plural of "ee", "eye". I would fix the mistake, but I can't figure out how to edit the list. Kloiten (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're quite correct - I've changed it. Peridon (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Centaur image, again

I have removed the image. Firstly, we already have an excellent image by a notable artist. Secondly, the interpretation of the doe as a centaur is not mentioned in the text nor is a source provided. Thirdly, it appears to be a minority interpretation. —Ashley Y 03:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Centaur consensus

There only appears to be one person favouring the centaur, and at least three of us against it I would like to get a consensus on this issue. Would anyone with an opinion please give it here? Thanks. In addition, I have reservations about the origins of the picture in terms of copyright. I would rather like to know where it comes from, and why the poster of it is so insistent on it and only seems to edit Wikipedia in this connection. Peridon (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that a minority view should get little coverage, and a majority view should get lots of coverage. Currently, the minority view (centaur) has one image, and the majority view (metaphor) has one sentence. There should be an "Interpretations" section to address this, in which both are addressed (if the centaur view has more than one proponent). Gorobay (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Against the centaur image. It adds undue weight to a single, very eccentric interpretation of the ballad. - JRBrown (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

For. Wikipedia is not: a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. Bi-formed centaur-like fallow doe interpretation published in peer-reviewed journal. See About Midwest Folklore above.

• Please make sure you are signed in, and please sign your posts. Thank you, Peridon (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Against. I am surprised there is even a debate about this. The centaur image is weirdly inappropriate, poorly executed, distasteful, and should be removed post haste. Not only does it add nothing to the article, it specifically detracts from it and on that basis alone it should be removed. Permanently. KDS4444^Talk 06:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(Further: the fact that an interpretation of a cervid-centaur exists in a peer-reviewed journal does not seem to entitle any individual to insist that his or her strange visual representation of that interpretation appear in a Wikipedia article-- as seems to be the ongoing case here. You drew a picture-- good for you. It does not belong here, please stop insisting that it does and please allow another editor to remove the image if you are unwilling to do so yourself.) KDS4444^Talk 07:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that a majority supports the removal of this image. When can we declare consensus and remove it? And, when the removal is reverted, how can we make ValtinX respect consensus? Gorobay (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've requested an uninvolved admin to look into the situation - he has access to library facilities that I don't. Personally, I think the consensus is clear, but having someone not involved give an opinion won't harm things. Peridon (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The days are passing-- I am going to once again take the image down and see if it gets put back up again. Wish me luck. KDS4444^Talk 21:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It stayed down for two whole days. Were you able to get the uninvolved admin's opinion? Gorobay (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that my removal of the image was undone an that it is once again back in the article. Looks like the person who drew it is determined to undermine the notion of consensus and to contravene the principles of Wikipedia by insisting on including his/ her own "art" work in the piece. I am not sure what additional action to take at this point other than to treat the action as a kind of vandalism. In the mean time I am embarrassed for Wikipedia. I hope that the person who drew and added it will eventually come to the realization that it is not wanted here. KDS4444^Talk 09:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(Also, doesn't this now get classified as an "edit war"?? I've never actually had to witness one of those before-- usually common sense seems to take hold before that happens, but apparently not this time...) KDS4444^Talk 09:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To ValtinX

Your edit summary says 'I did not draw'. The licensing info for the image says 'Author: ValtinX', 'Source: own work'. I would like a convincing explanation of this discrepancy. If you did not draw it, did you scan it? If so, from where? Peridon (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Commissioned WorkValtinX (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)