# Talk:Translation of The Lord of the Rings into Swedish

Several of the previous translations (before I corrected them) used very dubious translations (E.g. "sämja", "unite"/"unity", was translated as "tame", which is just wrong) and had no supporting references. As such, I corrected them without supporting references (e.g. for SAOL[[[1]]] and Wiktionary [[[2]]]). 109.228.176.49 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we have no option here but to remove the uncited materials; adding further uncited claims is unjustifiable and only makes matters worse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted User:Wakuran's edit, and was expecting them either to drop the stick or to come here with some sort of rational explanation of their very bold action. Instead they have seen fit to edit-war. Clearly that is not all right, and the Status quo ante must prevail until consensus is reached. 
On your changes: firstly, you have left the phrase "stating that he had intentionally created an interpretation of Tolkien, not a straight translation." uncited; it had been cited to Ohlmarks. It isn't clear to me what your issue is here, but whatever it is, just leaving it uncited isn't very helpful. 
Secondly, you have left the phrase "stating in his 1978 book Tolkiens arv ("Tolkien's legacy") that his intention had been to create an interpretation, not a translation." also uncited, which again does not appear especially constructive. 
Thirdly, you have removed a footnote (efn) which contained a quotation from Strömbom, nearly all of which was an attributed quotation by Ohlmarks, which I assume you accept is genuine and useful to the article, with the comment that it was Strömbom not Ohlmarks. Obviously it was S(O), i.e. both in one sense, but in fact almost all O. I think many editors would agree that the outright deletion of the footnote is extremely destructive, and the repetition of it actually disruptive as well. If your point is that we should repeat the Strömbom 2009 ref from just above, ok, that'd be sensible, and indeed that ref should have been there. The assertion of "misquote" I find strange; if you simply mean "misreffed" as I've just stated, then fine, but it wasn't a cause for deletion. All in all, I'm not at all sure what your point of view is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, it might have been an over-reaction and a mistake. But with the citation and footnote so closely connected, it looked as is the footnote was from the book cited, and the quote was from Ohlmarks himself speaking in third person. Okay, this is fine. Excuse me. Maybe it would be even clearer if it was included as a direct reference to Strömbom herself, rather than as a footnote to Ohlmarks. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Very glad to hear that. Sure, I'll attribute it to Strömbom, it was wrongly presented. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Good. It's clearer now. I might have been too rash, after my confusion from a citation followed by a footnote from another source. Thanks. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)