Talk:The Three Ravens

message: 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)
thread_title:  Analysis 

message: I changed the reference style to use <ref> instead of , 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 . fnb is deprecated. Oskar 22:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference style 

message: 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)
thread_title: Twa corbies

message: What does that stanza mean? Thanks. Xiner (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "God Send..."

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The Twa corbies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Three Ravens 

message: 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)
thread_title:  analysis of the ballad 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Breton?

message: 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)
thread_title:  deleted paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Problems with the "Three Ravens" image 

message: 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)
replies: text: You're quite correct - I've changed it. Peridon (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of "een" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Centaur image, again 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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. KDS4444Talk 06:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (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.) KDS4444Talk 07:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. KDS4444Talk 21:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. KDS4444Talk 09:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text: (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...) KDS4444Talk 09:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Centaur consensus

message: 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)
thread_title: To ValtinX