Talk:Ossian

message: This article seems to leave it open as to whether or not Ossian was actually based on an ancient Gaelic manuscript, as opposed to a creation of MacPherson. While I'm not an expert on 3rd century Irish primary sources, I was under the impression that there was a fairly strong consensus that the work was MacPherson's own creation. 
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't believe that this is considered a matter of debate these days; and as such the current article risks being misleading. Could someone with more background knowledge give an opinion?
::good point--I tried to clarify things. Rjensen (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Authenticity

message: I believe this page should be left alone or merged with the James Macpherson page.
Discussion of the Gaelic sagas should be on the Oisín and Finn Mac Cumhail pages.
This page should discuss the James MacPherson adaptation of those sagas in English. [Anonymous comments]
:It certainly isn't logical to combine Ossian with James MacPherson: he wrote other things too, and his biography is separate from his individual works. I therefore agree with the last of the three comments above.
:I also believe Ossian, as the name of a work by MacPherson, should stay separate from Oisín. Andrew Dalby 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a consensus to keep the pages separate, but to keep them clearly distinguished. I've done this, and removed the merge tags. --Nicknack009 16:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: yes, no need to merge this anywhere, just treat it as an article on a 18th century work of literature. dab (ᛏ) 12:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not at all. Add it in. Ossian had a big influence on other literatures that were then emerging into full national consciousness. Andrew Dalby 09:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, please add it.--Cúchullain t/c 22:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Ossian poems where a major influence on Romantic paintings.  This should be addressed.--Kworkpratt 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art 

message: I would like to suggest the addition of a short reference to issues about creativity in translation. As an example of what I am talking about: the renowned "Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam" translated by Edward Fitzgerald is sometimes referred to as "The Rubaiyat of FitzOmar", not out of petty criticism, but out of positive recognition for the creativity he displayed in his translation. It is sometimes difficult to track some of Fitz's passsages in the original (i.e. he seems to have invented some). One of the themes of Argentinian Jorge Luis Borges' writing was whether a translator could actually improve a piece, and how much could be added. Yet Fitzgerald's creative and free translation is regarded as a classic, but some still regard Mac Pherson's compilation as somehow tainted.
I think this has relevance to the article, firstly, as it does seem as though Mac Pherson's name was smeared out of a rather petty and narrow view of what literature and translation should be about (perhaps politically/culturally motivated?), and secondly, this is touches upon broader issues in literature everywhere (and everywhen).
Any thoughts or comments?
Oisinoc 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The differences are that Fitzgerald's creative contribution was never denied, the orginals were available to compare with the translation, and he was a good poet. MacPherson was a bad one. If the poems had literary value in their own right, they'd still be read and quoted. It's not a "rather petty and narrow view of what literature and translation should be" when the translation claims to be a reconstruction of an ancient epic. That's what was disputed. If it had been published as an original work, it would have been just another forgotten dull epic poem. A comparable case is Thomas Chatterton, who published forgeries of middle-English verse. Paul B (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We mention Johnson's opinion, it would be interesting to have other published views on the literary merits or otherwise of the poems. The Literary Encyclopedia source states "One of the most important works of the movement of Sensibility and a seminal text for the early Romantic movement, the enthusiasm and controversy generated by the poems, and the influence they had upon two generations of European writers, artists and musicians, made Ossian one of the most important names in English literature in the second half of the eighteenth century.... Though neglected for much of the twentieth century, Ossian is once again enjoying some critical currency." Whether the enthusiasm was entirely due to the supposed provenance seems questionable, but verified expert opinion on the current "critical currency" is needed for the article. . . dave souza, talk 13:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they were out of print for a long time. I read Fingal many years ago in an old edition when it was very difficult to find a copy. Now they are freely available online. I still find the poems insufferably dull. Of course there's no way officially to measure poetic merit, but the sheer lack of editions, anthologised passages and appreciative criticial commentary creates an implicit consensus. As we know, consensus can change, and no-one disputes the historical importance of the work. Paul B (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation & creativity issues 

message: the stub Fragments of Ancient Poetry collected in the Highlands of Scotland  should  be combined with this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.208.61 (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: There is a piece of contemporary art here that is by an artist for whom notability has not been established. Perhaps it should be removed? Leoniceno (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original art 

message: Why have they been referred to as poems for almost 300 years? They're not poetry. They're prose. And not even good prose. The article should mention this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.55.166 (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: not poems

message: This article is terrible !!  Unbelievably bad !!  It's merely a collection of criticisms about a set of prose-poems; it's an argument about something THAT IS NEVER PRESENTED !!!  What is the basic plot of the poems?!  (Not presented !)  Where are there samples of the poems?!  (Not presented !)
This is like an argument about, say, Plato's Republic without telling the reader who Plato was or what the Republic was about, and without presenting the reader with any of the text from the Republic.
This article should be deleted.  It's just awful.
Cwkmail (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to reading your edits to improve the article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I came to this encyclopedia article to learn who Ossian was and what the poem was about.  I did not come here to write an article.  What is the point of creating an article about a subject if the article is little more than a blank page?  If you know who Ossian was, would you at least post that information? Cwkmail (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - although a more useful response would have been to point out the shortcomings in hopes that they will be rectified, not suggest that the whole article be erased. If every imperfect wikipedia article was erased because it annoyed somebody, wikipedia would be empty. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And would that be such a bad result?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.77.172 (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, except to idiots. The article clearly says that "Ossian" is derived from Oisín. There's nothing else to say about "who Ossian was". Cwkmail's request is meaningless. If you want to know "what the poem was about", request a page on Fingal (poem). Paul B (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is TERRIBLE !!!

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ossian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726060119/http://www.floridabibliophilesociety.org/Fingal.html to http://www.floridabibliophilesociety.org/Fingal.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article claims that the Roman Emperors "Caros" in these 18th-century poems is a reference to Carausius. The name seems more similar to the emperor Carus than Carausius. Where is the identification with Carausius based on? Dimadick (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caros