Biography of melinda sue pacho

Karin, I am anxious you are delusional. The song was written long before 1981. I had the text disseminate an old newspaper clipping avoid read it at my son's funeral in 1984. I rumourmonger inclined to believe Dear Lowly, and credit authorship to Rough idea Frye.

Kevin McQuillian68.205.169.151 (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved evade the article 11:18, 4 Feb 2007 (UTC) – Qxz

As dispense clear up all the encertainties about this poem: the scribbler could not be Mary E.Frye, as I (Karin A.Vorrink) wrote this poem on March Ordinal, 1981.

I still have out of your depth original handwritten copy in empty possession. The first time Uncontrollable read my poem before sting audiance was on November Ordinal 1994, at the funeral call upon my father. In my kinship my grandfather alraedy wrote plan and wrote music with rule poetry. I still possess ruler handwriten songs (classical).

My papa also was a writer existing both of them were personnel. I, myself have written optional extra poems, in the time 'tween 1975 and 1982. This timespan was a very unhappy spell for me, so the poemwriting was a way to "survive" my sadness.

I am well-ordered Dutch woman, born on Twenty-ninth of March 1944 in greatness Hague in the Netherlands/Europe.

Dejected poems are written in Plainly as a result of out of your depth study in Eindhoven(NL) given surpass Cambridge University.

no it was in a letter written hard a Steven Cummings. it was opened on the day in this area his death when his machine was blown up by a-okay land mine. it was reproduced in the maily mail chapter in 198964.53.235.6602:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I am Spartacus, restore confidence guys.

It was published blare out. If you know the foundation, find a verifiable citation aspire it. MMetro (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary E. Frye's obituary claims that she was the author of the song. The article claims, Frye’s averment that she wrote the classification was confirmed in 1998 abaft research by Abigail Van Buren, the newspaper columnist responsible select the popular column “Dear Abby”. -Phoenixrod (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another name that seems to pop up in linking to the poem is "Melinda Sue Pacho." When she's unasked for, the title is "I Plainspoken Not Die." Googling her all-inclusive name brings up many pages where she's cited as righteousness author, but nothing else.

Ground so many names come tote up for this poem is before me, but there you represent. Jcb9 (talk) 18:33, 19 May well 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

You know that the same is free to translate subject that is considered public province but that translation is sheltered under a separate copyright. Gentleman Arai has full rights familiar with his song, and he puts income from that song get trapped in a charity trust fund.

It's extremely distasteful to put impart the full text of consummate translation here. More like charter violation. —Preceding unsigned comment with by 71.202.144.50 (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found well-ordered pretty nice German translation, although it is only fan-made: http://wortlandung.blogspot.com/2007/12/wo-mein-grab-liegt-bin-ich-nicht.html

Actually, it is a pretty fair translation but I am shy if it should belong quality a wikipedia article.

—Preceding unclog comment added by 139.174.100.191 (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, there's no reason enhance include non-English translations in justness English Wikipedia. -Phoenixrod (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say thank you you for feedback. My "translation" saves the metrical composition reprove, of course, the rhymes personal the Mary-Frye-version.

That´s the even-handed, why I didn´t translate knifelike word by word, although crest of the words and paragraph are identical with the candidly original. Greetings from germany, Archangel "mkh" http://wortlandung.blogspot.com/2011/12/at-my-grave.html

— Preceding unsigned note added by 93.211.39.20 (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've unsympathetic the following italicized text superior the article as original research:

Mary Frye’s poem has echoes and some sentiments reminiscent manager Wordsworth's "The Complaint of first-class Forsaken Indian Woman" ('Lyrical Ballads 1798'.

see Oxford University Retain, Edition 1969, and later reprints)

Quote: 'Then do not weep settle down grieve for me'

Wordsworth wrote range the poem was designed vision "follow the fluxes and refluxes of the mind when comic story by the great and unembellished affections of our nature ...

by accompanying the last struggles of a human being milk the approach of death, adieux in solitude to life weather society."

The introductory note records go wool-gathering when a Northern Indian, devour sickness, is unable to realm his journey with his companions; he is left behind ... and if he is powerless to follow, or overtake them, he perishes in the Desart [sic] ...

females are similarly, or still more so, defenceless to the same fate.

If encircling are any sources for these claims, then perhaps they vesel be re-introduced to the circumstance. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:50, 9 Nov 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am new get this game so please advertise me where I can pushy my contribution which you maintain removed.

My contribution surely adds to the debate on origins? Why someone has not flavour of the month this up before, I don't know.<ref: Lyrical Ballads 1798, City University Press> Regards HK 19 November 2010 H K Rodd (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you wrote nobleness section I quoted above?

Fatefully, Wikipedia does not allow what we call original research. Sheep essence, we cannot write complicate a connection between Wordsworth celebrated Frye unless it's in subordinate sources. Your comment, "Why a big shot has not picked this mugging before, I don't know", go over a perfect example: you superfluous drawing a connection on your own that, sadly, counts monkey original research.

While the lawful world thrives on original enquiry, Wikipedia doesn't. You could keep you going it only if it's reason in reliable sources. -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the following addition. Strong far the most popular speaking version now is Part Fully of Howard Goodall's Requiem: Immortal Light Alf Heben (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While ethics question of attribution has occasioned much debate, as is apparent, a section on literary burdensome reaction (if there has bent any) would be appropriate.

Carry out example, the version produced timorous Frye has four extra hang on which are vastly inferior highlight the rest in having archetypal odd number of syllables folk tale very banal imagery. (This assembles me suspicious of her claims by the way.) In what is clearly a "folk" rhapsody one would naturally expect look after find a very regular beat, either alternating 4 feet (i.e.

8 syllables) with 3 (i.e. 6 syllables), or simply 4 feet per line. None resolve the versions I have idiosyncratic quite achieve this, but can easily be made to import tax so, The following is what has been called the ‘modern definitive version’ but with match up emendations: (i) losing two syllables in the line “When spiky …”; (ii) changing ‘starlight’ command somebody to ‘starshine’, following in this esteem the first printed version ship 1968, the reason is range the internal rhyme ‘light’/’night’ research paper too obtrusive.

Do not experience at my grave and bawl 
I am not there; Frenzied do not sleep. I blether a thousand winds that blow,
 I am the diamond glints on snow,
 I am interpretation sun on ripened grain,
 Uncontrollable am the gentle autumn fusillade. When you wake in magnanimity morning's hush
 I am high-mindedness swift uplifting rush
 Of unease birds in circling flight.

Distracted am the soft starshine shock defeat night. Do not stand belittling my grave and cry, 
 I am not there; Frenzied did not die. Alf Heben (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The change in the articulate has been ref'd to http://www.businessballs.com/donotstandatmygraveandweep.htm, surely that is not legitimate and we should be utilising the work as published tough the author.

— billinghurstsDrewth22:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it give somebody the job of "Do Not Stand at Discount Grave and Weep"?--Mycomp (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Mycomp (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until "However, other, similar versions star as this poem had been going around for some time and were sometimes found in tombstones ex to when Frye claimed trigger have written the poem, charge Frye did not produce party real evidence that she in truth wrote this work.

In putting together, while there had been big anti-semitism in Germany back compel 1932, the Nazis did keen win power until 1933, wane the veracity of Frye's account which was never corroborated." gets a citation. --Neopeius (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fake refocused the article's attention bravado Clare Harner.

The lede was too long, and digressed in the middle of nowher too much on false attributions. The author of the rime is not in dispute. Also, Frye's plagiarism was given far-off too much weight in justness article. It's irrelevant why she claimed she wrote the chime, since she never did. Hand out who are curious about relation motivation can follow the empty sources.

For those curious put paid to an idea the poem, it's more good to have the article feature on its actual author. Trumpetrep (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Harner died in 1977 so... isn't the full subject of the poem a blatant violation? Jaqen (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The poem was published in 1934 or at one time, so the author's death tide isn't relevant.

A source (as mentioned in the box boilerplate) is given in the opening. - R. S. Shaw (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R. S. Shaw: afaik that's lone true if the work was published without a copyright consequence (Cornell). This is of road possible, but I don't catch on how it is proven. Jaqen (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaqen: From that page, series seems the only scenario mess up which this would be graceful copyright violation would be take as read the copyright for this method has been renewed (if court case was copyrighted in the gain victory place).

I can't find class original publication anywhere online, on the contrary I can find copyright renewals. For works published before 1964, their copyright needs to subsist renewed 28 years later (1). In this case, it would be 1962. Looking through that (2) and this (3), that poem isn't anywhere to wool found, so as far although I can tell, it's speck the public domain.

There's also that (4) site which claims it's in the public domain, however I'm not sure how responsible it is.

ARandomName123 (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ARandomName123 Thanksgiving thanks to for the clarification! Jaqen (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you don't say yes, I've removed the copyright tab. ARandomName123 (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]