Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2012-11

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept

Daany Beédxe

The following discussion is closed:

Keep, OTRS was on file this entire time of deletion, debate & restoration. Poor follow-up to the initial filing had the 'OTRS received' template in place so long that it fell into jeopardy and eventually mandatory deletion for being unresolved. The 'Permission OTRS' template should have replaced the the 'OTRS received' one upon passing OTRS verification. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this. Commons:File:Daany Beédxe.djvu is currently deleted. According to the log it has been deleted as "no permission" three times, but there are also counterclaims that permission is in OTRS ticket 2011122010010631. I have no OTRS access so cannot verify that.

Deletion of the file has befouled our Index:Daany Beédxe.djvu and Daany Beédxe pages. I could just delete them as redundant and malformed, but that leaves a whole lot of pages of pages of the form Page:Daany Beédxe.djvu/X, which may or may not contain an English translation of non-free Spanish content.

Hesperian 02:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion about the deletion, so maybe taking it to commons:Commons:Undeletion requests is the next step? JeepdaySock (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I have asked about the OTRS and it is in Spanish. I would suggest that one of Spanish speakers by email or via IRC in @wikimedia-otrs. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Got told to look at http://www.toltecayotl.org/tolteca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=401:daany-bexe&catid=36:general&Itemid=77 so hopefully that will help someone — billinghurst sDrewth 06:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
 Well? Some nine months after that OTRS filing and there are still around 350 Orphaned Pages cluttering up the maint. reports and floating around in Page: namespace limbo because of this missing file. If there is nothing new to add to this review, I vote  Delete -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There is an OTRS and reportedly in the Spanish permissions queue, though not one that I can see. I am still not comfortable that the deletion at Commons is made fully informed, and I have asked about it (again). — billinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
... and what good would a OTRS made in Spanish do us if ever contested under American law (i.e. in English & per our server's locale) exactly? An English translation would need to be part of the original OTRS and even then it probably needs to be notarized or witnessed by an appropriate 3rd party for the translation to hold any binding legal weight & stand the test of time without any further question. Research this further if you must but I don't think you'll find an OTRS with what I believe is the needed caveat to warrant restoration of the file. If that has been normal OTRS practice - to accept waivers made in some other language based just on the say-so of somebody else who claims to be fluent in both languages - it would be 'problematic' to say the least to defend accepting such waivers (in my view). -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
That tolcayotl link above contains the text "'El libro Daany Beéxde, del cual soy autor, cuenta con licencia CC-BY-SA 3.0' y está autorizada su inclusión en wikisource." Surely that is a straightforward release statement, and on that grounds we could submit a new English-language OTRS, tick it off, and consider the matter closed. Hesperian 05:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
... and the website is confirmed to represent or speak for the actual author how exactly? Sorry; that is too much of a stretch even with good faith applied. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The OTRS permission has been reviewed and accepted, and the file has been undeleted at Commons. Re language issue. Commons has many permissions to keep many works, and if we are starting to doubt the legitimacy of the whole OTRS permissions system based on the language of a permission then there is a huge issue. I am comfortable that the broader WMF community has researched this matter sufficiently and has a reasonable basis of evidence to allow these processes. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • keep has an OTRS permission, website cited above indicates that the work is CC released, so can be Wikisource-translated. I do not see a reason at this point of time to delete. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Website-shmebsite; that dog will never hunt as far as I'm concerned & ultimately a wild-goose chase in this instance.

    Truth was that the initial OTRS filing was accepted months ago but nobody bothered to switch to the appropriate template to reflect that status. When months go by with the wrong 'received' template in place, file deletion becomes nearly assured as per standing practice & policy. This was nothing more than poor follow-up on the OTRS people and/or filer's part. The baked-in language differences certainly did not help resolve the matter in a timely fashion either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


Cast off the Yoke of Bondage

The following discussion is closed:

Keep, no consensus for delete. Jeepday (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This purports to be a transcript of a speech given by the Lollard priest John Ball during the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. As far as I'm aware, no such transcript exists; only a third-person Latin summary by the chronicler Walsingham. What this really appears to be is a rewriting of an English translation of Walsingham's third-person account by an anonymous editor into the first person. For example, where Walsingham, (trans. Stow) writes:

Wherefore he admonished them, that they should be wise, and after the manner of a good husbandman that tilled his ground, and did cut away all noisome weeds that were accustomed to grow and oppress the fruit, that they should make haste to do now at this present the like. First, the archbishop and great men of the kingdom were to be slain; after, lawyers, justiciars, and questmongers; lastly, whomsoever they knew likely hereafter to be hurtful to the commons, they should dispatch out of the land...

the WikiSource version reads:

I counsel you therefore well to bethink yourselves, and to take good hearts unto you, that after the mannar of a good husband that tilleth his ground, and riddeth out thereof such evil weeds as choke and destroy the good corn, you may destroy first the great lords of the realm, and after, the judges and lawyers, and questmongers, and all other who have undertaken to be against the commons.

This may be a public domain translation and adaptation, but if it is, it's unsourced; if not, it's probably WS:OR. Either way it shouldn't be retained as it is now, with the implication that it's a transcript when in fact it's just a summary. Another editor asked for a citation in 2007 and nothing has been added since then. Chapka (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

SRF v. Ananda legal documents

The following discussion is closed:

Keep, no consensus for delete. Jeepday (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Court and legal documents are not listed as being in scope for Wikisource except for historical material not available elsewhere. This case is simply not notable, and these documents have been added to Wikisource simply so that they can be misused as primary sources for Wikipedia articles. They are available elsewhere and are not needed on Wikisource. Yworo (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

 Keep - The policy says "[Wikisource] may include material not historically available, such as historical telephone calls, judicial proceedings, and transcriptions of military operations. Documentary sources must be added in their complete form whenever possible, without substantive editorial amendment. The source of these works must be noted in order to allow others to verify that the copy displayed at Wikisource is a faithful reproduction. Expressions of mere opinion are not documentary" (emphasis mine). There is nothing there excluding court and legal documents.

And as far as I can tell, these works are transcribed from the linked scans of the original documents using the the preferred proofreading-to-transclusion method so it exceeds the threshold for hosting on that point. Plus, every court case, decision and/or ruling can be construed as notable because citizens are expected free and unabridged access the laws and regulations they are expected to know and abide by, thus, the works are exempt from copyright protections here in the U.S. I see no reason to delete these based on all that. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


A fuller reference to Defining what is included further supports keeping these documents.
For works created before 1923 the "default" is "Any written work (or transcript of original audio or visual content) published (or created but never published) prior to 1923 may be included in Wikisource, so long as it is verifiable. Valid sources include uploaded scans and printed paper sources."
For works created after 1922, the complete description of Documentary sources is:

Documentary sources are characterized by one of two criteria:

  1. They are official documents of the body producing them, or
  2. They are evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events.

These documents may range from constitutions and treaties to personal correspondence and diaries. This category may include material not historically available, such as historical telephone calls, judicial proceedings, and transcriptions of military operations. Documentary sources must be added in their complete form whenever possible, without substantive editorial amendment. The source of these works must be noted in order to allow others to verify that the copy displayed at Wikisource is a faithful reproduction. Expressions of mere opinion are not documentary.

These court and legal documents are documents from judicial proceedings which is a class of documents given as examples of documentary sources which I understand to be intended as a very broadly inclusive category. That they are available elsewhere is an argument that can be made against almost everything in Wikisource and the subjective belief they are "not needed" on Wikisource could be made against everything on Wikisource. Indeed, it can be argued that Wikisource is not "needed" but I don't find that persuasive that Wikisource lacks usefullness or other value and should be scrapped.
I ran across these documents by chance because they are being discussed here but found them interesting and potentially useful information regarding a matter unrelated to my editing of anything at a Wikimedia Foundation project. Ultimately, Wikisource and the other Wikimedia Foundation projects are for the benefit of ordinary readers/users not playgrounds for editors. This is something that seems to be overlooked too often by editors.
Anything in Wikisource has potential to be used, misused or not used on Wikipedia. Whether a Wikipedia use is appropriate or not is something to be decided on a case by case basis on Wikipedia according to Wikepedia's rules. And checking What links here doesn't show these documents are even being used on Wikipedia.
I see nothing in the nonbinding Acknowledging precedent exclusions section that supports deletion. Additionally, I see support for keeping this work in the Introduction of Wikisource's Help section. For whatever it is worth, my opinion is that these Wikisource documents should be kept. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
George Orwell III made a point worth repeating for emphasis. "Plus, every court case, decision and/or ruling can be construed as notable because citizens are expected free and unabridged access [to] the laws and regulations they are expected to know and abide by, thus, the works are exempt from copyright protections here in the U.S. I see no reason to delete these based on all that." Indeed, I'd add that virtually all court cases, court records and administrative agency counterparts can also be construed as notable because citizens are collectively expected to act as watchdogs ensuring governmental bodies do not abuse power (even inadvertantly) to violate the laws, regulations and processes they are supposed to abide by. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • General comment If (historical) documents are being used to cite at enWP and remaining so, then that presumably indicates that they are sufficiently notable to pass our threshold. I still only favour significant court documents in significant cases, but not inclined to strongly prosecute such a case. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    This is a slippery slope to undoing allot of the rationale behind sanctioning works by governments, both foreign and domestic, here on en.WS. If you start picking and choosing what is and what is not noteworthy in U.S. law (be it local, state or Federal) then you start to undermine the rationale for all of it to be exempt from copyright protections. Not only is this not our place to determine such weight but it would be contrary to the standing copyright laws of the U.S. I agree we should avoid hosting minor or frivolous court cases because in most cases they are hard to "place" without the rest the of the series they are published in at the same time - that is the only sound determinate for inclusion or exclusion in my opinion & a poor one at that since excerpts of larger works still have managed to find a way to be hosted here though doing so seems contrary to our stated practices and policies. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


Deleted

Doon School pdf deletion

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, Orphaned pages resulting from copyvio source file deletion on Commons. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Much like the case above, but without the OTRS holdout, it seems the PDF used to create a work here has been deleted over on Commons for CopyVio. This has orphaned 90 or so pages in the Page: namespace and probably renders any mainspace transclusions based on them moot in the process. If this is truly the case, I think the remaining bits and pieces should be deleted here on en.WS as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. The current version on the web has a clear Copyright statement at the bottom of the page (for 2009) so the text is doubtless covered. Chris55 (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Prettytable

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as this has been long superseded, do we need to keep the template around any longer? It isn't really in use anywhere else that it couldn't be substituted either. Blurpeace 02:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Halfull-FUZUL‎

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, Incomplete excerpt. Speedied. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyvio from The Life Of Muhammad by Sufi Mutiur Rahman Bengalee (1941) [1]. If this is not under copyright, then it is incomplete and should be moved to The Life Of Muhammad. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete excerpt. Speedied. George Orwell III (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


Index:Experimental Determination of the Velocity of Light (1878 manuscript)

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, as a fragmented work. A compelete version would be welcomed. Jeepday (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Started in 2008, this is a really poor use of the Index: & Page namespaces without as much as a single image or file to back up a supposedly unpublished manuscript. Incomplete & unsourced. Transcluded to Experimental Determination of the Velocity of Light (1878 manuscript) -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I have put a note on his talk page but he hasn't contributed anything since 2010. He claims to have the copy and it shouldn't be hard to scan and upload. It's doubtless of historical interest. Chris55 (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I see that it is an handwritten 1878 manuscript, which would be great to have, but there is an 1880 publication available here. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
To make this worse, here are the first three pages of the manuscript... File:VelocityOfLightTest-1.0.djvu - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


Index:Roland_à_Roncevaux.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, non English work, without a translation. Jeepday (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Index:Roland_à_Roncevaux.djvu is in French and already present on fr:wikisource. Is there any purpose in keeping it here?--Mpaa (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - I suppose there is an opportunity to translate it directly from the text (like this). However, I see no harm in deleting it since what we have is not translated. Since the .djvu file will remain on Commons, and the like you said, the text properly digitized on fr.ws. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Lean Delete -- There does not seem to be any direct English translation for this 1921 lecture originally given & published in French. I too would much rather see it translated (even if it is done by WS) to English because its part of a series of lectures, most of which are nicely listed on one of our Portal pages already. But, as the work currently stands (in French), it doesn't belong here and should be deleted per practice/policy. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bilingual poems

The following discussion is closed:

Delete category, currently miss-used so is effectively empty. Could be recreated to track poems in english and a second language orginally, not as translations. Jeepday (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This category created by User:Krantmlverma is defined as applying only to English translations of Hindi poetry. This is not the same thing as a "bilingual" poem, which would have two languages used as a poetic device. As it stands, I would prefer to delete the category outright, but it could be useful in the broader definition—if editors are likely to assign it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So far as adding the Category:Bilingual poems is concerned, I think it would help wikipedians as well as the viewers. In my openion it would be better to KEEP it here.
Thanks.--Krantmlverma (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Beeswaxcandle. How do we define a Bilingual Poem? I think it should be: a poem written using 2 languages. If this is the case, the category might have a sense but right now then it is misused to host translations. So if the Category is kept, translations should be removed.--Mpaa (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Delete -- none of the poems in this category are bilingual in origin. Either the category goes or the poems currently listed in it should go. Somebody who is up on properly adding interwiki language links might want to take a stab at having the Hindi pages appear in the right hand column instead of being linked in the header. Keeping the poems themselves, of course, hinges on proper OTRS verification per the above section. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "Somebody who is up on properly adding interwiki language links..." You rang? ;)
      Interwiki links added across both projects. I corrected the descriptions where possible, but I didn't want to start blindly removing Hindi text over at the Old Wikisource (which is where all the Hindi interwikis point at). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete I completely agree that the name of the category and the contents of the category are at odds; I'd expect the poems in the category to be formed from English and another language. The current contents are merely translations. (I'd be fine with the category being kept, as long as the scope is changed as well, but like Beeswaxcandle says, it's unlikely to ever get really used; when that does happen, the category can just be recreated) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Author:Michael Voith

The following discussion is closed:

Delete as unpopulated with no known potential for PD works. Jeepday (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no works by this author, and with a birth date of 1961 any are likely to be in copyright. The entry was added by an IP and might be a self-advertisement. Chris55 (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: No opinion on deletion; just information. I don't think it's self advertising: the IP's location is Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas and this is a Canadian author. He is apparently an employee of the Canadian government, so it is possible that works may be in the public domain in the United States as {{PD-EdictGov}}. There's no guarantee that that is the case but it is a possibility. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no axe to grind on this--I simply came across this by clicking on the new "Random author" link. But I can't see any point in author entries with no works (unless they are well known as established authors and their work is likely to be p.d.). If someone wants to put a work up it's simple to reinstate an author entry. Chris55 (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete If there was at least a list of redlinked works that he'd written, I might be persuaded to keep the article, but it's just a blank author page. His Wikipedia article was deleted back in March 2011, and had nothing of worth to it. Not likely that he'll ever have any works here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Template {{Dmoz}}

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, lack of community support. Jeepday (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see no advantage to Wikisource in adding links to the Open Directory Project. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

  •  Delete Agreed. Plus, it seems to re-inforce the need for cross-namespace redirects which we are trying to whittle down to a logical few if not avoid altogether. Something like that should have been formally proposed to the community before implementation anyway. And just because other wikis have accepted something like this does not mean we automatically accept the same here on en.WS either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi - Chapter_49

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; originally imported from Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. There is no question of copyright. Chapter 49 (along with other revisions to Chapters 1 thru 48) first appears in the 3rd edition (1951). We currently host the 1st edition (1946), thus Chapter 49 is merely an excerpt of a larger incomplete work and was deleted on those grounds. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Original discussion follows:

I noticed that an editor upload Chapter 49 from the 1951 version of the book Autobiography of a Yogi. [2]

  • According to Project Gutenberg, the first edition of Autobiography of a Yogi is in the public domain in the USA [3] Scroll down to Editions.
  • The 1st edition of the Autobiography only has 48 chapters. See book posted on Gutenberg and scroll down to the chapter listings. [4]
  • In the 1951 version more revisions were added including a whole new chapter - chapter 49 [5]

Clearly, because of this, to post this chapter is in clear violation of Wikipedia copyright rules and a copyright infringement. Requesting deletion of this file Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If the copyright on the 1951 version was not renewed it MAY now be public domain. Added {{copyvio}} to Autobiography of a Yogi/Chapter 49 pending outcome. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Delete - We are not in the habit of hosting partial works or excerpts. Mixing editions is never a good idea - we need to strive to remain true to the work as originally published and in full. If chapter 49 did not appear along with chapters 1 thru 48 from the same edition, then it should not be hosted here because it is an excerpt of another edition. The same would hold true even if the 1951 version turns out to be in the Public Domain as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. We can host the whole public domain edition, and that's it. BD2412 T 04:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Time passes, as we wait for anymore thoughts on the subject. If nothing else develops the discussion will be closed and with the current consensus of delete,and the chapter will be deleted. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This false claim of copyright infringement (which is not the first) is part of a conflict of interest in the editing of Wikipedia articles by people whose background mean that their motives are likely to conflict with the encyclopedia's strict neutrality policy. Members of Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) do not disclose their status in order to edit article space directly, thus lying about their identity in order to use Wikipedia to ardvertise and sell their book, giving the false impression Wikipedia sponsors SRF´s version. The book is in public domain. Only SRF´s version is copyrighted and SRF has changed the 49th chapter. To hide this fact they want to remove it from Wikisource. The reprint of the first edition with the 49th chapter as bonus material is is being sold for years. Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit, but its neutral polity is not being respected in the Autobiography of a Yogi´s article. Red Rose is using Wikipedia to advertise the heavily edited book published by SRF and supresses any controversial issue. I am banned to edit the article since all my contributions are reversed by Red Rose 13, as can be easily checked in the article "view history". The article is intentionally or unintentionally biased. As you see it is the only book article I have seen so far that has TWO book covers, the first edition cover and SRF´s version cover. To be able to insert the original cover which was also marked for deletion per Red Rose 13 request, it took us nearly THREE months in mediation. Red Rose 13 has been around claiming the first edition of the book was not in public domain; when this failed, now he/she says the cover of the book together with the photographs and illustrations is not in public domain either. Red Rose 13 has been disrupting Wikipedia for his;her own means. Please check this 2009 inter-wiki accusation of copyright infringement. [[6]]. My feeling is that these false claims should be addressed once and for all, since time is money and too many editors are loosing their precious time with spam and sectarism. Tat Sat (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    All that sounded familar and sure enough, we've been down this road before. I think the problem or the misunderstanding here is that the original edition was registered in 1946 not 1951. This 1946 edition covered ~48 chapters. It was renewed in 1974.

    Turns out the content making up "chapter 49" was first fixed (created) in 1951 (and earlier?) but was not published until 2005 as an addition to the now copyright free(?) 1946 edition. The Author died in 1952.

    Its still not clear to me how "chapter 49" came into being exactly. If someone gathered up old articles, sermons and similar & then added it to the now copyright free(?) 1946 edition for the first time in 2005, I'm not sure if that's considered the same version of the first edition or not. Seems to me if that argument were to hold true - then lets get the scans of the 2005 edition uploaded and transcribed. If the argument then becomes no you need to buy the book then its pretty clear "chapter 49" is not in the public domain, no? -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    Check that; it's what I get for not sticking to my first point - we should not be hosting "Chapter 49" because it is an excerpt taken from an edition other than the one we are currently hosting. Any debate over the copyright status of "Chapter 49" is preempted by that fact. The 1946 (1st) edition is what we have; it only had 48 chapters. End of Story.

    It would be nice to have scans of the 1946 edition to verify the good faith given to a long established yet obvious copy-and-paste from somewhere else but that is out of our hands. It will have to do when it comes to fidelity for now.

    Bottom line: mixing content across different editions, with or without the benefit of scans, is a bad idea and that is what we have in this case. Everything I've read says other changes were also made in addition to the adding of a new chapter sometime around the 1951 (3rd) edition's appearance. In order to host "Chapter 49" we would need chapters 1 thru 48 that also came with the same publication of whatever the exact edition & year it turns out to be now in question. I still vote delete but with the caveat that the reason for it is not copyvio but beyond scope. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  • If you think it is a good idea, I could upload not only the images of the 1946 edition as the whole 1951 edition, which is also in public domain - and I have it. The only version of Autobiography of a Yogi which is copyrighted, is the Self-Realization Fellowship heavily edited edition. Let me know what you think about the upload, Mr. Orwell III. I only uploade the 49 chapter because SRF´s members, or paid personnel said it was as Yogananda wrote it, which is another of many incorrect information. Tat Sat (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    Before we get to answering if this a good idea or not, let us be clear by what we mean by "uploading images" of a book.

    The ProofReading system here on en.WS works best when all of a book's pages are scanned and made into either a single .PDF file or a single .DjVu file (example). Once this file is uploaded, an Index: can be created that maps out each scanned page in an orderly manner to help enable the Proofreading of the content found on those pages (example -> Index:The_Urantia_Book,_1st_Edition.djvu). Once the content for every scanned page is transcribed to wiki format, (see an example here -> Page:The_Urantia_Book,_1st_Edition.djvu/3), the all or just a range of pages can be transcluded to the mainspace much like Wikipedia article would appear as ( See the start of the book here -> The_Urantia_Book)

    Now if that is something close to what you can do with our help when you meant "uploading images" then we are Ok to move to the next question(s). If what you meant is another copy and paste from some other source like the 1946 edition currently is, then I'd recommend further discussion on ways to insure better fidelity of that copy & paste.

    Finally, if we are talking about the former full blown proofread, the question obviously then becomes whether or not the 1951 edition is free of any copyright protections and meets our requirements for hosting or not. Personally, I'm not positive about much of this at this point so that discussion probably should follow -- or even better, started in a new section regarding that question over on our main Scriptorium discussion page maybe. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  • One very important thing to note here, is that the 1951 edition which was revised by Yogananda before his death in 1952 is NOT in public domain and the burden of proof lies with Tat Sat - all I have read him saying is his opinion. I don't see any proof. I agree with George Orwell, before any uploading occurs, this needs to be proven. Also, there is not a third party citation to validate that the 1946 version is in public domain, except if you consider Gutenberg a third party citation. In reality the Autobiography of a Yogi copyright was renewed in Nov. 1974 and the court case which ended in 2002 that TatSat has referred to did not specifically adjudicate anything about the Autobiography of a Yogi. If he or anyone else looks through all the court documents, they will see no mention of this book. I am sure that Wikisource editors are not going to be interpreting legal documents. Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, we do that fairly often actually. ;-) Still, I haven't followed the argument that the 1946 edition is PD, would someone explain.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh I see, following the obscurely piped link above to Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2009-12#Autobiography_of_a_Yogi I find that the above referenced case apparently found, implied, stated in dicta, or has been interpreted to mean that the renewal was invalid. Understood. Haven't read the case but if GO3 is satisfied, that's good enough for me today (and we've established it before and it wasn't what this nom was about).
As for the scans, even if they aren't djvu or pdf we can manage. If they are jpeg or some other decent format we can mange either to use them as is or to convert them. If you have scans of the 1946 book then I'd say upload them. But that's not really important to this discussion.
As for the 1951 chapter: we need to establish the copyright status more firmly. If it's PD then the whole thing can be uploaded. If it's not then the 49th chapter needs to be deleted. GO3's point is valid but if there may be scans available, I'd rather see us resolve the copyright issue and possibly get the scans than just delete it, there's no reason not to host both editions if they are both PD. However, if you want to participate in wikidrama by talking about they're always doing this and always claiming that, please take it to the other place.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
While it seems we are on the same page in general - you've also missed the nuanced point that there were "minor" changes made to Chapters 1-48 between the 1946 edition (first) and the 1951 edition (I forget) on top of the addition of chapter 49. Slapping chapter 49 at the end of the 1946 (taken from Project Guttenburg?) edition is NOT THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION regardless of the is it PD or not? question being asked and/or answered here. The question will always linger unless we have PR'd scans of both in my view but that is not paramount to resolving this particular issue, I agree.

Overall, the PD argument hasn't really been made in ernest yet nor in full. If you review the court case, Self Realization v. Ananda Church, it would appear all of the Yogi's books are free from SRF's initial claims, mostly in part to the Yogi's death early on in the first term of copyright (d.1952) preventing the true vesting of rights beyond the first renewal term. So even if you accept that the 1946 edition's 1st renewal starting in 1974 was valid (1946 + 28 = 1974), then SRF had no claim to make the 2nd renewal term (1974 + 28 = 2002) thus at least that edition seems to be PD either way.

Scrutinize the court case in detail and it would seem that all books (well, those registered before the death date for sure) are free from SRF claims and that would seem to clear the 1951 edition. I'd feel better if Carl L. would chime in to verify as much -- but again, the first and only point to address in this discussion is the status of chapter 49. Everything else seems to need its own proposal & discussion apart from that point. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, no I don't think I missed any nuance, I agree that Ch. 49 has no business whatsoever being put with chapters 1-48 of the first edition. I was only suggesting that if the editor above can get scans of both editions then we could host both. Not that we would conflate them. I just don't think there's any hurry to delete the page while we resolve the issue (since it's blanked and there doesn't seem to be a clear copyvio). In fact, I'd be inclined to create a versions page, even if we don't ever get the rest of the 1951 version - just to point to the fact that there is a 1951 edition. Without a scan of the entire 1951 edition, I'd be inclined to agree that chapt 49 should be deleted, though I might be open to being convinced otherwise if we had a scan for only ch. 49, so long as it was clearly set apart - but that would not be ideal. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the link, I read the case. I don't know the facts regarding the origin of chapter 49, but it came about during his life and the case clearly says that his books are PD. I think we need scans in order to properly differentiate the two editions and I agree with GO3 that without that we shouldn't keep Ch.49 around; but not for anything related to copyright. The works are PD. If the editor above wants to keep Ch.49, please provide scans.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The other thing that I can't seem to find an answer to is if the 1951 edition needed its own copyright registration or does it fall under the original registration somehow? Common sense tells me that a new (and rather long) chapter to the previous editions should call for new registration but I'm not positive that holds true law wise - especially where the 1909 copyright law was in effect like in this case. Again, not sure if that ultimately matters here in light of the court case. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's my understanding of the 1909 law, any change that adds creative content to a registered work is, just as it would be with a derivative by another author, a new work that requires a separate registration. The part of the work that is the same is protected by the earlier copyright (and, strictly speaking, not extended by the new registration). In this case, though, it would appear to be irrelevant as the court decision would cover the 1951 work too as it addresses all books and I see no evidence that even if the 1951 work had been registered that it would have been properly renewed; unless there are some facts unique to the 1951 work that were not before the court, that work must be PD as well. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is more information on the subject. The conclusion that Autobiography of a Yogi is in public domain is speculation and is not based on facts regarding the legal issues. I am sure that Wikipedia does not want to start interpreting legal documents for the public. Here are details to bring clarity in this process: There has never been any court ruling declaring that Autobiography of a Yogi is in public domain. Anyone who questions this is welcome to research the court records for themselves. All claims that the Autobiography of a Yogi is in the public domain are not statements of fact, but mere assumptions and speculations of interested parties. The Autobiography of a Yogi was not a part of the Court Case that was filed in 2000 Self-Realization v Ananda which ended with a jury verdict in 2002 US District Court Jury Verdict SRF v Ananda 2002. [[7]] This court case was about other publications, and did not include the Autobiography of a Yogi. If someone were to look at all the court documents, they would not see any records of either one of the parties (SRF or Ananda), or the court, or the jury addressing the rights in the Autobiography of a Yogi in anyway.Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
 Lets deal with closing the chapter 49 issue first. I only entertained Doug's input because has been away from the community a bit and missed the initial exchanges over this. Nobody has put up the 1951 edition so there is no reason to induldge in debate over whether or not the book is or is not still copyright protected. The 1946 edition is still only assumed to be in the Public Domain only because it appears on (and was copied from) Project Guettenburg. I do urge you to review the 2000 ruling because all the answers will be found there it seems. The 2002 verdict is irrelevant because it only deals with what was not resolved in the 2000 ruling (i.e. not books). -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Not a problem...one step at a time. I do appreciate the thoroughness of this discussion. I did review the 2000 ruling many times and in my research on this subject, reading that does not give one the whole picture about the lawsuit. In the final jury verdict there is a listing of the works in question in this lawsuit which is relevant if we need to discuss the copyright issue. It reversed some of the previous rulings. Thank you for your care in this.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    Red Rose, you need to give us some basis for the assertion that the 1951 work is subject to copyright. The assertion that the 2000 case did not address it specifically is not really relevant; the 2002 jury verdict is even less relevant unless it dealt specifically with this work. We don't delete works just because someone claims that there is a copyright. There has to be a basis for it. The 2000 case gives us some guidance on the fact in this case but the important thing is the application of the copyright act. If you review the discussions above, you will note that there is an argument that the 1946 work was not renewed (based on the principles discussed in the 2000 decision by the 9th Cir.) and the 1951 edition was never registered; if true, I am aware of practically no argument that there could be a copyright under US law for either work. As GO3 suggest, we should focus on the ch 49 which is why you brought this here. You could help if you could point to a registration of Ch. 49 (or the entire 1951 edition). Failing that, you would have to suggest some other way that the work is under copyright because the general rule is that it couldn't be.
    GO3, I only speak of the 1951 work because ch 49 is part of it and it would be unlikely that anyone would have registered a copyright to a single chapter. Additionally, any argument as to Ch.49 should hold as to all changes to the 1951 edition. However, I agree, the rest of the 1951 work isn't here. At the same time, you suggested very early on that Ch. 49 should be deleted because it's a partial work; an argument that isn't relevant if the entire 1951 work is PD and available as suggested above.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    <sigh> Kindly cast a clear vote on the chapter 49 point and please refrain from entering further into areas that do not matter at this stage. There is no 1951 edition currently hosted here; we don't have scans for either edition; we don't host single chapters even if we did have scans for it - End of Story. This question has been around since September 14th, almost a month more than the typical ~30 day window -- it is unfair to keep it unresolved any longer in spite of your late but well-intentioned arrival to the discussion to be blunt about it. If there is anything further to debate, another proposal will surely be opened and we can pick this up then if need be. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    GO3, I'm sorry I've interfered with the new schedule at WS:CV; I had no idea that this needed to be closed immediately or that we were supposed to cast clear votes on copyright violations rather than discussing the facts and the law with the interested parties. Thank you for deigning to entertain my input, however briefly. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    .... but we'll never get to solving any copyright issues until we get past the fact this discussion has nothing to do with any copyright questions. There is no 1951 edition currently hosted here; we don't have scans for either edition; we don't host single chapters even if we did have scans for it - End of Story. It was probably opened on the wrong board to begin with. I should have stuck to my gut and moved this to Proposed Deletions where an errant single chapter deletion debate probably belongs - my mistake. Now are we going to continue to make the the original poster pay for that mistake by entertaining questions that have nothing to do with what was originally proposed back in September -- albeit for the wrong reasons (CopyVio instead of excert; beyond scope), granted? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    GO3, I agree this is not a copyright issue and the whole thing should be closed/moved as the real issue is that it's a fragment that doesn't belong.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Other

Fundamento de Esperanto/Grammar

The following discussion is closed:

Move to eo:Fundamento de Esperanto with the parent work. (note: User:Jafeluv is the only significant contributor, outcome notes will be be posted on User talk pages, to allow them to move the work before it is deleted here. Addressing cross wiki inter-language links is beyond the scope of this community) Jeepday (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is very odd. The work Fundamento de Esperanto is 90% Esperanto but contains brief explanations of Esperanto grammar in several other languages, including a five-page explanation in English. In both mainspace and pagespace, the work has been split across multiple language subdomains: most of the work resides at eo:Fundamento de Esperanto, but the English language section resides here at Fundamento de Esperanto/Grammar. That section is completely orphaned from the rest of the work here at en... not that you can tell, because the whole thing is neatly stitched together using sister project links, leaving the reader jumping from language subdomain to language subdomain with no idea they are doing so. For example, when you click on the "next" link in the header or footer, you are whisked off to the German Wikisource. This is either sheer genius or utter madness.

My personal view is that we host English-language works, not English-language sections of foreign-language works; and therefore this orphaned section should be transwikied, either to the esperanto subdomain or to the multi-language subdomain.

Hesperian 14:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a classic work and despite being brief was the primary selling tool for Esperanto for many years. The guidelines do include: "However, English Wikisource does collect...bilingual editions in which the target language of the translation is English" and this is just multilingual.
I agree about the name. Could it not be moved to "Fundamento de Esperanto"? (Though it may be they are planning to do a similar job with the lexicon which has multilingual translations.) Chris55 (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Why would we move it to "Fundamento de Esperanto"? We don't have the whole work. All we have is a five-page chapter of it. Hesperian 00:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the whole book across each language should either be moved to eo.ws or old.ws; and to have a brief explanation of the work with nothing but a link to either of the aforementioned. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to see it all stored on one Wikisource and then the English part transcluded here. I'd happily store the English version here, but I'm not terribly happy with the book spread over multiple WSes, especially the way it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. This was a weird case, a book that had the same section in five different languages. I asked how works like these are usually handled on the multilingual Wikisource scriptorium, and was told that X-language pages should go to X-language Wikisource, even if the main language of the work is something else. At least, it makes sense for the proofreading of English-language pages to take place on the English Wikisource. Whether the pages should actually be transcluded here or on eo.wikisource is another question, and I assume it would work either way. I decided to do the transclusion separately in every subdomain because that's where texts in that language are usually found and because those subdomains are usually better equipped to handle texts in that language – for example, text using the old Russian orthography[1] looks much better with ru.wikisource's font styling which was specifically designed for it. However, if you feel that the pages should be transcluded over at eo.wikisource, and if there's consensus to do that for all subdomains, we can move the sections to the Esperanto subdomain and have the whole work transcluded there. Jafeluv (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I think any edition of a book, its derived Index: and all of the subsequent Page:s proofread from it all belong on the language domain that the book was original published/copyrighted in, so it seems to me the entire thing should be on eo.WS. While the chapter in English might be worth hosting here, it seems kind of pointless to do so unless any front- or back-matter is also translanted and included along with it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I've got a book still in progress on Distributed Proofreaders that has a few pages of Mother Goose in Esperanto. I'm not sure why an Esperanto speaker would go looking for it here on the English Wiktionary. Likewise, books that have one poem in several languages may be the only source for that poem in those languages; users of those Wiktionaries are unlikely to be able to find the poem if you don't co-locate it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
OK but this work has some sort of Preface, 5 pages of tips in English and possibly some sort of conclusion. Normally I'd like to see any preface and/or conclusion [translated] in[to] English as well or the 5 pages of tips in English is merely an excerpt & not hostable here on en.WS per standing practice/policy. Sorry - unless there is a way to host the whole thing on the Esperanto domain and translate any additional matter into English along with the part that is already in English I'm leaning with Hesperian on this for Deletion. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Over on fi.ws I'm translating the whole work (fi:Esperanton peruskirja), although there we don't have the problem of how to present the original work since Finnish isn't one of the languages used in the book. I could translate the foreword and other sections to English to have the work as a whole in English here, but I still think a reader should have some convenient way of reading the original multi-lingual work as well. What makes its presentation especially difficult is that while the foreword is meant for someone who knows Esperanto, the grammar chapter is written for a reader who is possibly still learning Esperanto (and happens to speak one of the five languages used). I guess the current setup isn't really optimal because few readers will actually be interested in reading the French, English, German, Russian and Polish grammar chapters in succession. Most will likely just want to select the one they understand best and then move on to the next chapter. Jafeluv (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't we use a version or dab or something, to direct to the work when its moved out of en.ws? I don't think this would set a precedence for all titles to other languages, rather, only ones commonly searchable, with special concern for works like this that have multiple languages within it and are not hosted at this or a specific langauge site. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2012-11&oldid=6485580"