Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-09

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.

Deleted

Armor & Armored Cavalry

This seems be another directory page but I am unsure. Not directory pages maybe part of a larger work or they just don't belong here at all--BirgitteSB 00:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

These appear to be part of US Army Lineage and Honors, a sprawling work that seems almost hopelessly incomplete and disorganised. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandemataram, Vande mataram, Vande Mataram

All three are similar, with the last one formatted. - Politicaljunkie 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Jude (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sefer Yeshua & Iggeret Ya`aqov

Does not meet inclusion criteria regarding publication. See w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sefer Yeshua & w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Iggeret Ya'aqov --BirgitteSB 14:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Jude (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Adolf Hitler

There shouldn't be categories for single authors, the author page should cover it. - Politicaljunkie 00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Jude (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Child abuse

Seems like it might be an attempt at a WP article, or a copy of a pamphlet, either way it lies outside the scope of WS. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 20:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Jude (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I Love Toys

This is merely a list of toys which appeared on a VH1 special. Doesn't meet our inclusion policy.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This was deleted on the English Wikipedia as a copyright violation, and even if it doesn't, it doesn't meet our inclusion policy. As such, I've deleted it. Jude (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Organization of American States

Should be turned into a category.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Francis Whiting Halsey

A category for a single author is probably unecessary as long as an author page exists. (There has been a similar case recently.)--GrafZahl 08:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Project Gutenberg

I imagine that if this category were populated that it would be massive, and equally useless. I fail to see the need for categorizing by material source. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 20:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, delete Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 03:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redefine the category to contain PG texts which have not yet fully undergone the Wikisource QC process. Coming from PG is a useful statement about text quality. Among the texts which have not yet been proofread I'd trust a PG text much more than just some random one.--GrafZahl 08:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete. What Zhaladshar says below makes sense, so I withdraw my former vote. If only {{textinfo}} would be used extensively. But the same is true for a category to that effect. Anyway, any PG text should be able to go up to 50% relatively quickly.--GrafZahl 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't we use the text quality icons for that? As in, Image:75%.png? Project Gutenberg is just one of many reliable sources (think government, UN, actual books, etc.), all of which should be tagged with Image:75%.png if they haven't been proofread by multiple wikisourcians. Is there any reason to pick out Project Gutenberg from this group of generally reliable sources? --Spangineerwp (háblame) 12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Until the text is proofread against a reliable hard copy (or scanned copy), the most a text can achieve (even from PG) is 50% quality. I think all that's needed is to state the provenance on the {{textinfo}} template and not worry about adding it to a category. The same information is still given, and we don't have to populate a VERY massive category with hundreds upon hundreds of entries. I vote delete.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Learn something new every day. I read Wikisource:Text quality as saying that the criteria for 75% are either/or, not both, and there's no explicit mention of a reference text in the second bullet. Time to make some changes to the {{textinfo}} boxes on works I've added... --Spangineerwp (háblame) 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yikes, I forgot about that second bullet under criteria for 75% text quality...It is supposed to be taken as either/or. It makes me a bit concerned (I don't trust PG to be that reliable anymore--not for 75% quality), but it does say that, so I guess I must concede that PG texts can be at a 75% level.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Author:The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Misuse of author page. Organizations are not authors.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Amandla Festival Speeches

A 'speech' by Bob Marley - copyright. AllanHainey 11:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Publisher:Harper's Weekly

I believe when we talked about this, we decided against this sort of convention. Regardless, the way that we've started naming serials, we do not need a "Publisher" page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rank table

Not sure what it is, but it doesn't read like a source text.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Adella Wotherspoon

I don't think this is a source document.--BirgitteSB 01:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be a snippet from a newspaper. Have a look at other contributions from Richard Arthur Norton. Are newspapers source material? Maybe yes, but then we'd probably only want to include "interesting" news (or olds, rather).--GrafZahl 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I should rephrase that. Is this page a single source document? User compalations are not reallt acceptable here.--BirgitteSB 20:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I recently deleted some other works uploaded by this user for being blatant copyright violations, or being outside of our inclusion guidelines. I'm inclined to believe that this isn't a copyright violation, but it is clearly outside of our inclusion policy, as it appears to be nothing more than a collection of dates. As such, it should be deleted. Jude (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Nikaya

No used on any page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete--BirgitteSB 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Bahá'í Reference License

The source website forbids commercial reproduction so it is unacceptable here. It is unused.--Jusjih 16:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Scotland Act

No content; merely external link.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete--BirgitteSB 01:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Author:EZLN

Misuse of author page. Categorize all pages listed under "Works" with something akin to Category:EZLN.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource:Utilities

This is an index made obsolete by the wider Index project. 'Authors' is indexed to the top Index, 'Vandalism in progress' is deleted, and the rest are indexed to 'Community'. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 10:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Author:Albert Solomon, Sunny Grey, The Early Story Of Sunny

The author page currently says this:

Mr. Albert Solomon is an Englishman and he is an author who writes interesting books based on TV series. He also writes books from himself and he writes many great novels.

This matches what the recently created Wikiquote article says:

Albert Solomon is an Englishman author. He turns the stories of interesting TV shows into books. He writes books based on TV series. He has also written books of his own. His first book was Sunny Grey based on the TV series Sunny Grey.

However, no trace of this person or these works has been found by Wikiquote editors (see q:WQ:VFD#Albert Solomon). In fact, even the TV show supposedly novelized by this person doesn't seem to exist. Sunny Grey is nothing but terse character descriptions, and The Early Story Of Sunny is four brief paragraphs. This sounds likes either a hoax or the wishful thinking of an aspiring writer. Either way, it's not Wikisource material. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and this guys seems to be adding more under an IP now--BirgitteSB 18:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fiqh al-Sunna

Doesn't appear to be a source text. --BirgitteSB 14:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In the beginning

This is just an excerpt. --BirgitteSB 00:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt from a translation of the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad, it seems. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 08:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably, but we still need to have comlpete texts here. Maybe it could be moved to Wikiquote, but I don't know their policies.—unsigned comment by BirgitteSB (talk) .

History of Quebec and Canada Study Guide

An import from Wikibooks. Does not appear to meet our inclusion guidelines.--BirgitteSB 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Music education

Does not seem to be a proper source text.--BirgitteSB 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don pacifico

Not a source document. --BirgitteSB 17:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Pt

Some newbie inserted a copy of pt:Hino do estado de Alagoas on that page. Lugusto 555 19:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Requests for expansion and Template:Expand

I think Category:Incomplete texts makes more sense, and that Template:Incomplete looks a ton better. This isn't Wikipedia, where articles can be expanded; this is Wikisource, where works are either complete or incomplete. I'd be happy to help with the transition, or a bot can do it. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. However, I think {{incomplete}} is not aesthetically pleasing and would like to change it. All of our other maintenance pages are colored, and I'd like to keep the standard.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't particularly care what it is called name, but Template:Expand allows you to give a link to the source of the document. I would not want to lose that functionality. --BirgitteSB 02:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Birgitte: Easily implemented; thanks for pointing this out.
Zhaladshar: Please, something that doesn't clash with the header color (pages like this one look terrible, IMO). Maybe a dull yellow or light blue or something. And preferably no icon (simple is good). --Spangineerwp (háblame) 02:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, I know nothing about colors, so I was just going to put it back into the green that {{expand}} is using. If you can supply a few color codes that don't clash with the header colors, I'd be glad to use those instead.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
See Template:Incomplete now, and The Return of Tarzan for an example of what it looks like next to the header. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 05:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That looks very good. Should we, however, turn Template:Expand into a redirect to Template:Incomplete as many people will be used to the former template?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 15:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirected. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Elizabethan Drama:Authors & Elizabethan Fiction:Titles

This should be handled by categories or within the index but not by these pages. --BirgitteSB 01:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Also Elizabethan Fiction:Authors (redirect)--BirgitteSB 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Humourous Poetry

Should be a category --BirgitteSB 00:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Theory of conduct

Not really a source text. A lecture given by Larry Sanger is noted with Wikification and NPOVing are invited. The history is missing so we don't even know how much had been changed on WP before it was moved here.--BirgitteSB 19:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Vows of Samantabhadra of the Mahavaipulya Buddha

Source text not availble on this page --BirgitteSB 19:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Precepts of Kato Kiyomasa

The following are brief excerpts of precepts of the daimyō, Kiyomasa Kato, We don' t host exceprts--BirgitteSB 19:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:United States federal legislation

Redundant to Category:United States Federal Law -- Jwillbur 03:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Final Statement of the 47 Ronin

Excerpt from the book Tales of Old Japan.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Walter Richard Brookins

This is one of those compilation pages that make little sense--BirgitteSB 23:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

War Poetry:Authors & War Poetry:Titles

Should be a category.--BirgitteSB 23:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wariors Commander of Croats for Bosnia and Herzegovina indpendant

Appears to be a vanity biography. I don't think it is a published text--BirgitteSB 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference data

Mathematics

The following pages are constants, easily obtained or compiled, and thus present no value in transwiki'ing.

// [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Lists and tables

The following pages are lists which can be obtained or compiled anew, and may present little value in transwiki'ing.

// [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to include Category:UK National Lottery as well.--GrafZahl 08:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Harold Frederic and Category:James Fenimore Cooper

Another two single author categories.--GrafZahl 12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Works of Author:Risto Stefov

The information given on these books is as follows: Both books were printed in 2005 by: Webcom Limited 3480 Pharmacy Avenue Toronto, Ontario Canada M1W 2S7 Their ISBN's are: ISBN for "History of the Macedonian people from Ancient Times to the Present" = 0-9737256-0-5 ISBN for "Macedonia: An Illustrated history with Maps, Photographs and Biographies" =0-9737256-1-3 The series "What went wrong in the last 200 years" is included in the book "History of the Macedonian people from Ancient Times to the Present."

I have searched the most common w:Special:Booksources, especially the ones listed for Canada, with those ISBN numbers. I did not find a single hit on either one. After looking up Webcom, I believe they are acting as a w:vanity press in this case. They describe themselves as "one of Canada's largest book manufacturers" and claim to have "worked with publishers of all kinds for more than twenty years." This imply they do not consider themselves to be a "publisher" in the traditional meaning. I looked up w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the definition of self-published sources:

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

The combination of no ISBN hits and my belief that Webcom does not provide fact-checking or editorial services on the items it prints lead me to believe that these two works are unacceptable at Wikisource per WS:WWI. --BirgitteSB 21:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Emily Dickinson

These pages really don't serve any purpose. The categories do the exact same thing as the template does. Nothing is added by having these categories generated.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bible, English, King James, According to the documentary hypothesis

None of these pages are source texts. They're more "meta-documents." As such, they do not fit our inclusion policy.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete, as they don't seem to be source texts. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kept

The Macedonian question - Petko R. Slaveikov

This is an excerpt from Published 18th January 1871 in the "Macedonia" newspaper in Constaninople As this source is hard to verify in order to complete the text I think we should delete it. A recent editor has commented on the talk page that the snipping was done in a POV manner. This recent editor has provided a new reference of "Petko R. Slaveikov, "Sychineniya" ("Works"), volume 7 Publitsistika (Publicism), Pubishing house "Bylgarski pisatel", Sofia, 1981, "Makedonskiyat vypros" (The Macedonian question), p. 21-24." which appears to not be in English. If someone can translate this and provide us with the full copy, it would be really great. However I think unless that happens very shortly we should deleted this edited version of the text for POV reasons. This is a textbook case of why should aim to only accept complete texts--BirgitteSB 01:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Text is now complete!--BirgitteSB 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Have asked for some source info from orighinal contributor See talk page --BirgitteSB 03:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi BrigitteSB. I used a translation of this letter that I found here:1. The letter is also mentioned Council for Research into South-Eastern Europe of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts Skopje, Macedonia, 1993 along with a portion of it, and also here: Language: borders, identities and Utopias by Albena Hranova page 225. On 7 July 2006 a user from IP: 85.187.163.40 corrected the text using an independent, bulgarian source. I find all her/his corrections (and few minor additions) non essential for the meaning of the text and generally acceptable, and I accepted all her/his corrections. There is a claim that the last paragraph does not exist in the Bulgarian source, hence I marked the last paragraph as disputed. I would like to ask you not to delete this article, since its contents has been proven by four independent sources (Macedonian and Bulgarian, often opposed on issues covered in the article). I hope that some of our Bulgarian users will have access to the original text, and they can check the existance of the last paragraph, fill the allegedly missing sections, and proof-read the translation. With best regards: --Filip M 04:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that source is could be a copyright violation. Since we don't know who the translator was or when the translation was done. I am going to do some reseach tommorrow there should be some more complete info out there. It is however possible that this version of the text may be uacceptable for Wikisource. I am unsure what are the three other sources you mention (perhaps you mean three other editors). It would be great if they could speak up and mention if they are proofreading against an English translation or are just translating from Bulgarian themselves. If someone could do a fresh translation from Bulgarian and relaease it under the GFDL that would clear up all issues. Posting the original Bulgarian at bg:Македонският въпрос would also be a great help even if they do not feel qualified to make a fresh translation. As I said I will also see what I can come up with over the weekend. There is no reason we cannot host this text, but this version is problamatic without more information.--BirgitteSB 04:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Note from the "recent editor", cited above. The first source given from our dear fellow Filip M :1 is categorically incorrect. It is even more seriously snipped, edited and even openly falsified in some passages for the purposes of the modern macedonian nationalistic propaganda than the variant in his article in Wikisource. An example - in this contemporary version Slaveikov's definition of his "not so serious disputes" with young macedonists as friendly jokes and teases is simply missing. I'm so sorry, bit I couldn't give another, more mild opinion. I suppose that the real source of the Filip M's variant was the popular macedonian nationalistic site 2, which offers the same snipped, edited and falsified version along with the wrong name of the author, written as Petar Rachev Slavejkov: 3. You could see its previous page here 4. I have read the original text in the bulgarian newspaper "Macedonia", which chief editor was Petko Rachev Slaveikov itself, in the bulgarian St. St. Cyril and Methodius National Library, and I can assert that the recent bulgarian academic publication Петко Р. Славейков, "Съчинения", том 7 Публицистика, Издателство "Български писател", София, 1981, "Македонският въпрос", стр. 21-24 (In English: Petko R. Slaveikov, "Sychineniya" - "Works", volume 7 Publitsistika - Publicism, Publishing house "Bylgarski pisatel" - "Bulgarian writer", Sofia, 1981, "Makedonskiyat vypros" - "The Macedonian question", p. 21-24), is absolutely reliable in spite of insignificant modernization of the orthography and to some extent of the language. The detailed corrections were made by me according to this later source. Unfortunately I haven't met reliable and made from neutral translator english translation of the article "The Macedonian quesion" in the internet yet.
P. s. The three gaps in the present variant of the text in Wikisource contain descriptions, explanations and counter-arguments of the two different types of macedonism, which appeared in the 1860's, first pro-greek (ancient macedonistic) and second pro-serbian (pure slavonic) as substances, purposes and usages. Therefore it is more than obviously why these passages were missed in the contemporary macedonian "translation". —unsigned comment by 85.187.163.40 (talk) .

(unindent)First off I am not worried about the neutrality of the translation, mainly because if it really could be translated in largely different ways we could always host multiple versions. This issue has been discussed regarding religous texts, and I don't not see why it could not scale to political differences as well. As has been done with Tao te Ching. I am worried about the sinpping a little, but I am now worried about copyright most of all. The academic Bulgarian source cited above could be copyrighted because of the editorial chioces it made in what to snip and possibly the modern language. I am not comfortable with putting that up at WS.org or using it as a basis for translation, until someone more knowledgeable tells me copyright is not an issue. I am asssuming the alterations in modernization are equivalent to the alterations made in the english language used here (please correct me if you think they are more or less drastic alterations) All the other English sources cited in the discussion here are incomplete and of even more dubious copyright status. Best case scenario in my eye is this: Someone finds a copy of the 1871 version in its original language (Bulgarian?) and puts it on WS.org and we have a number of skilled bilingual people who are interested in this issue work out a translation or three. I would also accept a published English translation that is old engough to be certain it is free from copyright corcerns. If such a thing exists (which I doubt) then I would accept it as it was published whether that is snipped or not. Other than that I will work on getting opinions on the copyright of the modern Bulgarian version. I know all that sounds very authorative, but this is of course just my opinion. That said this has morphed into a copyright problem which are taken seriously here and I imagine this will be deleted as such if we cannot clear up that issue particularly. --BirgitteSB 11:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The original text is not under copyright, since it is older than 1924. Our frind 85.187.163.40 obviouisly has access to it. Can you, please, upload it here (or in bg.wikisource), in its original form, or scan it, or both. Then we can make a new fresh translation and not worry about any potential copyright constraints. I would appreciate if you 85.187.163.40 can translate it in english, since you obviously know both english and bulgarian very well. If you can't, I can make an honest try, since I have a moderate understanding of Bulgarian. Then we can invite the whole vibrant comunity on the bulgarian wikipedia to proofread and correct us. I would appreciate this effort very, very much: --Filip M 13:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree the orginal is not under copyright. If 85.187.163.40 no longer has access, at least we now know where it could be found. Any tips on which room or collection it was in might be helpful. Perhaps someone from the Bulgarian WP who lives in Sofia could visit w:SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library and trancribe it to the bs.WS themselves. Unfortunately they do not allow the photocoping of periodicals [1] It does not appear to be a very long text to transcribe, especially if they could bring a laptop to the library and type it directly. It seems possible to buy a one-day reading ticket, but the website did not list the cost exactly [2] Maybe there is even a Bulgarian editor who has already registered as a reader there for other reasons, I do not know much about the Bulgarian wikipedian community however. If someone could be convinced to do this, it would be best to manage it soon as the website says the library is closed to readers the entire month of August.--BirgitteSB 14:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I already posted a request on the bulgarian wikipedia in bulgarian language (as best as I could, since I'm not a native speaker) Talk page on Bulgairan wikipedia--Filip M 14:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
While we are waiting for the original, I'll compile a reference of all on-line occurances of this text (or portions of it). It may help us find a freeware and trustworty translation, if the original remains unavailable. --Filip M 13:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I sent a request for additional information and re-publishing to the two web site where I found the atricle:

Respected,

I came across this article published on your web-page:

http://www.gate.net/~mango/Slavejkov_MK_question.htm

I would like to re-publish it on:

www.wikisource.org (Part of the Wikimedia project, open-source repository for books and documents of all kinds).

The article is originally published in 1871, so it is not under copyiright protection. The translation, however, might be.

If you have made the translation, are you willing to grant me a permission to re-publish the article? If not, can you help me to get in contact with the original translator, and get a permission of her/him?

Any additional information regarding this article, other translations in different languages, and the original text, would be greatly appreciated.

Template:Federalist Papers

Now that The Federalist Papers is cleaned up with a working TOC, I don't think this template is necessary. Or do people think that for large works we should have a TOC on every page of the work? Personally, I think the title link in the header is sufficient. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 14:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

With best regards, --Filip M 03:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


BrigitteSB, our friend Phips from the Bulgarian wikipedia, uploaded the original text of the article. I will re-translate it now. --Filip M 03:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

BrigitteSB, I finished the translation. I added the missing paragraphs, and I re-translated the text according to original article. --Filip M 04:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Great Work! I think this is an example of the wiki process at it's best. I will leave this up a few more days to give anyone else a chance to comment. Keep --BirgitteSB 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tipitaka (The Pali Canon)

This is a summary/explanation of above texts not the actual texts themselves. Maybe it should be a category? It say three texts make up the pali canon--BirgitteSB 19:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:PD-old-50 and category

This license template states that a given work is "in the public domain in countries where the copyright term is the author's life plus 50 years." However, copyright law in the United States extends copyright 95 years after the author's death for works published from 1923 to to 1977, and 70 years thereafter[1]. Since Wikimedia servers are located in the United States, we should not have any works that are not public domain in the United States. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear up a misconception: copyright law in the U.S. extends copyright 95 years after publication for works published from 1923 to 1977, not 95 years after the author's death. This isn't made clear at w:List of countries' copyright length, but it is at http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm. Angr/Talk 07:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Kept. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 10:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Author:Quintus Tullius Cicero

User:Pathoschild has added a delete tag at the top of this author page, but hasn't explained his decision to do so. I would oppose deleting it, as Quintus has once substantial work to his name, the essay On running for the Consulship, and a few letters in his big brother Marcus's collection were written by him. --Nicknack009 13:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Author:Anna Katharine Green

On 14 September 2006 User:Pathoschild marked this for deletion (see diff) but gave no reason either here or on the talk page. The author's works are all (or almost all) in the Public Domain (one was published in 1923, but is quite probably PD due to non-renewal of copyright, renewal being required of works published in then US prior to 1964.) The author was a noted writer of her day, although now soemwhat obscure. Several of her works are posted at Project Gutenberg. I see no reason why this should be deleted, and I therefore oppose such deletion. DESiegel 16:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Please note that we just went through a major revamp of the author pages (1000+) pages. All of these pages were reviewed by Pathoschild as well. Part of this process was finding author pages that, for one reason or another, were "deletable" (the most common reason for this was a lack of any works actually done by the author). I assume the reason this page was tagged was because at the time this author had no works listed as existing on WS, so Pathoschild quickly tagged it and moved on. Please, just note that with what was going on behind the scenes, there wasn't a whole lot of time to devote to determining the status of every page. In a while, we will have a whole list of pages to sift through and determine which author pages can be deleted and which should be kept.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think there is an argument that author pages should not be deleted where all the works listed are red links, but the works listed are PD and could and should be added to wikisource. That is a policy decision. I am new to wikisoure, although i have edited a good deal on wikipedia. I was not aware of your recent revamp, buty ai do understand that such reorgs can create confusion. I didn't mean to accuse anyone of anything, merely to note that the page was tagged without a reason being specified to date. DESiegel 15:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kept. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 10:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Appeals

Appeal Deletion of important source document from Sudan The Genius Diwan of the Manasir

The article http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Genius_Diwan_of_the_Manasir has been deleted for the reason that the document (with partial translation) has not been published in any peer reviewed medium. As an antropologist involoved in an ongoing research project, I find this argument simply ridiculous. As mentioned in the foreword, it is the digital version of the print edition (see photos: http://www.haberlah.com/IMG_3081.JPG and http://www.haberlah.com/IMG_3082.JPG )! This book has been intensively discussed and referenced elsewhere and is the only written document from part of the Sudan the size of most countries in Europe. Since the area that is described by the author in the poetry is at the moment submerged by the largest dam project in Africa ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merowe_Dam, latest BBC coverage, Nature special report Vol.440/23 2006, ... ), deleting this document amounts to deleting similar documents from Nubia prior to the Aswan Dam. I strongly advice the community of Wikisource users to come to a conclusion and revise the deletion. Personally, I couldn't think of a better place to make such historic document available to the public than Wikisource. David Haberlah 04:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted because it does not meet the inclusion guidelines. As I told you by email the content of the text is not particurly important in regard to this disscusson. Historic or trivial the same inclusion policy applies. Whether Wikisource is the best place for your work is also irrevlevant, you need to show us that this fits within the policies of Wikisource. One way it could possibly meet these guideline is by being published in a peer-reviewed medium. I do not think you are disputing that this work does not qualify under that reasoning but rather I believe you are saying it is a published book as opposed to a peer-reviewed reasearch piece. As I cannot read arabic I cannot tell if the pictures you show are your own reasearch or the book of poetry you are writing about and you do not clearly explain what they are above. Does the hard-copy version have an ISBN? You have now twice re-posted this content after it was deleted. If it is deleted again, under any circumstances, do not re-post it. Ask an administrator to restore it, if you need to access to it for whatever reason. If you want me to support keeping this text, please read WS:WWI and tell me how this fits within the policy outlined there. Although I have guessed at what you are getting at above, I really am not clearly understanding you. Are you actually arguing for the individual poems or the text as you have put it together. I have been asssuming the latter, but you are not making yourself clear at all (at least not to me). If you want the poems on Wikisource for their own sake, I believe you will run into problems as far copyright. I imaginne the sort of excerpts your own work has taken are allowed under fair use. This is something a publishing house or journal would have it's lawyers look at and be sure of before putting such a work in print and making themselves liable. That is just one of many resons Wikisource only host works which have been previously published. But please, I cannot say this enough, make your case as to how Wikisource policy regards this work and leave out the BBC, and the Sudan, and all the reasons you believe the actual content to be interesting and important.--BirgitteSB 12:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Is the current version of the text (which you have re-added twice after an admin has deleted it) a complete copy of the text. The table of contents keeps saying "Excerpts from the chapter ..." instead of "Chapter ..." Wikisource, in keeping to the spirit of the Wikimedia Foundation's policy of Neutral Point of View, does not allow for excerpted works. Even if the person does mean well by the exceprts (i.e., is not trying to use the excerpts to try to make the text say something it does not) most of us WS contributors are not educated enough in the field or do not have access to the necessary document to be able to accurately judge. Hence, we delete excerpted works. What is the status (complete or not?) of the Genius Diwan?
You said it has been previously published. Can you give a bibliographic citation for it? This is also needed to determine the status of copyright (I can't tell if this is a translation or not, but the original author would have had a copyright on this work).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for causing confusion or expressing myself not clearly. The photos are of the original Arabic book. Of course there is no such thing as an ISBN because it has been published in Sudan! Sudan is by no means integrated into this system and also does not acknowledge international copyright policy. But does that necessarily include important public documents from many parts of this world in Wikisource? I don't think so! Now concerning the issue of peer-review. This document is recited and memorised by the Manasir tribe (c. 50,000 people) because it is their only written work on their homeland which they are currently expelled from and which will be submerged in a few months time. I guess this does not match the eurocentric idea of peer-review. But again, I argue for mor far-sightedness. Wikisource is international after all, although a lot of the regulations just seem to be applicable to The States and some western countries. Wikis should not increase the Digital Divide David Haberlah 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So, the page that we currently have: is it complete? Is it the complete text or is it just a series of excerpts from the text? To me it reads like it's just a string of excerpts and that it needs to be fleshed out a lot with the missing text. Also, what about the copyright of the work? Is the work itself copyrighted? Is the translation copyrighted?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Sudan is a signatory of Berne, we are not being eurocentric in this we are just being by the book. If I read this correctly the author died in 1995 and their works will be under copyright until 2020 unless the Sudan makes good on the treaty they signed before then to extend copyright longer and in that case it would be 2045. Even if this were not a copyright violation Wikisource does not host texts in the format you have used to present this. The introduction is not part of the orginal book and is of a style and length that is inappropriate for this project. This is followed by some excerpts from the arabic book, which are clearly forbiden in the inclusion guidelines. Wikisource is looking to host complete works which are free from most copyright restraints; the text you have uploaded is neither of these things. It does not belong on Wikisource and should be deleted. This is not a judgement on the value of the work, it is simply an evalutaion that it is not within the goals of this project. At least not for another 20 to 45 years--BirgitteSB 17:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


"Sudan's copyright law also has life+25 year terms in general. It is unclear whether this country has copyright relations with the US, or with international copyright conventions." (http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html) - Apart from this I have the written consent from the author (as mentioned in the foreword). So, I remain firm that copyright should not be the issue.

Exerpts is another story. So far the full text is only linked. But it would not pose a problem to upload the full text. The idea of giving some English translation is that the text is in a specific Arabic dialect which is difficult to translate. Since Wikipedia offers the possibility to edit it, specialist have the possibility to add and improve the translation. If Wikisource is not the right place, which Wikiproject is the right place to publish such source material and allow for translations at the same time? Cheers, David Haberlah 23:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The instructions for copyright holders officially notifing WMF of their release are as follows:
    • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Now this is complicated legal stuff. It has to done explictly in a legal manner and I am not a lawyer and do not know the specific wording required. Please consult someone knowledgeable about this step. Once that has been taken care of I would suggest post the arabic at the arabic wikisource (if I understand the lang code corrrectly). Then that can be used as a base for english translations. I would suggest doing each poem seperately rather than the whole collection on one page. The text as it stands cannot be hosted on Wikisource. --BirgitteSB 00:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


The "publishing house" is accessed from the authors place by donkey or camel in roughly a 10 days journey. Roads with cars do not exist in Dar al-Manasir. The author was not even aware of Internet and has never seen television. I remember his interview with the German television crew. But how I ask, without electricity and the only connection to the outside world consisting of one phone which operates for about 10.000 people on the market day for two hours only? Anyway, I give up. Imposing 'international' copyright legislation in such circumstances is simply ridiculous. And the address (which doesn't exist because mail is collected by friends or relatives on market days) won't be good anymore anyway, because now these islands are now flooded. I might consider posting the document on the Arabic Wikisource at a later stage. Before that I think I will write an article about the whole Wikisource experience. It is quite disappointing to see that some Wiki projects develop into a direction that increases the digital divide and excludes many documents from around the world. I am sure that this is not because any bad intent. Your effort to keep this site clean and running is really great.. I assume, it is more innocent ignorance of how things run in the in large parts of the world. The kind of attitude of what doesn't fit is better deleted than to cause a change in the system of how we do things that is responsible for many rare documents in libraries and stores all over the world to get binned :-( David Haberlah 04:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You say you have permission to publish it. Do you have a physical copy of that permission, or was such permission granted verbally only? Also, note that permission for Wikisource exclusively is not enough. Wikisource grants completely free use to anyone who accesses our material that they can take, alter, distribute any of our material free of charge; they can redistribute our material for a profit or for free. If the copyright holder realizes this is how material on WS works, then I encourage them to license the work (the GFDL is the license WS operates on, so using that license might be the best one). Without this license, we simply can not take the work, despite how much we actually want to (and trust me, we do want it, but as BirgitteSB said, we have to play it by the book for a multitude of reasons).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not ignorance of the difficulty. I do realize it will be extremely hard for you to fulfill the requirements of regarding international copyright. The rarity of this work, and the difficulty in contacting the copyright holder however, do not give anyone permission to simply trample over the family's rights. I understand you got permission for the translation and distribution. But the family may feel differently if someone starts making money off their father's poems and tells them they gave away the right to royalties by putting it on Wikisource. This needs to be explained to them; it is not only legal, but also ethical that we ensure this is done. I do not like the idea of that since these people have a crappy govt that has not opened up official copyright relations with the US we should just exploit their situation. Wikisource is a library of free to use publications. That is the mission. Not preserving rare texts, although preserving free content rare texts is one of our priorities. It is the job of this community to ensure people may use the texts here for profit as well as to ensure copyright holders understand what rights they are giving up by working with us. Anything else would just make this whole project a big joke.--BirgitteSB 15:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Sorry for my harsh criticism above. I do understand the concern and I wasn't truely aware, that the copyright agreement on Wikimedia encourage to make profit from what is published here. No, I don't have a written statement of the author ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/haberlah/41478209/in/set-928563/ ). I am still convinced that he wouldn't believe that he owns any copyright, since he just collected the poems. The actual poet is dead, as mentioned. And I don't see any way to contact the author in the coming years. Anyway, he was enthusiastic about the idea of making the poems available to a wide international audience for free and via the Internet. But that doesn't really help, I guess? Cheers from Down Under David Haberlah 00:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Danny 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2006-09&oldid=443417"