Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2008-01

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 January 2008, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Crito in Simple English[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep

ThomasV requested speedy deletion of this because we have Crito, however I think it warrants a deletion discussion. Most of our PD translations suffer from being written in archaic English, which makes it more difficult for Wikimedians to translate into other languages. A simple English translation of this or any other work seems like a reasonable project for someone to do. John Vandenberg 07:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This recent change by an anon changes our translation from a literal translation to a simple translation. I think both are desirable. John Vandenberg 05:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep - The idea of having new translations in simple English is perfectly acceptable, and if the anon. contributor were proceeding with the development of his idea. The fact is that he did not get very far with his idea, and has done nothing in the past month on any article. Pages of this sort need to reach a critical mass so that they can be seen as viable. Editors should get on with the job or risk having the article removed after an ample waiting period. Eclecticology 01:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's likely that many people who are less literate (maybe English isn't their first language) would welcome a simpler translation.--Poetlister 16:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Kept--BirgitteSB 21:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)



A Reconstruction of the Q Document[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete

Appears to be the contributor's original work. Eclecticology 19:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my first substantial contribution to Wikisource, so I'll have to defer to ya'lls judgment about whether this is best classified as a Wikisource or a Wikibook. Basically, this document is a subset of the Wikisource Bible (World English) Gospel of Luke. I created it by taking one scholar's list of Luke Verses, putting in the text from a public domain english translation, and adding short descriptive headings usually taken from a third source.
Aside from the choice of sources, there basically is no "originality" or "creativity" on my part. It's a subset of quotes from one source (Gospel of Luke), where another published source (Tabor) told me what parts to quote.
The end product is almost exactly identical to the "source" found here, with the critical difference being that our end-produce should be public domain/GFDL.
My personal guess is that this end product is closer to a "Source" than a "Book", in that, I don't personally feel I could claim any authorial creativity. But I've never added a Wikisource or a Wikibook, so place it wherever ya'll think best. :) --Alecmconroy 21:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Q is a hypothetical document - and even amongst those who believe in it there's no agreement as to exactly which bits of the gospels come from it. So all we could have is "Q as reconstructed by scholar xyz" - we can't have "Q" as a document since its existence and contents would be POV. So we need a named scholar here - and we need him actually in the title, since it is quite possible for someone else to upload "Q according to Prof Different Scholar.". As for taking the verses that a scholar has used and putting them together using a different translation, I'm not sure we're not either violating "original research". And I'm not sure what the point it as we end up with "Q, as reconstructed by Prof XYZ, but not using the words the prof actually used" - that's bordering on interesting but not useful or citable.--Doc glasgow 00:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The named scholar also needs to release it into the public domain - the selection of verses is a critical component of their work, so merely using a PD translation doesn't change the fact that there is copyright in the original research they have produced. As a result, I dont think it is appropriate for Wikisource, and probably not Wikibooks either. John Vandenberg 01:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that raises another point. I had assumed that the selection of verses wasn't copyrightable. "Verse X used Q as a source" is a hypothetic fact, and you can't copyright a fact, although can you copyright a hypothetical fact???
It's interesting. I feel like there should be SOME reconstructed Q under GFDL/PD somewhere in Wikiworld. But how to go about constructing it, that's the rub. --Alecmconroy 10:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A hypothetical stops being copyrightable when someone proves that it is a fact. Since you seem keen, I suggest you do some research into this/this. OCLC:6070405all editions is the book mentioned as being printed in 1927, which is quite old and could be in the public domain. My guess is that the author is British, but it was printed in London and New York in the same year, so it could qualify for {{PD-US-no-renewal}} as I cant quickly find a renewal record for it. Crum could also be long dead which could make that work PD by way of {{PD-old-70}}, but we need to know Crums nationality before we can know what treaties are in play. Happy hunting. John Vandenberg 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There then becomes the question as to whether Crum's version of Q is, in fact, notable. Sure Q is, but Q is non-extant (if indeed it ever was extant as a single document - which I personally doubt) dozens of scholars have offered their reconstructed version, indeed often their reconstruction has changed over the course of their writings. So all we'd have is "what Crum thought Q might have been at the time of writing in 1927" - which is very shakey on the notability stakes. Anyway as to the current article, I think it has to be a delete as interesting but OR/Copyvio/or something else bad. Sorry to the harworking creator.--Doc glasgow 15:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

While I concur that this material should be deleted from Wikisource, there are a couple of issues that should not be part of our decision. Because we can see the difficulties that Wikipedia has had with the subjective concept of notability we should avoid this as a meaningful criterion except in clearly pre-defined circumstances. Secondly, we should avoid making decisions for Wikibooks, even in the most obvious of circumstances. We don't like it when people come in from other projects with drive-by actions, and we should not be doing that to them. If the situation really is so obvious, they should have no difficulty arriving at the right decision.
We probably need to give deeper consideration about how we handle the reconstruction of ancient texts. A hard definition of either original research or POV editing would not be appropriate for our purposes. We do allow and encourage translations, and each of these does involve some degree of POV. In this regard I would certainly have some concerns over our Wiki translation of the Bible. These pages would preferably be side-by-side with the original tets being translated, or at least have links to the version being translated. Eclecticology 21:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Translation is one thing - reconstructing hypothetical texts is quite another. Best to stick to places where we can simply include the work of a named scholar if it is PD.--Doc glasgow 02:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not prepared to prejudge the general question of where we are going with these old texts. At this time it may be a bigger question than the available expertise can handle. Eclecticology 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I probably should point out, just in case people aren't aware-- the decision of which verses were in Q is far less arbitrary than, say, producing an original translation. The choice is basically dictated by the simple algorithm of "Select all verses that are in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark". There is some wiggle room about how close two verses have to be to be considered parallel, but it's mostly robotic-- at least when compared to the process of translation, which involves infinitely more original creative choices.
That's kinda what threw me for a loop in posting this to Wikisource rather Wikibooks-- my reconstruction might be too original for Wikipedia, but if there's a project where a novel translation wouldn't be considered too OR, something as simple as taking a list of verses provided by a source, and actually listing the text of those verses is definitely not OR.
The one really realistic concern that never occurred to me, and where I'm very unclear, is whether the list of verses itself is a "fact" or a "composition". Suppose I wanted to publish somewhere "here is a list of verses that scholars regard as coming from Q", and list the verses. Is that list:
  1. A public domain list of facts of the form "Scholar X says Verse Y came from Q"
  2. A copyrighted list, but making use of that list can be considered fair use
  3. A list, the quoting of which would be a copyright violation.
This is something to consider, because it's going to come up again and again, not just in the context of Q. Scholars are always trying their best to find fragments of lost sources, so the powers that be here at WS probably need to reach consensus on the copyright-issue of the fruits of their labor-- when a scholar says "this quote from Public Domain Source X was, in my opinion, a quote from Lost Source Y". Copyright-wise, is that set then usable onwiki, or verboten as a copyright violation?
In this specific case, it's not that important, because there are plenty of Q reconstructions already available online, all of which are basically equivalent except for the odd verse here or there. Whether we link them transwiki or link them off-wiki, our readers will still have access to the same basic info.
But, this probably won't always be the case with other texts, so it's something to think about. --Alecmconroy 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This text was never published as is, it should be moved to wikibooks. ThomasV 17:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete The choices for what is included here or not is editorializing as opposed to a neutral transcription of a published work.--BirgitteSB 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Knowing what I now know, I have to agree Wikibooks is probably a better home than Wikisource, because this exact text definitely isn't a verbatim transcription of a pre-existing text. --Alecmconroy 09:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Either this is original research and doesn't belong here, or it's a copyvio.--Poetlister 16:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted--BirgitteSB 21:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)