Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2008-09

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.

Kept

Wikisource:Anonymous texts

The following discussion is closed:

Kept


The index system isn't being used to keep track of authorship, and there is no common thread to these works. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Arthur Schopenhauer 21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted 2000 edition. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Baptist Faith and Message Baptist Faith and Message/2000

And its subpages, Baptist Faith and Message/1925, Baptist Faith and Message/1963, and Baptist Faith and Message/2000. The 2000 statement is almost certainly a copyvio (see this comment). The 1925 and 1963 statements may also be copyvios if they were published with copyright notices that were renewed. Without more explicit source info, it's hard to know for sure. Angr 06:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I found this page at the Southern Baptist Convention website that contains a notice asserting full copyright. Durova (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete the 2000 edition, keep the other two editions, we can't delete something without evidence it's copyrighted. The 2000 edition has evidence showing it's a copyVio - the 1963 and 1925 editions don't have any evidence supporting that. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Isaac Brock 21:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    Heh, their offices are about twenty minutes from where I live. I'm tempted to go down there and just ask them if we can post them here. ;)
    Joking aside, I think it's more important to establish that they are free for our use, rather than making the assumption that they are. EVula // talk // 00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • We are concerned with whether or not they are copyrighted. It can be nearly impossible to prove a negative, therefore we should rely upon requiring people to prove the positive. If they are copyrighted, then their name appears in a list somewhere, as being renewed, that list can be searched, there is no reason to "assume" something is copyrighted, rather than demand somebody search the list if they want to convince us it is a copyright violation, and point to where there is evidence/proof that it is indeed still copyrighted. Failing that, it's a Keep. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Isaac Brock 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
You can't prove a negative, but you can provide evidence for it, and for something first published in the United States after 1923, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution and treat it as copyrighted unless there's some evidence that (1) it was published before 1977 without a copyright notice, (2) its copyright was not renewed, or (3) it was released into the public domain upon publication. I wouldn't be at all surprised if (2) is the case with the 1925 and 1963 statements, but I don't know how to check it. Angr 05:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The Stanford Copyright Renewal Database is a good start. After a search on Baptist, the only thing that looks vaguely similar is The Baptist faith. Rewritten & adapted by H. W. Tribble, 1935. Of course, if it were first published in a magazine, or under a dissimilar name, there could be a renewal I didn't find.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Creeds of the Churches; By John H. Leith page 344 list the source as "annual of the southern baptist convention" 1925 page 71 -76, as the original source, I was not able to find an online verison of it. It is posted in it's entirety at http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1925bfam.htm with a "Copyright ©1999-2007, The Reformed Reader, All Rights Reserved" can the 1999 copyright be valid for a 1925 work? Jeepday (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
As discussed above, unless the copyright was renewed, it is public domain, and no matter how many "Copyright XXX" signs are posted around, it's still public domain. Jude (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Right. The only issue is whether the 1925 Annual of the SBC was published with a copyright notice, and if so, whether the copyright was renewed. The Reformed Reader doesn't get to claim copyright on it. Angr 04:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the best suggestion has been EVula's to visit the SBC headquarters to find out what they intend. The boilerplate copyright notice on their website isn't helpful. Notice of copyright is no longer necessary, so putting it there does not help, but many sites add these on a knee-jerk basis without giving things much thought. For many websites the notice is a part of the site's skin without regard to the content of a specific page, in the same way that our FDL notice is automatically a part of the page. We claim this even when we are dealing with undisputed uncopyrightable public domain material. It would make no practical sense to do otherwise. Each page needs to be considered separately.

Strictly speaking the 2000 version is protected, whether the SBC intended it or not. The two earlier versions required renewal, and in the absence of a renewal the question of the notice is moot. We do most for free resources by trying to resolve these questions than by trying to assume the worst possible interpretations in static caution. It would be counterproductive for the SBC to insist on the protection of the 2000 version. It means that we could misrepresent the 1963 version as though it was the group's current thinking, because the later version is unavailable to us. Is this what the SBC or any other organization really wants? A discussion with whoever at SBC is responsible for these things could be helpful. My guess is that when the 2000 statement was drafted, copyright was not a part of the discussion. Eclecticology (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've since looked at the document, and it does present interesting theological arguments for a keep. Thus in "XVII Religious Liberty" we have "A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power." Eclecticology (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  • There appears to be no question that the 2000 version is copyrighted. At other projects where I've been active (Commons, en:wiki) the standard has been that positive evidence of public domain or free license would be necessary to keep. Not sure what the norm is at Wikisource. Durova (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that there is a legal presumption that something is copyright in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This one raises interesting questions about the separation of church and state, and whether the quoted passage from the document constitutes a disclaimer of copyright. This explains why I consider Evula's proposal more seriously than she might have intended. It would be interesting to have an SBC statement on this beyond a boilerplate statement that applies to their entire website. Eclecticology (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have searched all renewal records from 1950-1954 for "Annual" and "Baptist", and 1953-4 for "Southern Baptist", and found no record of it. The closest was a American Baptist Publication Society" hymal. The 2000 text agrees that it was first published in 1925, so the only copyright claim can be that it was published and renewed under a different name, which is highly unlikely, so Keep 1925. Regarding the 1963 text, there are multiple records in copyright.gov for "Baptist faith and message", by Herschel H. Hobbs, the earliest being 1971, renewed in 1999, which is too late for a 1963 work which must be renewed in 1981/2, so Keep 1963. There was a 1998 amendment to the 1963 text, which I have now removed from our text. The 2000 text doesnt need copyright notice or renewal, so Delete 2000. Also, there is also a 2001 registration by Southern Baptist Convention of a Chinese translation of the 2000 text, so it is quite clear that this text isnt suitable for {{PD-manifesto}}. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Prosfilaes, Jeepday, and John for your help! I'm withdrawing the deletion request for 1925 and 1963 now, but for 2000 it stands. Angr 05:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


Deleted

Deletion of Templates

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

I propose that the templates Template:EBD1897 entry be deleted because it is deprecated (not used) because we have {{EBDHeader}} which is used instead and Template:EBD1897 see which AFAIK has never been used. Kathleen.wright5 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Undeletion

The following discussion is closed:

re-deleted


Russian POW suicide note (translated by US Dept of the Army) was one of many suicide notes deleted as a copyright violation, but as the authors were Soviet citizens (thus putting the work under the Soviet copyright lawPRINCIPLES OF CIVIL LEGISLATION OF THE SOVIET UNION: Copyright), and as a veteran of the Great Patriotic War (WWII), the creators died before January 1, 1950 - and has been that way since at least 1993. Thus this text falls under {{PD-1996}} Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with your logic in applying Soviet law here. The work was written in Fort Dix, NJ. I can't imagine this was ever published in the USSR or how else it would come under Soviet domain. I would have to think this should be considered an unpublished work from the US and is copyrighted until 2015.--BirgitteSB 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Soviet law states "Copyright is also acquired by Soviet citizens...in works first published abroad or existing in material form on foreign territory"[[1], so it would seem to be an issue of Soviet law - and under Soviet law, the text is definitely PD and has been since before 1996. Under Soviet and US law, the translation is PD. I'm not sure whether or not US law would still apply, but the issue of foreign authors in US Copyright doesn't seem to suggest that a Prisoner of War's note written in Fort Dix would fall under US Copyright Law. The issue of national origin isn't much help either, and I admit I don't entirely understand under what pretenses a work would fall under the US Copyright Law. But a Soviet POW who is held against his will in a POW camp doesn't seem likely to be beholden to US Copyright Law. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me ask around some more. In regards to your last sentance the author(s) killed themselves at the prosept of being shipped to the USSR against their will, they were less moved by the issue of being held in Fort Dix against their will.--BirgitteSB 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. And don't forget that they were German combatants presumably captured outside of Soviet territory. So the Soviet connection is extremely tenuous.--BirgitteSB 19:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This also agrees that the men were Russians. The fact they were anti-Bolshevik does not mean they weren't Russian. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 19:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
They were Russian, but not Soviet POW's. They were German POW's of Russian nationality.--BirgitteSB 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that they're Russian citizens/nationals, who fought in favour of the German advance against Russia? They're Russian "Traitors" as I understand it, not Germans. But I could be mistaken about the facts - is there a clear statement proving one of us wrong about the status of the men? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
According to w:Betrayal of the Cossacks Many of the repatriated were never Soviet citizens (having left Russia before the end of the civil war) or were born abroad. Also remember that the Soviets advanced to Berlin. In order for these guys to end up as American prisoners they had to have been captured far away from Soviet land. Possibly even Northern Africa (Enemy soldiers capurtured in Europe were more likely to be held in England rather than the US while nearly all those captured in Northern Africa were held in the US due to a "similar climate" clause in the Geneva Convention). So I would very surprised if they were fighting along German/Soviet lines (i.e. anywhere in Eastern Europe). But I do not have any details on the hisory of these particular men.--BirgitteSB 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource:How-to guide on spamming Wikimedia projects

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted


Yann speedied this.--BirgitteSB 17:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete templates

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

Template:Db-g1 Template:Db-g2 Template:Db-g3 Template:Db-g4 Template:Db-g5 Template:Db-g6 Template:Db-g7 Template:Db-a1 Template:Db-a2 Template:Db-a3 Template:Db-m1 Template:Db-m2 Template:Db-m3 Template:Db-m4 Recently the listed templates were created and have never been used. I asked the creator to discuss them at the Scriptorium but he has not returned since and since the templates are unneccessary here as we all use {{sdelete}} and I imagine no one has memorized the speed criteria numbering I think we should delete them.--BirgitteSB 20:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete all. This is certainly one batch that I looked at when I saw the unused templates. Eclecticology 21:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ya, delete all. I was going to do it now but figured we should give at least 24 hours for a response. I might end up doing it later if the creator doesn't. Giggy (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The "creator" spent all of one day in Wikisource, when he worked massively on templates without making a single edit in article space. Eclecticology (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Keeper of the matrix

Suggest deletion of User talk:Keeper of the matrix, see Users with name "Keeper of the matrix" on Wikimedia projects and w:User talk:Keeper of the matrix. User is blocked to infinity for vandalism on the only other wiki they have contributed to. This page adds nothing to WS, and it is unlikely that it is an original work by the editor. Jeepday (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Giggy (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Spanish - English Dictionary for Beginners

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted


Seems more fitting for WikiBooks; written for Wikipedia according to the bottom of the page and released under CC.Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Albert Schweitzer 01:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on a conversation I had a very long time ago with Soufron, when he was doing lawyer-specific stuff for the Foundation, text released under any Creative Commons license is apparently incompatible with the GNU Free Document License, and can't be used on Wikisource. I believe that this was around the time when that CC-BY-SA movie made with Blender came out, and the script was under CC, and I was trying to work out if we could import it. Of course, this was a two second conversation on IRC, so whether or not this is actually the case, I'm not sure. Jude (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Constitution of Ukraine

The following discussion is closed:

deleted


Redundant to the broader (but not by much) Category:Constitutional documents of Ukraine. The only items in it before I cleared it out were Constitution of Ukraine and Constitution of Ukraine, 1996, both of which were already in the parent category.

It's just an unnecessary category (but not speediable, as far as I can tell). EVula // talk // 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with above assessment. Two categories for 3 works would seem to be excessive. Delete the now empty Category:Constitution of Ukraine. Jeepday (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as an empty category. Giggy (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was empty because I emptied it, but I'm certainly not about to argue the end result. ;) EVula // talk // 14:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was my point... :-) Giggy (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-English works

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted


I'd also favour getting rid of Category:Non-English works whose languages are not known and again, if once a year we do get such a work, we just ask each other until we figure it out...not add it to a category that nobody watches.
  • Delete It's currently empty and if any article is in an unknown language it should be deleted - how can we know if it's published or copyright if we don't know what it is? Even if a title and header is given, how can we know if it's accurate? --Poetlister 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)--Poetlister 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Historicaly people ask around until they find someone that recognizes the language and then {{unknown-language}} is changed to {{known-language}}+|Foo and it is transwikied to the the appropriate place (unless it alreday exists there). This category has been consistantly used in the past but not a high enough volume to require we use the category system for this.--BirgitteSB 16:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Other

Iraq

The following discussion is closed:

undeleted


As per the recent vote to include works that are not copyrighted in the US, due to coming from countries such as Afghanistan or Iraq - I'd like to propose we re-establish Author:Saddam Hussein which was deleted under the pretense of his works being copyrighted in the United States - which simply isn't true, according to the Circ 38a of the US Copyright Office and everything else which I've looked at. The PD-Iraq template however should mention that under 1971 law, Iraq uses a death+25 rule ,and thus these works won't be PD in Iraq until that time. The translations were similarly public domain (and obviously I supported, even then, the deletion of BBC interviews and the like, this is only about his speeches, etc). Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ivan Turgenev 03:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Could another admin undelete the author page at least temporarily so that the rest of us can see what is being discussed. The text on the author page is obviously GFDL so there is no copyright problem. John Vandenberg 05:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I listed the vaguely PD texts at User:Sherurcij/saddam already, removing the interviews somebody had added, which as I said, there is no argument, they definitely are copyrighted in the US. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ivan Turgenev 05:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I undeleted the Author page which may be temporary pending the outcome of this discussion. Sherurcij, sometimes you lose me in these discussions :P What situation exactly are you saying Saddam's works fall under in US law?--BirgitteSB 18:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
International Copyright Relations of the United States, 38a. Iraq's copyright law is not recognised in the United States, same as the previous Iran discussion. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ivan Turgenev 18:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Sherurcij. For everyone's convenience here is the original deletion discussion and a related Scriptorium discussion. Personally I am going to abstain on this. In contrast to last weeks discussion , I am no longer certain what consensus is about the general situation.--BirgitteSB 21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that every single work of Saddam Hussein will be under copyright in Iraq (im using that as the higher threshold for inclusion), but have yet to find any clear provision for any except his UN speeches. We do not want to indiscriminately undelete all of these texts due to the lack of treaty, as our ability to justify using that provision is severely lessened as the number of texts in that category grows. (discretion is the better part of valour) I find it odd that neither [2] nor [3] mention copyright. Anyway, rather than have a long and messy discussion about an author page, there are plenty of PD texts about Saddam, and we can use the {{copyright-until}} template to document our best efforts to determine the copyright duration of his works, so I suggest we keep this undeleted, and unlink the red links until we have better license templates to cover the texts. John Vandenberg 02:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a link that explicitly says the United States subscribes to the Iraqi copyright law? Because my link explicitly says that it does not. It is possible for an American-backed "Provisional Authority" (was it the PA?) to enact a local law which is not recognised in the United States. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Jefferson Davis 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The United States currently recognizes Iraq's copyright law, since we made it, but before 2004 we had no copyright treaty with Iraq. (This is also true of Afghanistan before 2002, Ethiopia, San Marino, Bhutan, Iran, Nepal, and possibly Yemen.) However, Jimbo Wales has vociferously and publicly opined that we should not use works copyrighted in other countries simply because we don't have a copyright treaty with those countries. (In his view, it is unethical to do so.) Jimbo's word is not binding in this, but consensus usually tends to go with his strong opinions in borderline cases, and the English Wikipedia only uses Iraqi works if their copyright has expired in Iraq. (See w:Template:Iraqcopyright.) All of Saddam's works first published before 1958 would be in the public domain in Iraq. Later works are considered copyrighted there. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 14:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion, as per my understanding Afghanistan still lacks copyright law, so I'm not sure about your "pre-2002" clause - and I think Wikisource's mandate is towards preserving history and information in whatever instances it is legal to do so. Thus, a comment once made by Jimbo should not be binding us to not only paranoia about the legality of works in the United States, but even about works whose legality is certain. Can you find evidence that suggests that the Iraqi parliament has passed copyright laws, that the United States respects those laws (since I've found evidence stating that the US does not respect Iraqi copyright laws), and that they are retro-active? Barring that, these works are definitely not copyrighted in the United States (they're speeches, so they also fit your recent criteria at the Scriptorium. I can see no valid reasons preventing these works from being un-deleted. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Portal:Branch Davidians 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You raise several point, and I'd like to refer to each in turn.
  1. First, this isn't about "copyright paranoia", as you suggest. The copyrights on pre-2004 Iraq are categorically not enforceable in the United States, and there is no legal liability for us using them. We can all agree that it is legal to republish these. It's about whether it is ethical to do so. Jimbo feels it is not. I am agnostic on the matter. You say "I think Wikisource's mandate is towards preserving history and information in whatever instances it is legal to do so", and that's a valid opinion. But Jimbo seems to disagree here: "Simply saying 'Well, this is legal under US law, so let's do it' is not a very compelling argument."
  2. You're right that Afghanistan does not have a copyright law right now. It may have never had one, I don't know, but there was certainly no copyright treaty between Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and the U.S.
  3. Iraq currently respects copyright for 50 years p.m.a., per s. 2(11), Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 2004/83. The U.S. respects this copyright law. It is not retroactive.
  4. These speeches were written down (fixed), and not merely off-the-cuff comments, so Mike Godwin's comments do not apply.
I hope this clears things up. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the help. Consensus seems to be that they are legal, and it is just a question of "ethics" as you put it, whether or not we host them. I'm not sure how you know they were fixed pre-spoken, but I suppose the onus is to prove otherwise? Regardless, even without Godwin's comments - the speeches are not copyrighted in the United States, and if we are pedantic about removing works where they're PD everywhere except the United States, I think we owe it to these works to accept works that are PD in the United States, regardless of "self-censorship for the purpose of ethics" Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 04:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that if there's no copyright treaty between Afganistan and the US, then they use US copyrights without hesitation. If you want copyright protection, then get your country to obey the quid-pro-quo that's necessary to have it.--Prosfilaes 21:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should undelete these works. Up to now, we have followed the law rather than what would be ethical or logical to do, i.e. we keep works of non-US authors even if there are copyrighted in their country of origin. I don't see the point to argue about the ethics of a dead dictator's speeches. We have some of Hitler's works although there are still copyrighted in Germany. Yann 09:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can undelete them if translators can be reasonably identified. Otherwise, in case they were not originated in English, not knowing who translated them would end up re-deletion.--Jusjih 01:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The ones listed are all translated by the Iraqi government pre-2003. There were others deleted, but I didn't list them for undeletion since they were unknown/copyrighted translations. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Albert Schweitzer 18:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed the nine listed pages and undeleted them along with Template:PD-Iraq and Category:PD-Iraq. However, the template may need revision.--Jusjih (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2008-09&oldid=11008607"