Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2020

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 on 01 January 2020, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

April 25, 2010 ECFA Debate Transcript part 1[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
speedy deleted; transcription/translation is explicitly copyrighted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

We have no information on the copyright status of this "debate". It can be found here, but this source has a clear copyright designation. BD2412 T 21:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The transcribers (and presumably translators, and annotators) are Mo Yan-chih and Loa Iok-sin, who are employers of the newspaper that published this transcription under explicit copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Letters to Pope Pius IX[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
closed. Texts have been researched and backed with early sources. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

We have two copies of the same letter, but they differ considerably from each other. Clearly one of them is incorrect and superfluous, but I cannot say which one. Perhaps both are.

The letters are dated the same, and are similar enough to probably be derived from the same original source. However, neither identifies the source of the text and the differences are so great that they can't both be right (if either is). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The first one gives the source at the talk page, so it should not be deleted, although it would be better if it were matched with the scan in the Index namespace.
The second one does not give its source, but the text can be found for example in Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion. It looks more like original wording of the letter while the first one looks like edited wording. Therefore the second one should be kept too, but it should be definitely matched to some source. Both versions should be listed at the version page of the letter. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I've imported the scan for the first one and moved it to The Rebellion Record/Volume 7/Documents/Jefferson Davis and Pope Pius IX, and scan-backed the text (and it includes the reply as part of the same document). Not sure if the page name should actually be "../Document 174", though.
WRT versions, there is also the reply at Letter to Jefferson Davis by Pope Pius IX, but the stated source for that is this. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The text appearing in The Rebellion Record was published in The Boston Pilot on 23 Jan 1864 [1] with the cited source being the Paris newspaper La France. It would therefore appear that the discrepancy is due to the text being translated into French and then back into English. The original English text would presumably have been made public at a later date. The Pope's reply was written in Latin and translated into English by Davis's ambassador Ambrose Dudley Mann. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it also possible the original letter was sent in Latin, and therefore we're dealing with a pre-translation and post-translation version? JSTOR might be saying Davis spoke Latin himself. Lemuritus (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Not according to the articles I read when I found the information above. From what I read, Davis wrote the letter in English, and Mann provided the necessary interpretation in Latin when he presented it to Pius IX. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
There is now a versions page at Letter to Pope Pius IX by Jefferson Davis and incoming links point to that. If anyone disagrees with the "RR" or "ORUCN" work page naming, feel free to make any useful changes! Hopefully having a structure for these works would make it easier to add things from them. Between 11 vols of RR and the 30 vols of ORUCN (and 130(?) of ORUCA), there's an almost inexhaustible supply of US Civil War historical fragments. If only other periods and places had such good documentation! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Address before English Annual Session of the American Medical Liberty League[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. Text is apparently a reprint of a reprint in a source of doubtful provenance, and not traced back to a verifiable source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Dated 1927, so not out of copyright unless we know that it wasn't renewed, which we don't. Therefore, this should be deleted. BD2412 T 05:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not inspired to dig this out, but quick searching shows no evidence of contemporaneous publication on HathiTrust or Google Books. It's possible it's not actually from 1927.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Text of the work refers in the past tense to events occurring at "the Paris Academy of Medicine in July, 1925", so it is after that date, at the earliest. BD2412 T 16:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete quickly. I found the text in some modern books by the same author (Trung Nguyen) who claims it to be citation from some 1927 publication (Philosophy of Health), see [2] and [3] . However, I failed to find that publication. As the Nguyens text seems to be one of the so called conspirational theories, it is possible, that the alleged 1927 publication does not exist. So unless its existence is confirmed and its copyright not renewed, it should be deleted. Considering the harmful character of the text, it should be deleted as quickly as possible. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Philosophy of Health was a real publication; here is a photo of the Dec 1927 volume of that work. However, the version of the text found in Philosophy of Health was a reprint: "we quote the following as reported through that astute and courageous paper, The Truth Teller, of Battle Creek, Michigan". The Truth-Teller (formerly The Peril) was the official paper of the American Medical Liberty League from 1918 to 1931. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I can find no renewal registration for either The Truth-Teller, nor Philosophy of Health, nor for any text by Lily Loat, nor for anything related to the AMLL. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Well done with confirming the existence of the periodical. However, I believe that if we want to transcribe something from an old publication, we have to do it directly from that publication. How can we be sure that Nguyen or whoever did not make a mistake and that it was really taken from Philosophy of Health and not from something else?
Even if we assumed that it was really published in Philosophy of Health in 1927, how can we be sure that the text we have was not edited and does not differ from the original 1927 publication if nobody saw it? If we want to keep the text and the license is to be based on the fact that it was published in 1927 and copyright was not renewed, we have to transcribe it from the 1927 publication and not from a later edition. This should be applied to all texts and especially to controversial ones. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I just want to mention that we can, do, and should have harmful texts on Wikisource. Censoring texts that contain harmful content does a disservice to legitimate researchers, and increases the fervour of people who agree with them. A lesson which many have had to learn the hard way. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The harmfulness was ment only to support the speed of deletion if we agree on deletion for licensing reasons. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, this text is useless to legitimate researchers, as it has no provenance, and hosting it on a relatively high-profile site increases the visibility of people who agree with them. I think there's good justification for at least deleting works that are not easily verifiable, where we're hosting an unchecked and basically uncheckable copy of a work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards Symbol delete vote.svg Delete because the only source presented so far is a quasi-self-published 2018 ebook edition of a 1950s book containing a reprint of a reprint of a report of a speech. That's too far away from the original for me to be comfortable with, laying aside any possible copyrights arising in that chain of editions. BethNaught (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Re: Beleg Tâl, there is no shortage of anti-vaccination texts of a character similar to this one that are demonstrably in the public domain. BD2412 T 00:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per BethNaught and Prosfilaes. While I agree in principle with Beleg Tâl, this text is also problematic for the other reasons and in sum leads me to land on delete. --Xover (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Some Reasons Why You Should Support the National Anti-Vaccination League[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Kept. Text has been traced to public domain source and placed within the context of the main work in which it appeared. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The other unsourced anti-vax work we have from Loat. Clearly, if we can find a verifiable source, then it's PD-1923 in the US (though not in its home country, the UK). BethNaught (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete unless scan-backed and the original can be demonstrated to be of sufficient notability to justify hosting despite its damage potential (not every pamphlet someone once had printed merits hosting, and we can certainly insist on mere technical and policy standards to be met and exceeded for these things without compromising other principles). --Xover (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Controversial materials definitely have to be well sourced. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This content is part of The Healthy Life Cook Book and should be moved to a subpage of it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    I have moved it to the correct location within The Healthy Life Cook BookBeleg Tâl (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    Which is also unsourced; an acknowledged copydump from Gutenberg in fact. In context I'll give it marginally more weight, but only marginally. --Xover (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    It is a published text that is uncontroversially in the public domain. The text is in good condition. If a scan is available, the work should be scan backed, but until one is found there is no need to delete it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    I am not a friend of texts mirroring Gutenberg either, as I cannot see any value in them. At w:Wikisource#History we can read that one of the major obstacles to launching Wikisource was the concern that it would have no additional value to Guttenberg, and I agree with this: If there is no additional value, it is useless to host it in a Wikimedia project. If the text were newly added, I would hesitate whether we should give the contributor a chance to improve it, but this one does not seem to have any chance of improvement. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    I have a strong dislike of Gutenberg-imported texts myself, but I really do not think we should start deleting texts just because they are from Gutenberg. This text is perfectly compliant with our policies, and can be improved at any time by any person who has a copy of the book itself and a scanner. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep now that it has been placed within the context of the original work where it appeared. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:
deleted at mulws —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sunnydevanand exists at at which, for some reason, I can't seem to wikilink.

It's vanity autobiography which the user has brought over from enwiki after several attempts there. The author User:Itsmywayokok appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Sunnydevanand who has also edited as User:Sunnydevanand 1. Cabayi (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It won't wikilink, because it's not here at the English Wikisource (; it's at the multilingual Wikisource, (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, now filed there. Cabayi (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)