Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2007-11

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.


Image:NSRW African Animals Enh.png

Aside from looking hideous, this was uploaded to Wikisource even though a perfectly good (i.e. better) alternative is available on commons (Image:NSRW African Animals.png). --Spangineerwp (háblame) 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose. Here is the "enh" image on the page. (see section "Rainfall, Forests and Animal Life"). I prefer the original at full-size and on its own, but in the context of the page I prefer the "enh" image because the animals stand out better, and dark backgrounds are more expensive to print. At worst, this image should be copied to commons. John Vandenberg 12:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This plays into the "image integrity" issue I brought up at the Scriptorium—making modifications to scanned images flirts with not faithfully reproducing a source text. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 15:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the desired upshot here? have Commons have both, but clearly tagged as not dups of each other and noting that the original is used by Wikisource to preserve the original? Personally I think the enhanced has been sharpened/brightened/contrasted too much but that' perhaps a matter of personal taste. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note there was more discussion at the time about this and Image:NSRW African animals in DjVu.djvu at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-07#Image Policy. I've tagged these to be moved to commons. John Vandenberg 05:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statute Of The Primeiro Comando da Capital

The following discussion is closed:
Adopted a PD-released translation

This unlinked work has been tagged translator? for over 3 months. No translator has been identified. Tarmstro99 18:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a translation online from May 24, 2006 [2], which uses this as the Portuguese original. Our translation was created from a Brazilian IP on May 17, 2006. It is reasonable to assume the translation is under GFDL for a small manifesto like this. John Vandenberg 22:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mild keep I don't care much one way or the other what happens to this one. I've put the work in Category:Brazil so that there is at least something that links to it, and the linking objection is removed. The translation issue is more thorny. As more things appear on the net so too will the incidence of untraceable translations, often done by people who for whom copyright was the furthest thing from their minds. They neither seek nor claim credit or economic benefit. Under those circumstances theoretical rights are an absurdity, and at some point (not here) more attention needs to be given to the problem of anonymous, non-traceable translations. Eclecticology 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A brief contributor, who doesnt appear to be the anon contributor, provides a few details here about the original: "Now, we don´t know who the author was, therefore can we assume that it might be a copyright violation since he/she hasn´t released it to public domain? The article was nevertheless widely printed by newspapers in Brazil." So {{PD-manifesto}} seems appropriate for the original. I have contacted David Lee Wilson about his translation, and left a note on pt:Discussão:Estatuto do PCC#English translation. John Vandenberg 02:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
David Lee Wilson as donated his translation under a don't give a rat's ptuie for whatever licence, which roughly correlated with our {{PD-release}}. has been notified. John Vandenberg 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


More images


Fair use on Author pages

Personally, I think this is one namespace where fair-use could be useful. John Vandenberg 18:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete and oppose such "fair"use. Why not use English Wikipedia to use fair use images. So-call "fair" use on Author pages may not be so fair.--Jusjih 17:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete and oppose fair use. Fair use is currently prohibited everywhere by the Copyright policy with good reason:
    1. Fair use would be eligible as a reference alongside text that specifically discusses their appearance, but images on author pages are typically decorative.
    2. Fair use does not allow us to use any copyrighted content as we see fit, and it would make it impossible or exceedingly complex to reuse or redistribute Wikisource content (for example, on a CD sold for fund raising).
    3. Due to the great difficulty in educating editors about the complexities of fair use, it would quickly get out of hand as it did on the English Wikipedia, which can no longer be freely used or distributed unless all images are stripped from it. This includes free images (due to the impossibility of automatically detecting and stripping out unfree images), which would significantly decrease the usefulness of Wikisource outside its own online domain.
    {admin} Pathoschild 00:46:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the reasons well stated by Pathoschild. Opening this can of worms it not a good idea!! FloNight 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Replaced the fair use image with Image:Pope Paul VI. 1967.jpg Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Ancient Egypt 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another one to be considered. John Vandenberg 11:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrt Image:Sabatini.jpg, this says/said that the image they use is out of copyright; librarything uses the same photo on this basis. I wasnt able to find why it is out of copyright, so I emailed AP Watt on August 23, 2007. They have now replied indicating they dont know who the author is and as the EU revived some copyrights by going to 70 years after death, they now intend to remove their statement about this photo no longer being copyright. John Vandenberg 15:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use as illustrations

The following discussion is closed:

These are all used on Nelson Mandela's statement from the dock at the Rivonia Trial, and cant be found in commons:Category:Nelson_Mandela:

We could chase down the PD status of some of these, but the number of illustrations with descriptions on this work detract from the Wikisource objective of giving the reader the original work. John Vandenberg 18:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless the photos were originally somehow published with the speech (doubtful), I think they go against accepted style at WS. I know I included a photo at Justin Trudeau Darfur speech at the time, of the actual speech being given - personally I owuldn't mind similar...if a photo exists *of* the original speech being recited...but simply illustrative photos seem to go against the idea of WS. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Captain Cook 19:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Unless these were originally part of the work (of which there is ~.002% chance of that being the case) they should be removed and/or deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These Mandela images belong on WP, not WS, if they can be used anywhere under the Foundation's strictures. I agree with Sherurcij (it happens once in a while!) that we should only be illustrating speeches with photos of the speech being given, even if this means most speeches going unillustrated. Physchim62 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few interesting points regarding copyright at w:Talk:Nelson_Mandela#Wikisource images. If we can find any that are PD, we can move them to commons. I will try to find appropriate fair use on enwiki for what ever images are left. John Vandenberg 12:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Translations by Lewis Piaget Shanks

The following discussion is closed:

Redundant to Author:Lewis Piaget Shanks. Note Category:Translations by translators contains 29 other categories similar to this one. Physchim62 01:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally I've always liked the categorization, never felt quite right using the Author: template for the person who translated War and Peace. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Henry Ford 06:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well translators often author original text alongside the translation work and sometimes they author completely separate works that we host. And translation work is no small thing. I alway use Author pages for translators and editors and note which works they have credit as translators or editors separately from other works.--BirgitteSB 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anothe point to remember is that translations attract their own copyright, over and above that of the original work. Reusers need to know, as a minimum, the date of death of the translator and the date and place of publication of the translation. This sort of information can conveniently be collected on an Author page (although I agree that there is no technical limitation on placing it in a category header or page headers). Physchim62 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support deleting Category:Translations by translators and subcats. I have checked through all subcats and created Author: pages for all but The Sun, which is a proposed deletion, and the long list at Category:Translations by Dmitri Smirnov. Given the number of translated works and the importance of the translator for the purpose of copyright, could we add a translator parameter in the Header/Header2 templates to automatically link to the author page, rendered roughly like The Confessions of Saint Augustine? John Vandenberg 09:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we add |translator="" info to the header2 template then? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Ancient Egypt 16:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support this idea if a bot can do so.--Jusjih 00:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support the idea of a "translator=" field, as that is valid metadata about the text. I have augmented {{header2}} so it has an optional translator= field, and used it on both of the applicable texts on Author:Lewis Piaget Shanks. Any objections or improvements? John Vandenberg 03:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all of the works that were under this tree are now using the heaer2 "translator" parameter. John Vandenberg 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed:

The footer is now automatically placed by GrafZahl's script in MediaWiki:Common.js (see discussions in June 2007 and August 2007). The template was recently changed to no longer output anything. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:47:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, not needed anymore. Phaedriel - 22:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Crush mercilessly under the wheels of progress (and then delete if still necessary) Physchim62 23:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did this happen? It's still a blue link. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author index templates

The following discussion is closed:

The author templates are only used on the Wikisource indexes; I suggest they be merged into those pages. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:36:36, 07 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Substitue and Delete--BirgitteSB 13:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge, as far as I can see, these templates are not even visible anywhere. {{Author index}} uses {{NAMESPACE}} in its linking, so it is actually Wikisource:Authors-A that is linke to from Wikisource:Authors and friends, even though it appears to be Template:Authors-A. We could alter {{Author index}} to replace the {{NAMESPACE}}: with "Wikisource:" to avoid this. Alternatively, we could keep these template pages as redirects to their respective Wikisource:Author-<letter> page. The latter option also keeps the considerable history visible. John Vandenberg 22:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've checked them all; there is nothing to merge into the Wikisource: versions, but there are a few that have been removed from one letter and probably need to be placed on a different letter. John Vandenberg 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hardline Manifesto

The following discussion is closed:
deleted--John Vandenberg 11:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hardline Manifesto seems to be a modern-day manifesto added by an anonymous editor, which has never been published in any real form, nor has it any notability. In fact, a Wikisource mirror ( is one of only two hits that Google finds for lines of text from the manifesto. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Wyatt 02:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Also a possible copyvio; page has been tagged {{no license}} for nearly 6 months. Tarmstro99 15:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete since it has no license and appears to not meet the criteria of WS inclusion policy. FloNight 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Long

The following discussion is closed:

Image:John Long diary ch2 p1.jpg is apparently at best CC-BY-NC, with a specific template {{John-Long-copyright}} for the image. He is mentioned briefly at w:William Irvine (Scottish evangelist). This (when/if it loads) says:

There are at least three copies of John Long's journal. The original and two copies. In 1920, John Long finished his Journal and made a copy of it for his son. He left the original with a friend in April, 1923. Then he copied another Journal for his other son from the copy he retained. In the preface of the last Journal copy, there is a notation that it contains additional information that he added as it came to his mind while copying from the other Journal. Therefore, the Journals are not identical.

I assume that he was a citizen as Scotland, and I cant find a date of death. John Vandenberg 16:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was any copyright registered in any country, and/or did Scotland require registration at the time? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have notified the contributing user over at w:User_talk:Donama#John Long who, where they are still active so hopefully the provenance of this image can be sorted out, and maybe we can convert it to a text! John Vandenberg 04:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See explanation + recommendation here. Sorry for adding it. --Donama 06:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted As a single image from a very large and obscure work, it isnt worth keeping unless someone is actively working on it. I've provided some copyright tips to Donama in case they want to start the project again. John Vandenberg 09:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category: 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. Tarmstro99 20:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While on the topic of categories, Category:1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is either underpopulated or not useful. John Vandenberg 10:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:New Age leaders

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. Tarmstro99 19:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"new age" is a perjorative term I'd not we not ascribe to, when we otherwise use things like Category:Catholics or Category:Muslims - this should be no different, if they are Raelian, they should be listed as Category:Raelians. Thusfar it seems to be used to collect "damning" texts, rather than listing authors anyways. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ivan Turgenev 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, especially because it is being used for works rather than people, and I doubt we will find lots of New Age leaders (however well that could be defined) whose works are published properly and PD. John Vandenberg 03:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, not needed at this point. We can always create something later if relevant things need to be categorized. Dark journey 10:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Delete While I wouldn't call the term pejorative, it is still difficult to describe clearly, and will vary over time. But I also don't think that we should have categories based on authorss religions anyway. Wikisource is about the writings not their authors. Eclecticology 01:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other Action

Wikisource:Historical documents

The following discussion is closed:

John Vandenberg 02:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Reply[reply]

As odd as it sounds, Wikisource:Historical documents is now useless and might as well be deleted. Every text that was listed under that incrediblely vague and subjective category, is now housed somewhere within Wikisource:Texts by Country (sexy, ain't it?). Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Ancient Egypt 23:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't "Country" be lowercase in Wikisource:Texts by Country? —{admin} Pathoschild 01:35:19, 01 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really sure, no complaint on my end if you want to move. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleting Wikisource:Historical documents will break a lot of links, particularly in the headers of documents that currently point back to the page. Also, Category:Unlinked currently advises users to link texts from Wikisource:Historical documents as a way of limiting the number of orphaned pages; that advice will presumably also need to be changed if this deletion proceeds. Tarmstro99 16:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed the second part, inserting advice to link it from Wikisource:Texts by Country instead. per the first part, I suppose a bot is the best idea. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Wyatt 17:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have redirected this page to the new page, as the old page has a long and interesting history that shouldn't be hidden without a good reason. The history of the project should remain visible to non-admins. John Vandenberg 02:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gospel of the Hebrews

The following discussion is closed:

According to w:Gospel of the Hebrews, this is an early religious text dating from at least the 2nd century. What has been posted here is clearly not that; it appears, rather, to be a contemporary commentary describing the text and attempting to reconcile discrepancies in the various versions in which it has appeared. While the 2nd-century original could be hosted here (assuming a licensed or PD translation is available), there is nothing to suggest that what has been posted here is a previously published source text within WS:WWI. Tarmstro99 16:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Point of information, Tarmstro: the original has been lost and now consists only of the fragments where early Christian writers have quoted from it. 05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: these are not contemporary commentary, there is not a single quote from a source after 1000 AD, contra nom. There is no editorial text other than headings for the list of ancient writers quoted. This is a particularly valuable collection of primary sources related to a specific question -- viz. What did those ancient writers mean by Gospel of the Hebrews. One modern theory is that they were referring to an Aramaic original of The Gospel of Matthew. There are conservatives, cult groups, liberals and atheists some of whom believe, others who doubt and yet others who deny the identification of the Gospel of the Hebrews with the Gospel of Matthew. It's quite likely it is a question that will never have a consensus answer.
    Quoting these primary sources verifies that a book was known as GoH, sadly they don't definitively tell us much about that book. The collection is loosely analogous to a Wikisource page anthologizing quotes re:"War on Terror". By all means move the quotes to Wikiquote (and update the link at Wikipedia which currently points to Wikisource). But remove? Please no. Alastair Haines 07:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks Alastair. The key problem here is the lack of clear provenance and the resulting copyright uncertainty. In order to host even that one passage on Wikisource, we need to find a public domain edition of the passage.
    For example, the passage from "Against Heresies 1.26.2" is clearly derived from the original, but we need to ascertain who and when it was published. It is obviously not from this "web edition" (which claims to be copyrighted), and the only google hit is this site. There are other possible sources [3][4] and other editions that are PD.[5]. Most of the passages on the page proposed for deletion also appear here, which mentions the following sources:
    • Montague Rhode James in The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1924), pp. 1-8.
    • Aurelio de Santos Otero, Los evangélios apócrifos, pages 29-53
    • M. J. Lagrange, L'évangele selon les Hébreux, Revue Biblique 1922, pages 165-181.
    • Kurt Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, appendix IV, pages 584-586 (OCLC:73348001all editions?)
    • A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition. - (Albertus Frederik Johannes Klijn - ISBN 9004094539?)
    Of those, M. R. James is potentially PD because he died in 1936 (71 years ago), and Lagrange being copyright for one more year.
    That said, we can completely disregard the current text on that page, and replace it with other editions that you may know of, if they are public domain. Happy hunting. John Vandenberg 11:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By way of clarification (and my apologies for not spelling this out in the initial nomination), I was referring specifically to elements found in the posted page such as “There is a parallel to this saying…,” “A somewhat similar statement is found…,” and “Two parallel passages exist…” (all of which come from the heading under Clement of Alexandria, although there are many similar passages throughout the page). Those clearly are neither the original 2nd Century words, nor are they before “1000 AD” as User:Alastair Haines suggested (as they are clearly written in modern, rather than Old, English). Those clearly appear to be elucidations and commentaries upon the ancient quotations, rather than the ancient quotations themselves. I think User:Jayvdb has correctly framed one important issue as ascertaining the free-content nature of the modern words that frame and describe the ancient quotes on the page, although at present it doesn’t seem that there’s a factual basis for tagging the page as a possible copyvio. Better, I think, to ask: is the posted page a previously published source text within the meaning of WS:WWI, or is it not? Tarmstro99 15:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be an original compilation from a wide variety of sources. Copyrights don't seem as big a problem, but that aspect is moot in the light of the principal problem. Unfortunately the original contributor has not been seen in two years, and is not available to tell us where he got this. If someone shows a single source for this page I would be happy to change my mind. Eclecticology 18:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you wanting a source for the entire page, or just provable sources for the snippets? i.e., are you in principle against the idea of a page that is a compilation of sources? I'm not phased either way, just want to know where the bar is being set. John Vandenberg 18:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My principle objection is to the original compilation. This is somewhat comparable to WP's No Original Research policy. Having material that is from one or a very small number of sources is relatively easy enough to reference. Accumulations of snippets would open one very big can of worms if we have to seek references for each one. Eclecticology 21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move. Okay, I'm extremely new here, and if this is out of order I apologize in advance. The present page is an excellent compilation of source material in chronological order and it seems to me should be kept in some form. On the other hand it is not a text, even a fragmentary text, of the Gospel of the Hebrews. For the material to make sense some sort of brief introduction is needed. The texts of GH, the Gospel of the Nazaraeans, and the Gospel of the Ebionites are all part of the same problem. What might work would be a document that presents the texts of the fragments, providing them with a short introduction. The present document could form an appendix to such a compilation. I've done a sort of mock-up of this idea, under the title Jewish-Christian Gospels. For the text of the Gospel of the Hebrews I used entirely PD translations, and I used the arrangement given in the third edition of Hennecke-Schneemelcher, in order to avoid any appearance of original research. If this seems like a good approach I can go ahead and finish the project, replacing translated material with cited PD translations. Does anybody know if original translations are allowed? Again, if this is out of line with the approach of Wikisource, I apologize. My only excuse for getting involved in this discussion is that this is a subject I actually know something about, and I strongly believe that this document should be kept in some form, somewhere. Sbh 01:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move into project space, and replace with Sbh's new page "Jewish-Christian Gospels/Hebrews".
Here is an overview of how I think we can close this:

  1. Jewish-Christian Gospels/Appendix is a duplicate of the current Gospel of the Hebrews so it should be deleted.
  2. The current page "Gospel of the Hebrews" is original compilation of references and doesn't belong in the main namespace. I suggest that we move into the Wikisource namespace somewhere (under WikiProject Early Christian Writings perhaps?) to be worked on or moved into a Wikipedia article. The intro on Jewish-Christian Gospels/Introduction should be moved into this page. Jewish-Christian Gospels/Introduction can then be deleted.
  3. Jewish-Christian Gospels/Hebrews is a unoriginal compilation of PD translations of the original text. It clearly indicates that it is a compilation of translations. I dont think this is nearly as objectionable, as it is not significantly different from contributors performing their own translation. I think it can be moved to "Gospel of the Hebrews" (effectively replacing the current page).
  4. Jewish-Christian Gospels/Nazaraeans and Jewish-Christian Gospels/Ebionites (both currently empty) should be moved to Gospel of the Nazaraeans and Gospel of the Ebionites and hopefully expanded with more fragments of the original text.
  5. The list on Jewish-Christian Gospels belongs on one or more of our index page, and then that page can be deleted.

John Vandenberg 03:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fragments of Heraclitus is another work which is a compilation of various sources. John Vandenberg 09:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Short stories vs. Category:Short Stories

The following discussion is closed:
merged John Vandenberg 12:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A newbie pointed out we have Category:Short Stories and Category:Short stories, we should delete one and merge. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 22:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont like the capitalisation of Category:Short Stories; makes it look like a proper name. John Vandenberg 10:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest we merge Short Stories to Short stories, then delete Short Stories. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Lar, but note that Short Stories has several sub-categories that will also need the same treatment (i.e., correcting capitalization and then moving under Short stories. Tarmstro99 16:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. They are all over the map capswise too, some are ss, some Ss and some SS !!! AWB can make short work of the move task once we have a clear consensus. ++Lar: t/c 02:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed:
replaced with dated soft redirect to Wikisource:Sources. Tarmstro99 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been merged/replaced with Wikisource:Sources in the spirit of simplification. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ivan Turgenev 06:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Consensus

Days of War, Nights of Love

The following discussion is closed:
Kept, no consensus for deletion. Tarmstro99 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has all the signs of being self published and unacceptable by WS:WWI. Days of War, Nights of Love/Introduction notes it is printed by CrimethInc Free Press. CrimethInc also appears to be the organization which put the work together.--BirgitteSB 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. There was a discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2007-08#Days of War, Nights of Love recently in which we came to the conclusion that this book was acceptable, as it is a fairly popular work found in many libraries across the nation (it even has its own Wikipedia entry). It's also worth noting that there have been other self-published works in the past that would be allowed here given that they are notable enough (Nietzsche comes to mind). -- LGagnon 19:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Jayvdb stated that "It... is held in many libraries so it appears to be a worthwhile work to include if copyright can be established." So we have one statement in there that argues for its inclusion being worthwhile. -- LGagnon 19:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When a self-published work is picked up by real publishers like Nietzsche's were then they become acceptable. But we cannot guess what works might go that route in advance. A Wikipedia entry is not taken into consideration in our inclusion policy. Neither are the number of libraries that stock a work. We have to draw the line somewhere in what we include; I think the line is drawn at publication for good reason.--BirgitteSB 19:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That, however, creates a bias in the process, thus negating good-old NPOV. We are taking the side of the publishers in what is or is not worthy of inclusion, thus taking on their perspective alone. Personally, I think Wikipedia's inclusion policy does a better job of determining what belongs and what doesn't; this one is too biased. -- LGagnon 19:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Straddle the Fence Weak Keep, this one is borderline for me - I agree that it may not be published by a "real" publisher, but neither was the Unabomber's Manifesto...or all those books "Limited to 300 copies" or something. It's a grey area, but to its credit, CrimethInc isn't exactly a small institution, it's not like it's being self-published by "a small Montreal independent anarchist bookstore" or something. At the very least, it should definitely be parsed to w:WikiBooks - but at the moment I'm leaning towards keeping it. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Alfred Nobel 20:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The New York Times is a "real" publisher in my book, the Unabomber's Manifesto is passed. Even if this is the best self-published book ever not picked up by mainstream publishers, I don't see why we would want to open of that can of worms. I am sure the KKK is not consider a small institution, but I would not like to see their self-published material become admissible simply because they are "notable".--BirgitteSB 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well it's not really going to be an argument that convinces me, because I would definitely think an 1895 KKK pamphlet would be within our domain. If people write things just to post online then I agree, that's WikiBooks...but if I can walk into a bookstore and purchase a publication (as is the case with this, the Toronto anarchist bookstore sells CrimethInc publications...don't ask why I've been in it), then it does seem to squeak by our notability guidelines. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Alfred Nobel 21:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • How do you suppose we include cold efforts to incite violence (1895 KKK pamphlet) while refusing hot efforts to incite violence (2007 KKK pamphlet)? I would hope that if the old interesting stuff eventually gets picked up by some historian and is re-published by a real publisher as part of a collection. If not, I do not see how to include it without loosening rules enough that some holocaust denial tract that will cause us major problems would also sqeauk through. But if you see a way to do that, please propose a change to WS:WWI. As it stands currently the policy is against this work being included.--BirgitteSB 21:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Ew, proposing policy change - that never goes well :Þ And if w:David Irving released his books into the public domain, we'd print it doesn't matter that "Holocaust denial" is a concern - that's a w:Straw man argument with what we're actually debating, which is whether this work is "notable" enough to merit inclusion. As mentioned, it has a Wiki article that's never even been proposed for deletion, so I'd say its notability is determined...and its copyright status. This is more a question of the wording of our policy being flawed, not that this book should be deleted, imho. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Alfred Nobel 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • And if w:David Irving released his books into the public domain, we'd print them... and if that really happened I would leave the project. We have set-up this project to only accept what has already been published by places with editorial controls and legal departments. If you want to change the nature of the project discuss it in the Scriptorium. But we would not accept any of David Irving's s self-published materials no matter what the copyright because it is against the inclusion policy.--BirgitteSB 13:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • I think there's some misunderstanding here, David Irving's books are not "self-published", they are published by a number of legitimate places with editorial controls and legal departments, including Focal Point Publications, 3 Rev Ill, William Morrow and Company and Avon Publishers, the latter two being connected with HarperCollins. The fact a book is "distasteful" or doesn't have any subjective "redeeming social value" shouldn't be a factor in whether or not we include it, as it seems to me. After all, we have The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion - why would a KKK pamphlet or David Irving book be any more inflammatory than that? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Alfred Nobel 14:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • Text's that are not self-published would be acceptable here. I have never said whether something is distasteful or not should be a factor. I am one here who is supporting a clear line in the sand over an determinable factor. You are the one supporting grey area individual editorial judgment which will lead to debates over what is too distasteful to accept here.--BirgitteSB 14:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  • Well I guess I was extrapolating from comments like "How do you suppose we include cold efforts to incite violence (1895 KKK pamphlet) while refusing hot efforts to incite violence (2007 KKK pamphlet)?" or "I do not see how to include it without loosening rules enough that some holocaust denial tract that will cause us major problems would also sqeauk through." -- my point is that "NPOV" has never applied to WS precisely because we don't care if an 1895 KKK pamphlet or a book that denies the holocaust is put on our servers - knowledge is knowledge, we don't make value judgments. We host many works that were never "published", they are centuries-old letters from one notable historical figure to another. Many books are also published in very limited quantities. Ernest Hemingway's How Ballad Writing Affects Our Seniors was only published in his high school yearbook and Three Stories and Ten Poems was "privately published", but does that mean we should delete them? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Alfred Nobel 16:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                    • That comment is regarding your idea of allowing personal opinion of notability on inclusion not my idea of following existing policy. I want to follow existing policy not have debates about the legal ramifications of hosting works that could incite violence which will happen if change the inclusion policy to allow anything "notable" with "notable" undefined. I don't know how to define "notable" in a way to prevent that issue. Hemingway's works are republished and are acceptable by our policy. [6] [7][8]--BirgitteSB 16:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per my comments at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2007-08#Days_of_War.2C_Nights_of_Love. It is held in real libraries across the globe (and sits on shelves in brick and mortar bookstores if Sherurcij is to be believed), has a Sales Rank of #49,512 in the US and #96,484 in the UK, and the Wikipedia page of the same is reasonably linked, w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Days_of_War,_Nights_of_Love, for good reason. There are so many useful resources that are self-published that I am surprised that WWI even uses that term instead of using "vanity press". I can understand that allowing "self-publishing" here is a can of worms, but there are many motivations for self-publishing and we need not limit ourselves the way that WWI reads at present. The motivations for this work being self-published are clearly due to the ideology contained in the work; to have published it normally would be very hypocritical. Rules are made to be broken; thats what makes us write better rules. The "2007 KKK pamphlet" problem proposed by BirgitteSB is a good one; if copyright laws permitted it, I can see reason for us to host even that, if it was widely distributed and a serious contributor felt that it needed to be stored in a fixed manner in order to be discussed else where. At present all we need to keep the undesirable not-notable material off the site is for admins to have a clue, and be given room to use their judgment. John Vandenberg 00:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Actually we make a real efforts to craft very few absolutely necessary rules that are not meant to be broken. Our rule structure is nothing like Wikipedia where they seem to make a new rule or modify an old one every time a new problem comes up. I don't know where you get the idea that the policies on this project discarded and substituted for the personal opinion of administrators but that is not how things are done here. Our disputes here have always been over interpretation of the rules not whether or not to actually apply the rule.--BirgitteSB 13:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Gosh, I didnt expect my opinion to be taken to mean that admins should do what ever they like, and I am a bit miffed that you drag Wikipedia into this discussion as if that is an explanation of my opinion on either this book or how things should be done around here. wrt to the last part that you have zoomed in on, I only meant that in the case of a "2007 KKK pamphlet", Wikisource has the benefit of being small (low workload/more time to think) so it is not unreasonable that works on the fringes of "WWI" can be left as a manual task of separating the wheat (the 'culturally important' "2007 KKK pamphlet" that was dropped on millions of homes in a predominately black area as part of a psychological war) from the chaff (a 'promotional' "2007 KKK pamphlet" donated by an IP that was never widely distributed ); i.e. works of that nature could feasibly be left to the discretion of admins rather than try and make rigid rules. (I am still presuming that our admins are all sane) All that was on the back of my opinion that self-publication, editorial control and peer review are not perfect ways of picking and choosing WWI. My opinions are due to having been involved in archiving and digital repositories for all nature of research output, and I am surprised that the Wikisource inclusion policy is in favour of being much more restrictive and rigid than university libraries and archives which need to take into account the enormous costs of including and preserving any one item. I am definitely struggling with the idea that Wikisource, which describes itself as "the free library that anyone can edit", is rejecting a book that is free as in libre, and held in brick and mortar libraries. I am only new here, so feel free to disregard my opinions. John Vandenberg 15:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I mentioned Wikipedia because your opinion as stated above seemed to be based on w:WP:IAR . I also know you are a long-time contributor there while a more recent contributor here and assumed you were simply expecting practices here to be very similar. It is often something that happens with WP converts and I am sorry if I offended you with the assumption. I guess I am looking more at the long term ramifications of not following this rule and disliking that, rather than focusing on this particular book. I don't like to look at someone's often passionate contribution and tell them if it is good/bad or notable/unimportant or exciting/boring. I like to look at the work and say if it fits the rules or not. I am a bit partial to the rules since I helped write them and I think that approach leads to a happier community as well. But since I made this nomination, I will not be closing it. So just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you should give up on your opinion. I would like to convince you that the way we do things here is beneficial and worth upholding but if I can't convince you; don't dismiss yourself. It is alright if we simply disagree over something.--BirgitteSB 17:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Quickly wrt to IAR on Wikipedia, I am no fan of it because in practise it breeds disorder and drama. My earlier suggestion was that we could feasibly employ a tactic along the lines of "the outcome of a discussion can be to ignore the rules when admins agree that they are biting us". I am hearing that it is preferable to bite our nose off, from people who have been gnawing at their noses for a while, so I guess I had better get used to it.

            I really couldn't give two hoots about this book specifically; as a result of what I am learning in this discussion in the back of my mind I am thinking of all the works that wont fit those rules, and consequently I am concerned at all of the possible contributors whose contributions will be cut short. I also do not want to have to worry whether a work has had sufficient editorial control on it before uploading it. That is bigger minefield than copyright, sounds like it will result in less contributions, and more (not less) opportunity for dispute. For example, when looking at older works where printing details are sketchy at best and incredibly difficult to research, how are we going to determine whether a printer was sufficiently competent that we can also call them a publisher; the distinction between those two roles blurs really quickly and the research involved in trying to ascertain who performed the role of promoting/distributing a work is unreasonable. Already I have looked at my contributions and existing works uploaded by others and now consider them on shaky grounds. Self-publishing is a vital element of free speech; used by many important authors. It is also used by many learned societies that output extremely obscure works with brilliant plates that are academic treasures; when the cost of printing is high, and the number of people who care about such minute detail are limited to the 10 members of an international society, self-publishing is altruism.
            There are many arguments that can be made for most works (inc. this one) wrt the amount of editorial control, but those all depend on a good understanding of the person or group that chose to use self-publishing, and so are disputable. In stark contrast to your stated position, I would much rather be discussing the historical value and distribution of a work, rather than whether it was published by a govt approved/regulated publisher. John Vandenberg 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I agree that self-publishing is an important tool. But I also feel that when that tool is used for an important work, the work is later re-published by publishers with editorial controls. I don't believe govt. approval has anything to do with this. I think at worst this policy leads us to time-delay in picking up some important works, rather excluding them completely--BirgitteSB 13:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete now. Can re-create later when published. I feel the policy against self-publication is a good one and needs to be firmly kept in mind when decisions are made about including material. "must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication." The downside to including self published material is too great to allow exceptions. Looking out for the broad, longterm interest of WS means we need to error on the side of caution. As to the current entry being discussed, I feel that inclusion at this time is not per policy and should be deleted. If it is an important work, then at sometime in the future it will be included here because it will be published. FloNight 15:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid I'd argue that the "downside to including self-published material is too great" isn't the case - as JayDVB mentioned, Wikisource is still largely a small project with a couple dozen permenant is much better to vote individually on each piece like this that comes before us, than to write rules based on "that's what we do", and then base what we do off "that's what the rules say". I agree, if CrimethInc announced their "entire website" was, we shouldn't just import their website randomly. But this is a specific "widely-read" different than claiming something like the Book of Common Prayer wouldn't fit our criteria guidelines because it's published by the Church and her subsidiaries, not independent large-scale publishers. Really, these instances highlight the need for case-by-case voting on such works, not adherence to a rule that will paint us into corners. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Alfred Nobel 19:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good presentation of your views but there is a strong counter argument. It is that there is still a large amount of material that fits the mission of the project and fits our policy that still needs to be added. When we come close to finishing with these works, then we can talk. ;-) FloNight 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aren't all Wikis a work in progress that may never finish? I think it isn't likely that we will be finished ever, unless Wikisource is disbanded. -- LGagnon 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, if that counts as an argument, I get to demand the deletion of everything everybody is working on right now until all the dead links at Author:Leo Tolstoy are replaced with full texts ;) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Alfred Nobel 20:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of the inclusion policy. The publication criteria are objective, definite lines in the sand. Making exceptions for works we think are cool or notable only leads to conflict, unequal application, deteriorating quality, and increasing disregard for established standards and rules. If you can create a new set of criteria that is objective and fits within the scope of our project, then please propose a change to the policy. In the meantime, this work should be deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:00:28, 07 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I've just made a request for policy change, so maybe we shouldn't rush into this. -- LGagnon 23:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As a further point, not to delve into tit-for-tat, but I imagine most administrators have been aware of The Charles Henry Gauss Family Papers as it was being produced, one of our "trademark works" at the time I daresay it seemed to receive a lot of (well, for WS) attention at the time. Discussions were had, and administrator User:Apwoolrich among others seemed to have no problem with publishing them here. I think the point about self-authored books is an important clarification on vanity-cruft though. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Alfred Nobel 23:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep I have found this debate very interesting and thoughtful and I think the answer is pretty simple. "Everything here is meant to be based on common sense interpretations of the policy outlined above." Wikisource is being presented as the Free Library. The text is certainly noteworthy enough to belong here. What matters is how published it is, not exactly how it was published. Sherurcij and John's arguments have convinced me it should be kept. - Epousesquecido 16:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - It's not a New York Times Bestseller, but it is a very well-known book. It's global sales rank on Amazon is #198,552. Compare with, say Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche, which weighs in at #158,398 (most books on Amazon rank somewhere in the millions). Clearly this should be an exception to the self-publishing rule as the book was self-published as a political statement, not because it would not have been able to be published otherwise. Let's use some common sense here. Besides, what is our definition of "self-published"? Isn't the Encyclopædia Britannica "self-published"? Kaldari 21:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Even if it is from the publisher, it is definitely notable enough to be here. It is found in many libraries and even has own Wikipedia article. For us to better define why this should be included, I am currently working on a new category in my sandbox. Wikibrarian talk to me 18:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]