Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2007-12

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.


The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

The following discussion is closed:

It's not what it purports to be: a 1920s item. It appears to be a 2000s modification of a 1963 imprint titled "World Conquest Through World Revolution. However, the web/internet item is not notable. Accordingly, it's merely a contemporary antisemtic tract, and Wikipedia is not a forum for the mere expression of antisemitic views. So this article should and must be deleted. --Ludvikus 02:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a fair amount of..."discussion" over this page in the past couple days by User:Ludvikus who first claimed that he knew it was a fake by some "imposter" Dickerson...then later said he decided it wasn't Dickerson's after all, it was some other fake that should be deleted and we should only use the American copy of this text. The text that appears right now is the same as the one at ChurchOfTrueIsrael which says it is the same copy we say it is, "Translated from the Russian of Sergyei A. Nilus by VICTOR E. MARSDEN" - it is also the version quoted in the book "Dismantling the Big Lie: The Protocols"[1], and seems to appear 225 times on Google when you check a random phrase from this translation, as being a bona fide English copy of the Protocols. Whether it's anti-semitic or not is irrelevant to any discussion on its inclusion here - we do not endorse its message, we host it for people to study and analyse (hopefully for the right reasons). Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Richard Francis Burton 03:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The articles talk page had this:
Information about this edition
Contributor(s): Sherurcij
Level of progress: Text complete  
That's a person on the Web, named David M. Dickerson, who maintains his own edited version, in PDF format. An examination of the text there, however, shows that in fact these 2 are not the same. The editor above has admitted that it's some 1963 rendition of a version called, "World Conquest Through World Government." And this source has itself been further edited, by an outside (of Wikipedia) source. Furthermore, at least the Preface, as well as the Conclusion and Appendix have been excerpted out. I understand that the mere fact that an item is antisemitic is no grounds for omission. However, a Non-Notable, self-made paraphrase, summary, abstract, etc. of something that's a Historically Notable Antisemitic Item is just that - an attempt to use Wikipedia to spread Antisemitic views. It's clearly implicit in Wikipedia's purpose. It was not designed to be a forum for expressing or paraphrasing antisemitic views. For example: If you want to show what Hitler said in Mein Kompf, that just reproducev it exactly and completely. To merely paraphrase Hitler's text, and say: that Hitler's Mein Kompf -- does not do it.
In summary, there have been quite a few different imprints of the Protocols. All I demand is that the Wikipedian editor identify exactly which particular imprint he/she wishes on Wikisource. And once that's done, it must be Accurate and Complete. Furthermore3, a homemade abstract, or extract, becomes also Un-notible, besides antisemitic. So this hodge-podge amputation ofv a famous cantisemitic text which has been re-printed as different editions, must be deleted on two grounds: (1) It's not what it purports to be, and (2) whatever else it is, it's not Notable. --Ludvikus 04:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just checked the Homepage of the Source. It's this:

I pledge allegiance To the Christian Flag And to the Saviour,
For whose Kingdom it stands. One Saviour, crucified, risen and coming again,
With life and liberty for all who believe For God,
Race and Country Identity Information Center Welcome Aryan Men and Women
to the web site created by and for our race.
It is not our intention to offend anyone, so if you are not white,
or if you are offended by white men and women with racial pride, then you should leave.
If you are white and not offended by your racial kinsmen, come on in.
Visit our Racial Chat Room, or Message Board, Home Page (Index)
"Pro-White Forum" About&nbspUs, Membership, E-Mail

And here's the Homepage of this Church of True Israel [[2].
If the editor wants to write about this Church's Protocols rendition let him do that. Furthermore, is Wikipedia to be a forum for expressing the views of such contemporary white-supremicist organizations by importing their work into Wikipedia? --Ludvikus 04:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's what's required, but not given above:
Information about this edition
Edition: original edition
Source: source (website, OCR, ...)
Contributor(s): xxx
Level of progress: progress description and icon File:XX%.svg
Notes: notes about the text
Proofreaders: yyy, zzz
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Due to an insane amount of pseudo-pagemoves you've made to both the article and its talk page (not always even moving them both to the same name...) I can't view the Talk Page's history (Hrm, did I screw up in delete/moveBack somewhere?) - but I'm not sure whether I added the ((Source| information or not (I don't, typically - somebody else does.) But I know I most definitely didn't "already admit that this is a 1965 edited web version - I have no idea what "it is" ultimately, other than the version that seemed to be the most widely-accepted version. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Richard Francis Burton 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The document in question may have some place on Wikisource (it should be noted that wikipedia has different policies), but the provenance of this version is highly questionable. The establishment of any original document would be a challenge, but the description by Ludvikus of this version is warranted. I am reasonably certain that this is yet another non-notable variant on the so-called 'original text'. The history of the text is actually several hundred years old, it originally had little to do with antisemitism. Any number of variants, adapted for various purposes, appeared up to the 1890s. Two notable versions have appeared since this time. They are not a high priority for transcription, they are all faintly ridiculous. So it goes ... Cygnis insignis 18:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You believe it's a "non-notable variant on the original text" from a century ago, or from recent years? And do you have some form of clear evidence of that being the case? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe 20:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comments like these make me think that perhaps the nominator is a little misguided and confused about various anti-semitic texts - as he is now confusing (or at least, demanding that we not confuse an anti-semitic work by w:Henry Ford published in his own newspaper to its own notoriety...with the Protocols. There definitely seems to be some confusion, and a number of "tangents" that this diatribe seems to take. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I recommend a visit to Wikipedia where a lot of work has been done to identify all the different notable variants of the w:Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as opposed to your w:Protocols of the Leaned Elders of Zion? Look for, especially, the Template: w:Template:"The Protocols. Furthermore, how do you know that this Text of yours has been been drastically, or even slighly, but non-trivially, altered by the Church of True Israel to reflect their views? If it has, you should include their name with it. But again, is this White/Aryan Church notable? --Ludvikus 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The new editors in this discussion have made several misunderstandings about Wikisource. Please read over our inclusion policy and Copyright policy for the criteria we use to decide if a particular work should be hosted by Wikisource. Subjective criteria like "notability" are deliberately avoided precisely to avoid arguments like this one. Furthermore, there is no need for the "editor [to] identify exactly which particular imprint he/she wishes on Wikisource", since Wikisource encourages editors to add every (policy-compliant) edition ever created, since these are typically unique in varying degrees.

Some good points have been raised, though. Self-published material is not allowed by the inclusion policy, for example. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:32:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Protocols hve been published by a number of "legitimate" publishers over the years - definitely not "self-published". Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe 02:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Marsden translation itself seems acceptable on Wikisource, but we should determine whether this is a legitimate copy or a more recent derivative, as Ludvikus says it is. I'll see if I can find a more reliable source with which to compare the text more comprehensively tomorrow. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:29:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
comment: I have been invited to continue contributing to this discussion, but my comments may be further misinterpreted. I hope my view point has contributed positively. I will like to advise that I have read the policies and follow the inclusion discussions. Cygnis insignis 06:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Althought our item here turns out to be, ultimately, a Fraudulent document, it nevertheless is a Document and falls under that Category regarding Wikisource Policy as follows (thank you Pathoschild for locating the page):
The source of these works should be noted in order to allow others to verify that the copy displayed at Wikisource is a faithful reproduction.
That's precisely what has not been done here. However, subsequently it was pointed out by editor Sherurcij, says he got it from the so-called Church of True Israel, whose reliability I question. I again ask you guys to visit Wikipedia where I have recently made a study of all the available imprints of The Protocols. In fact I own several of them in my own private library - own especially hardcopies - and yesterdate I acquired the First American Edition of the Cause of World Unrest. So I'm in a position to know. And the fact is that no one knows which ( or "when") is the First [Victor E.] Marsden Translation. I offer an imaqinary $1,000,000 reword to any Wiki editor who can produce the First Marsden Translation. I seriously doubt whether anyone can even give the Year in which it was allegedly published. For these reasons, we must be very precise as to the identity of our version of the so-called Protocols of Zion - which, by the way, have many title variations - almost as if it were the Devil trying to confuse us (just kidding about the Devil). --Ludvikus 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's perhaps an editors excusable error because Wikisource gives little guidance regarding Spurious Analytical works (I quote from our policy statement page):

Analytical works are publications that compile information from other sources and analyze this information. Any non-fiction work which is written about a topic after the main events have occurred generally fits in this category. These as well as any artistic works must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication.

It follows from this that "The Protocols" is not an analytical work. But it was always published, issued, or otherwise presented as such. For example, Serge Nilus, in 1905, incorporated it as Chapter XII (12) of his book on the imminent comming of the Antichrist. I certainly support the Translation of the complete book by him: Velikoe v malom. However, it has never been so translated (completely, that is). On the other hand, no one ever published his chapter 12, alone, without commentaries, or a preface, introduction, postscript, conclusion, index, and/or such other editorial additions. So I insist that we include these - they are extremely important in revealing how this notorious tract was used. Omitting such stuff merely turns a Wikisource editor(s) - or even Wikisource itself, into one of those Anonymous editors, complilers, entities, etc., which have made this imprint a Warrant for Genocide, as Norman Cohn calls it. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I have not said that I used Church of Israel as a source, that is now the second time you have falsely claimed that I "admitted" using a certain source/translation - I've already said, I have no idea which source I used at the time, but googling phrases from our current copy seems to indicate it is legitimate. My only comment about ChurchOfTrueIsrael was after you said that theirs was the only legitimate source, that I pointed out we appeared to be using the same translation as they were - and thus I was confused...and you then again reversed arguments and said that theirs was also fraudulent. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe 15:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issues you've raised about our inclusion policy have already been under discussion recently, and I'll be proposing an improved policy this weekend.
I agree with your other statements; we include multiple editions of works, which should include all commentaries, preface, annotations and any other content published in that particular edition. Different editions that meet our inclusion and copyright policies can all be included, with disambiguation as laid out by the style guide. That's why I said I'd find a reliable source of one of the original publications with which to compare (and possibly replace) this text. If we cannot find any, you're welcome to upload scans of one of your eligible hard copies.
By the way, this is a discussion; it's not necessary to preface every comment with "comment:". I'm reformatting your comments when I reply to maintain indentation so that the discussion is easier to follow. The quote format I used above can easily be duplicated using {{subst:quote|quoted text here}}. —{admin} Pathoschild 15:20:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for Adm. User:Yann to post (anywhere on Wikipedia) this Template until we resolve our dispute (which by the way does not display his recent notice on it here):

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

--Ludvikus 16:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've fixed the template above. Please discuss that on user talk:Yann, not here. This discussion is specifically about the inclusion of the work. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:33:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Point well taken, noted, and accepted. --Ludvikus 16:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following Wikipedia Template lists most of the important versions of this "PSM" (acronym for the Russian imprints) but I think I still do not know how to display it her: {{w:Template:"The Protocols"}}
--Ludvikus 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikisource is a separate project; templates aren't shared. You can link to a Wikipedia template with a normal link starting with the interwiki link "w:". For example, w:Template:"The Protocols". —{admin} Pathoschild 17:10:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. I just put in that combination ["w:"] - and I'm crossing my fingers. Ludvikus 21:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. So I got the link to turn from Red into Blue. By why can't I post it here? In the mean time here's the link where I posted the link to the outside source of the PDF file of the First American Edition of the PSM (it is link No. "[1]" over there) [3] --Ludvikus 21:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But since practically no one bothers reading the Talk page there, I'll quote from it her (and reproduce its external link here):
"Here's truly the First Edition (American/USA) of 1920 (Small, Maynard & Co.): [4]. Ludvikus 23:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)"Reply[reply]
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now we all know that "13" is "bad luck." But if you're brave - or not superstitious - you'll click on it & download the PDF file -together, by the way, with a reproduction of the Hand and Fingers of the Librarian who apparently scanned it. --Ludvikus 21:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've left a comment on your talk page about your problem with the template, so we can avoid off-topic discussion here. I'll use that PDF to add the 1920 Small, Maynard & company edition. We can delete this one, since we're not sure of the source, and I'll add the other editions as well. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:57:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Good. And good work User:Pathoschild/s. As a final point, for the benefit of any unhappy editor, here's the Template that may be useful in finding an accurate, precise, and notable imprint of the Antisemitic item: w:Template:"The Protocols". --Ludvikus 23:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe (I hope he does not think I'm misrepresenting his view) has told us that he does not remember where he got this version of the text. So who is going to be able to compair it to what for accuracy? I don't think we should be sloppy about such a controvertial item. We must be able to say exactly of what particular imprint it's a copy of (of which there were hundreds according to w:Norman Cohn). Cheers. --Ludvikus 11:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's been a while now, but nothing has been done yet. So I'm putting the information here as follows: The item in question was first published in English in the United States, in 1920, as an anotated edition. It is available online in PDF format here: The Protocols and World Revolution [5]. --Ludvikus 03:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well now I'm "confused", first you claimed that our version was not the 1920 version that I said it was, you insisted it was from the "2000s". Then you said it was from 2005 - then you said it wasn't a notable book and should be deleted, then you said it was from 1963, and now from "1920 or 1922", and now you are saying it is from 1920, just as I said from the beginning. In addition, first you claimed it was translated by modern-day Dickerson, then you said it was translated by the ChurchOfTrueIsrael, and now it turns out it was translated by Sergyei A. Nilus, again as I said from the beginning?
    • Of course, then you tried the argument that we shouldn't host it simply because it was anti-semitic, making comments like referring to WS as "a forum for expressing the views of such contemporary white-supremicist organizations", calling the work a "mere expression of antisemitic views", and then oddly seemed to confused Henry Ford's "International Jew" with the Protocols.
    • So it appears by all standards to be a legitimate translation (of a forgery, of course), that is in the Public Domain, and obviously meets notability standards...can I assume you are no longer asking for it to be deleted? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 03:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, this is very complex. I looked at it briefly while when the above storm first hit, and now again, and I dont see clear and ample proof that this is an altered work. I would prefer to see it proof-read against a proper edition rather than deleted. If someone really wants to see if the text has been tampered with, a quick read by someone familiar with the work should be able to determine whether any phrases are out of place; if not, we can assume any changes are innocuous. I think it is appropriate for Ludvikus to raise concerns about the actual source used for this, but there are too many editions to quickly dismiss this as not being a legit edition. And, even if it is not a properly published notable edition, Wikisource is a wiki; like Wikipedia, it is a work in progress. John Vandenberg 10:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. In principal this is a historical document notwithstanding its objectionable nature. I have no way to know which edition properly represents the "authentic" version of this document, and I think that sorting that out without extensive research and background experience is well beyond my capability or desire. We probably need a way to reconcile or at least document the different versions, but that is a different discussion. Eclecticology 01:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept--BirgitteSB 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Learned elders 1921 edition.gif

Image:Learned elders 1921 edition.gif
There's no precise identification or authentication of the image. Wikisource policy requires same. Therefore image must be deleted until such time as authentication and identification is produced. --Ludvikus 11:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appeared in the edition printed by "The Britons" of 62 Oxford Street, London, Fifth Edition, 1921. See why you should ask for clarity, not deletion, on things you don't like? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe 15:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
W:The Jewish Peril, Second Edition (1920), was issued by w:The Britons who gave their address as "62 Oxford Street, London." But you have not yet authenticated your item by identifying it's source. It's not enough for it to be what you say it is. You must be able to prove it. Why should we trust your memory alone? You were ( as we all are) mistaken before. So please prove to us that that image in fact comes where you say it does. otherwise, it must go. But please don't take that personally. --Ludvikus 18:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go grab a book - I said the fifth edition of 1921, not the second edition of 1920. When was I proven wrong before exactly? Because I'm sure by tomorrow you'll be saying this proved me wrong. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe 20:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm trying to tell you that the only time that I have seen The Britons give that 62 Oxford Street, London, address is on their Second Edition, titled The Jewish Peril. So I have no idea what book you wish me to grab. you are so mysteriously inprecise about your citation. You say it's the "Fifth Edition" but you do not give us the title exactly, except to imply that it's the protocols. Why can't you give us the title of that so-called Fifth Edition? --Ludvikus 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Story of the Day

Throw on Wikisource:Story of the Day and Category:Story of the Day

Images needed

Either Category:Articles needing images or Category:Texts lacking illustrations should be deleted, merging the two.

Various Wikiprojects

The following discussion is closed:
Wikisource:Wikiproject Classics in the History of Psychology and Wikisource:WikiProject The Samuel Smiles Project, abandoned. Wikisource:WikiProject NASA, should just be moved to a normal Wikisource:NASA, not really a "project". Possibly also Wikisource:WikiProject Influential Books though it's had a bare minimum of movement.
Okay, I moved the NASA works to Wikisource:Astronomy for now. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Captain Cook 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of NASAs works aren't really Astronomy related. You know NASA is listed as an author already? Chris 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep all All of those WikiProjects have had new members in the last six months, which for WS is pretty good. John Vandenberg 08:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep all Wikisource is a growing community, these project are like seeds. They take time to grow.Chris 04:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two of the projects only have only had one person join them, the other two have *nobody* in the group except the original creator who has now abandoned the project. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Jefferson Davis 02:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rationalize Why a project on an obscure author's books that can't be run from his author page as an additional heading. Influential books can be merged with the portal mentioned below.

Kept--BirgitteSB 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Influential books

The following discussion is closed:
Portal:Influential Books, ew no, way too subjective I'm sorry.
  • Keep. I think this is useful at the moment, but will become a problem in the future. This is the sort of page I want to be able to point people to do indicate the coverage of Wikisource. John Vandenberg 08:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Temporary keep. We need to determine how useful this process is. Eclecticology 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept--BirgitteSB 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding images

The following discussion is closed:
Wikisource:Image guidelines and Help:Adding images, pick one, merge the other. Have a single cohesive "images" page that we direct people towards.
  • Keep both; nice idea, but I think the merge is something to tackle on those talk pages and the Scriptorium. John Vandenberg 08:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral for now. Eclecticology 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep both as one (Help) seems "how" and the other "what one should and should not do" so I'd keep both but make sure they are crosslinked and consistent. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept--BirgitteSB 21:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed:

{{Illustrate}} and {{Image}} essentially do the same thing. Visual differences aside, Illustrate accepts a parameter (a URL for a potential image) while Image doesnt.unsigned comment by 05:39, 19 August 2007 (talk) Jayvdb.

  • Withdrawn/Keep, looking at them closer I see that "Image" is requesting an image of the original text, probably for the purposes of allowing the reader to see the original, while "Illustrate" is requesting a picture to make it pruddy. A librarian can help with the first, but may not the right person to help with the latter. John Vandenberg 08:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete both Can anybody honestly say that there is a reasonable expectation that these illustrations and images will ever be added. Eclecticology 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Keep, seems at least minimally useful to have these templates for requesting images irrespective of whether we think the request will be fulfilled any time soon. Tarmstro99 20:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep My experience on Wikiquote is that people often do add images.--Poetlister 16:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept--BirgitteSB 17:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]



The following discussion is closed:
No consensus
We need help!
Texts requiring scans
Die Liebe und die Befehrung
Books requiring illustrations
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
Five Children and It
The Railway Children
The Story of the Amulet
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
Texts requiring transcription
Czolgosz letter #1image
Czolgosz letter #2image

I'd favour getting rid of Wikisource:Requests for assistance which is never used, but we sadly sometimes still direct newbies towards - questions are better kept to the Scriptorium. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Napoleon Bonaparte 05:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The last component of the scope of that page (... "or look for a user with access to a printed copy an edition used") is an aspect that isnt dealt with well on Scriptorium. Those types of requests are not likely to be resolved quickly, and so needn't be archived until they have been fulfilled, which could be over a year. Perhaps we could re-purpose it and give it direction by adding a few outstanding requests of that nature. John Vandenberg 06:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What if we just made a small template that could sit at the top (bottom? right side?) of the Scriptorium that just said "Do you have a copy of one of these books? We need help!" and then listed the 2-3 books from which we're awaiting scans. It's small, discreet...and would actually get seen unlike this ;) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Napoleon Bonaparte 08:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There, I was bored...something like that? I'd rather incorporate smaller templates onto the Scriptorium or other help pages, than having all-new pages for relatively minor tasks/requests which aren't likely to be seen otherwise. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Napoleon Bonaparte 08:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks lovely, and would certainly be a useful summary to place on this page, however I dont think it replaces the need to provide a place where people can provide details regarding what is needed in order for a work to be completed. I am imagining that we could replace the current discussion format with a table that includes (work, requirement, rationale). In the back of my mind I am wanting a page that is marketable to a community beyond Wikisource regulars. For example, we want to be sexy enough that w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Librarians want to participate (any librarian that has joined that project should be amply aware that finishing works on Wikisource has a direct benefit to Wikipedia)). John Vandenberg 10:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just make each of the links point to the talk page for that article, where we'll have the actual discussion of what's needed for it, before we add it to the template? Even if we do keep it, I'd support keeping the template and tagging it around a few places so that people regularly see what we "need", rather than "once a year when bored and surfing around random WS sites" Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Napoleon Bonaparte 10:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be sure, this page isn't really used because most of the links to it are from welcome templates that were last used in December 2005. I haven't looked to see how many of those users stuck around. I don't really know whether when viewed in a larger context the page in question here should be kept, but I think this should be part of a bigger discussion about effectively asking for different kinds of things. Something like Shirurcij's proposed template above could be most useful on the main page; to see it in Scriptorium newbies have to get to Scriptorium first. If it ends up on the main page it needs to be maintained, and regular maintenance of some key pages is a perpetual problem. Practice has shown that people arrive with great ideas, but don't stick around to maintain them. This opens up the bigger question: "When do we dump old abandoned projects that have become unmaintainable?" Eclecticology 19:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No consensus I suggest we look at this again in six months and try and come up with a few alternatives for handling these requests.--BirgitteSB 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Smile Foundation of Bali and Wikipedia:Senang Hati Foundation

The following discussion is closed:
beyond scope

Non-notable articles that were closed prematurely by bad-faith administrator. It's not fair that Jack Merridew could get away with nominating as many articles as he wants, yet I get blocked forever just for nominating two.--Senang Hati 07:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the Wikisource deletions page, I think perhaps you are looking for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instead :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Arthur Schopenhauer 07:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extremely odd request.[6] John Vandenberg 08:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed:
No consensus

As per the deletion of other portals, I think the last remaining Portal Portal:Speeches, should be phased out in favour of focusing our attention on improving the Portal:Speeches index. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Stratemeyer Syndicate 17:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I haven't given much thought to portals anywhere, and as I asked elsewhere the difference between this and Wikiprojects is unclear. Has there been a general discussion anywhere about phasing out portals? There are very few portals, but it is a recognized namespace that could be beter exploited. Maybe the move proposed here could go in the opposite direction. The Wikisource namespace could then become more focused on policy and generalities affecting Wikisource as a whole. Eclecticology 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am not sure I agree with a blanket deletion of all portals. I think we are a little immature yet to promote them. However I am not in support of suppressing them all portals as something we inherently don't want. Do you have a particular reason to want to see this deleted besides that is in fact a portal?--BirgitteSB 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I certainly wouldn't want an end to portals in principle. They are widely used on other projects.--Poetlister 16:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No consensus This might need a Scriptorium discussion on the general ideas of portals before we can re-evalute this portal.--BirgitteSB 17:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed:
No consensus

It simply isn't feasible to expect every non-fiction work to be listed through a top-down "Non-fiction" index - I think what I've got started at Wikisource:Works is a much better solution for categorisation by indices. Everything on this list is already linked from other indices (including Authorspaces), so it is redundant at best. As it stands, all things like Wikisource:Non-fiction do is confuse newcomers who click it and go "wtf, you only have thirty authors?" Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Stratemeyer Syndicate 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add Wikisource:Non-fiction/Modern while you're at it. Such lists will only be kept up as long as people remember to keep them up. "Non-fiction" is so generic that this list could include millions of works. Eclecticology 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, currently it is not ideal, but I think that it can be improved. I dont think we should disband existing lists/indexes/project/whatever - that feels like "NIH" syndrome. John Vandenberg 11:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No consensus No one wants to keep this how it currently is, yet there is no consensus to delete. If no there are no improvements or at least an active plan for re-working this page in six months I will re-nominate this for deletion.--BirgitteSB 17:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


German American Bund

The following discussion is closed:

Appears to be a placeholder listing other works to be added later, but no content has been added to any of them for more than one year. Tarmstro99 18:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this may be the source. John Vandenberg 22:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice If somebody is really interested in this material they can restart it when they are ready. Eclecticology 02:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Poetlister 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted --BirgitteSB 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scouting evidence

The following discussion is closed:

Some of the material contributed by User:Rlevse doesnt easily fit within what we include. e.g. Image:CronkiteFondaStewartNOTEagles.jpg was probably not intended to be released into the PD; George Coker Scouting memories is an email, and Ernest Stafford Carlos is a (unpiblished?) biography linked to from w:Gilwell_Park. Arthur Rose Eldred documents is extensively used as a reference on w:Arthur Rose Eldred, and could become an Author: page if these letters were transcribed, however the subject doesnt appear to have written any major works. unsigned comment by Jayvdb (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2007.

If it doesn't fit here, where would it go? This is where I was told to put it. If it's not here, people wouldn't be able to read it. The NOTEagles doc merely clarifies a bunch of false info floating around. I don't know much about wikisource, so I can't make much of an intelligent argument here, but I was merely trying to make things more accessible. I don't see much difference in put an image of a document up or transcribing them, the Eldred letter images and NOTEagles at least gives people the original document to look at.Rlevse 02:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Rlevse Evrik 15:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all, outside the scope of WS:WWI. Tarmstro99 20:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete but not without regret. The original work of the participants clearly doesn't belong, but archival material could be acceptable if restructured. Eclecticology 23:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Go ahead and delete them. I've moved them all to my personal website, where I don't have to worry about these sorts of rules. Why you want transcripts instead of vice in addition to the actual document is beyond me. RlevseTalk 20:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted--BirgitteSB 21:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Act of Independence of Lithuania

This is from and I am unsure what copyright status the translation is.--Jusjih 14:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recommend your idea: leave a notice on the contributor's talk page, and if the copyright status isn't cleared up within two weeks, then delete the article. - Politicaljunkie
I have left a notice to the contributor who asks leaving messages to Wikipedia user talk page. The source website neither claims nor disclaims copyright, so without any other evidence we have to assume it copyrighted.--Jusjih 12:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original text is in Lithuanian and it's 100% in PD. For one, it's written more than 70 years ago, for two laws and official documents by the government in Lithuania is not copyrightable. Now for traslations, I am not so sure. The website does not provide the source or claim copyright. I copied that text instead of translating myself, which I can do anytime and would differ only in a couple words, because it would be verifiable. But in any case, this is a very short document and any translation would be pretty much identical (save two or three words) as it is not a work of literature, but of diplomace. You decide what I should do. Renata3 05:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you can do up your own translation, not based off this translation, but based off reading the original Lithuanian and using your word-choice, rather than this source's - then it would be released into the Public Domain (or GFDL if you prefer), and would be 100% alright to host. We just don't want to step on any toes of the original translator here. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Alfred Nobel 06:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've sent a question to the site owner mentioned above. Since the site is from Lithuania, perhaps he knows something about the Lithuanian law regarding translations of official documents. Eclecticology 20:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've received an answer from the site administrator:
"this translation was copied by me from a site that no longer exits on the net and probably sligtly corrected according to the original. As far as I remember this site belonged to a state institution, therefore I treated it as official translation (no translator was indicated there). Thus I have no claims to this translation."
My impression from this is that it is probably OK. Eclecticology 08:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Council

The following discussion is closed:

Special:Contributions/ has a few pieces that I dont think we need, with {{WikiProject Council Navigation}}, {{H:h Template}}, {{H:h Help}} and {{H:h Template‎}} being the standouts. I think the Lyrics project could be useful. John Vandenberg 07:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete all, some of those look like they have just been copied from Meta and aren’t actually useful here. Tarmstro99 20:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all. Abandoned project that never really got very far. No-one else got involved, so it's not particularly viable. Eclecticology 00:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted--BirgitteSB 21:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC) I would like to note the H:h templates had been deleted previously and this is possibly bot that periodically overwrites the local space with what exists on Meta.--BirgitteSB 21:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tape of Mohammad Sidique Khan

The following discussion is closed:
Delete without prejudice

A transcription of a contemporary recording; has been tagged {{no license}} for nearly 6 months. No license information has been provided. Tarmstro99 15:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is it from, and whose copyright would apply? Ignoring the fact he's a terrorist, I know Khan lived in both Pakistan and London, right? Were there any other countries or indication where this tape was made? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete I believe that people should have ample time to answer questions about a contributions. This text has been here for two years, and unless the contributor or someone else shows enough enthusiasm to fix it, we can delete it until they do. Eclecticology 07:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted--BirgitteSB 19:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal Poems

The following discussion is closed:

This doesnt appear to be published. It is a single contribution by an anon, the lines dont appear elsewhere in Google, and the author only appears once other than here. Special:Whatlinkshere/Personal Poems has a lot of results, because it is the name of a collection of poems by John Greenleaf Whittier. John Vandenberg 10:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me to meet speedy criteria -Steve Sanbeg 20:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, but obviously not a speedy when a response from the contributor is desirable. Eclecticology 18:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted, no opposition. Tarmstro99 16:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Lilly Martin Trilogy

The following discussion is closed:

Post-1999 work whose author doesn't appear on google, presumably self-published. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Pulitzer-winning writings 22:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed:

I cant see evidence of this work being published.[7] John Vandenberg 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unindexed pages

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. Tarmstro99 20:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hrm, Category:Unindexed Wikisource pages is definitely unnecessary, we have a very small number of "Wikisource pages", and in theory they're all indexed, if by some miracle one isn't...we should index it, not add it to some faecetious category.

Course in Miracles

The following discussion is closed:
kept one, deleted three. Tarmstro99 20:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's ditch Category:A Course In Miracles and Category:Text of A Course in Miracles since all three texts share a main textspace anyhow...let's also get rid of the empty Category:Spiritual texts and Category:Theology, and on that note, Category:Subjects.

Modern Drama:Authors and Early Modern Drama:Authors

The following discussion is closed:

These (incomplete) lists of authors are encyclopedic in nature, not source texts. They are both orphan pages and don’t even link to the WS author pages for the listed authors. Their function would be better served by creating Category:Modern Dramatists and Category:Early Modern Dramatists. Tarmstro99 02:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. These aren't progressing anywhere. The proposed additional categories would not help since a term like "modern" is so subjective. Eclecticology 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If EncycloPetey (talkcontribs) is still even remotely interested in developing them, I think we should move them into the Wikisource: namespace, or into the users workarea. Otherwise delete. John Vandenberg 01:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: They were originally created to parallel such lists for other genres of literature, though it's been so long I don't recall which ones. If this sort of thing is now being done with categories, then I would agree that such a change should be made. The latter list is short only because Wikisource has relatively few Dramatic texts; the former because I'm not interested in Modern Drama (and many of those texts are still under copyright). --EncycloPetey 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete This sort of list is for Wikipedia, not here.--Poetlister 16:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted--BirgitteSB 16:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Banu Qurayza

The following discussion is closed:

Banu Qurayza is another collection of references to a subject from various sources, similar to "Gospel of the Hebrews" (now at Wikisource:WikiProject Early Christian Writings/Gospel of the Hebrews). John Vandenberg 22:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete without prejudice - This appears to have been abandoned without context. While circumstances where such a thing might be kept are conceivable, this page appears to have been orphaned, and the contributor long gone. It is not up to those who remain to try to figure out the contributor's intentions. I would delete it, but if someone wants to add it back again and is willing to do what needs to be done with it I would not complain. Eclecticology 20:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is a collection of hadith regarding the Banu Qurayza from several Muslim hadith collection. This material is valuable for the readers of the encyclopedia article, but it doesn't belong to Wikipedia, since it doesn't fit smoothly into the article text. Thus, it was decided on Wikipedia that throwing them out is not a good idea and Wikisource is the best place for them. Beit Or 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Wikipedia has no authority decide what goes into Wikisource; it can only suggest. Wikisource will then review the material on the basis of its own criteria. This is not a dumping ground for Wikipedia discards. We would look more favorably were these several pages of entire hadith to which you could make links to the selected paragraphs, instead of a random selection. To insure that there is no violation of copyrights we would also ask that you show who the translators are, and when the translations were originally published. Eclecticology 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, not a previously published source text within the scope of WS:WWI. Although any published works in which one or more of these collected fragments originally appeared would, of course, be quite welcome here. Tarmstro99 01:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete The choices for what is included here or not is editorializing as opposed to a neutral transcription of a published work.--BirgitteSB 19:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Just a collection of bits and pieces.--Poetlister 16:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted--BirgitteSB 17:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]