Jump to content

Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2007-06

Add links
From Wikisource
< Wikisource:Proposed deletions | Archives
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Zhaladshar in topic Deleted

Kept

Latest comment: 17 years ago86 comments10 people in discussion

Works without translator information

  1. A note on the question of the market theory (since 31 Dec 2006)
    Copyright information already identified. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:42:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Aborigines (since 07 Oct 2006) Ok. Yann 23:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep: Public domain Published by w:Constance Garnett pre-1923 Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 07:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      Added translator information. The translation was done in 1922, but she was an English author, so some extra research might have to be done to determine the copyright status of this work.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      {{PD-1923}} only applies to works published in the United States. Whether this work is in the public domain depends whether it was published in the United States and whether it conformed to US formalities. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:41:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      WS has works by Irish authors which are not PD in Ireland, but which are PD in USA. With the same rule, we can keep this. Yann 21:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      Yes, if it is PD in the US; but PD-1923 doesn't apply (not even in the US) to works not published in the US before 1923. It might be in the public domain for other reasons (like failure to register copyright), but we'll need to find out what those are. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:06:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      This is not entirely true. I believe the rules of PD-1923 apply to all works published in the US or abroad, HOWEVER works published abroad may have had also had copyright restored in 1996. If they were published abroad and public domain in there home country in 1996 they should use PD-1923.--BirgitteSB 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Agafya (since 07 Oct 2006) Ok. Yann 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This is translated by Constance Garnett in 1918. However, copyright of the translation might be an issue.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      Yes, since {{PD-1923}} only applies to works published in the United States. Whether this work is in the public domain depends whether it was published in the United States and whether it conformed to US formalities. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:41:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    • This short story is included in a collection called The Lady with the Dog, and Other Stories translated by Constance Garnett and published in the United States in 1917 by the Macmillan Company. A Google Book search reveals as much. Public Domain. --Metal.lunchbox 04:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

      Admittedly the google Book search listed above is quite bizarre and is probably an error, combining pages from two different collections. p 117 is both the beginning of Agafya and the middle of The Black Monk. In either case this translation of the story is available on gutenberg in a collection called The Witch and Other Stories. --Metal.lunchbox 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  4. An Appeal to the Young (since 03 Dec 2006) ok, Yann 23:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • According to this site, our edition is an 1886 translation by H. M. Hyndman. I think it's a British edition, but with the age of the translation, I would imagine it's PD by now.
  5. Discourses on Livy (since 04 Jan 2007) ok, Yann 23:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    Strong keep, this version published in 1882. Sherurcij COTW:Harriet Beecher Stowe 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Grief (Chekhov) (since 07 Oct 2006) ok. Yann 23:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Satires (Horace) (since 29 Oct 2006) ok. Yann 23:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. The Phantom of the Opera (since 31 Dec 2006) ok, Yann 23:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Wage System (since 04 Dec 2006) ok. Yann 23:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Urbain Grandier, Celebrated Crimes (since 07 Oct 2006) ok, Yann 00:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep this is a Gutenburg text #2746. No translator info but PD in US.

Court cases

The following discussion is closed:

withdrawn


  1. U.S. v. Donner 528 F.2d 276
    • Delete Court records about non-notable individuals should not be included in Wikisource. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep: Public Domain -- Court opinion of United States Court of Appeals, sets legal precedent and caselaw. Case involves multiple convictions against prior individuals for "conspiracy, depredations against property of United States and mutilation of government documents, specifically, selective service files" - case involved two prior appeals, appealed to this higher court. Smee 16:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC).
    • Keep Notability is not a valid criteria for deletion. After reading the documents and the arguments below, I think that this is not a private matter, so it is sufficiently notable to be included here. Yann 10:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete - To host a "private" legal suit on Wiki would require at least "common sense" dictating that someone would find them relevant/interesting/noteworthy, other than somebody with a vendetta against the individual. Sherurcij COTW:Lady Gregory 12:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Primary documents are suitable here please read the inclusion policy--BirgitteSB 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Dotter v. Maine Employment Sec. Commission 435 A.2d 1368

Discussion

Which unique legal precedent did these cases set? Sherurcij COTW:Lady Gregory 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The cases are from high courts within their jurisdiction, and were the subject of multiple appeals. They set caselaw through the appeals process, if not from the court opinion of the last highest court. Smee 17:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC).
I see no need to get into the habit of deleting Public Domain court cases from Wikisource, especially from those of high courts like the United States Court of Appeals and the like. I was not under the impression that Wikisource was meant to be such an exclusionary type of project. Smee 17:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC).
Wikisource collects texts that can be used in other Wikimedia foundation projects. The texts are used for the augmentation of notable subjects explored in Wikipedia. There are many online resources for court cases (most jurisdictions in the US provide online access), and there is no need to duplicate these in Wikisource. Just because a text is in the public domain, does not mean an automatic inclusion in Wikisource. The subject should be notable enough to warrant inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I would also argue that it would be a good practice to abide by w:WP:BLP as it pertains to court documents. Even of these documents are in the public domain, inclusion of such documents, if related to non-notable, private persons, should not be included in Wikisource. I will be placing an inquiry in m:OTRS in this regard. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Your statement that "Wikisource collects texts that can be used in other Wikimedia foundation projects" shows a misunderstanding of Wikisource's mission; this would be like saying that Wikipedia only writes articles that can be used in other Wikimedia projects, which is obviously incorrect. Wikisource is an independant project to "archive the free artistic and intellectual works created throughout history."
I am reluctant to consider notability a criteria for inclusion on Wikisource (it is not currently a criteria) because this is highly subjective. How can you define worthiness for inclusion using 'notability', which literally means worthiness for inclusion, as a criteria? Is the well-known Gettysburg Address any less interesting or useful for readers than the virtually unknown Journal of George Washington? Is Doe versus MySpace or Fox Television versus Cablevision Systems any less relevant to case law than Dotter versus Maine Employment? If so, why? —{admin} Pathoschild 00:14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand and share some of these understandings, Patoshchild. What I am referring to is notability of living persons and the appropriateness for including court cases about private non-notable individuals. As for Wikisource's aims I was referring to Wikisource:What is Wikisource that states that Wikisource – originally called Project Sourceberg as a play on words for Project Gutenberg – began in November, 2003, as a collection of supporting texts for articles in Wikipedia. It grew rapidly, reaching a total of 20,000 text units in various languages by May 18, 2005. I know that since then the aims have evolved to include previously published texts; including novels, non-fiction works, letters, speeches, constitutional and historical documents, laws and a range of other documents., but my point is that Wikisource have some inclusionary criteria, maybe not cemented in policy, as it pertains to privacy of non-notable people. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree here with Pathoschild. And I would also submit that "BLP" issues are not applicable, neither are consideration of "private persons", for before anything is to be available on the Wikisource project anyway, it must first be PUBLIC DOMAIN, and as these documents are all publicly available court filings, this is no concern here. The examples given above by Pathoschild are also quite illustrative of another point, which is where do we set exclusionary criteria? If we are to disallow inclusion of Public Domain documents from High Courts, just what is allowed on the project, and who decides? Smee 08:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
Jossi: While I do consider privacy and integrity to be of great importance (particularly as an OTRS agent), I do not think this is a problem here. The documents in question are accurate public records by United States courts; they are neither slanderous nor poorly referenced. —{admin} Pathoschild 11:22:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
"Is in the public domain" (or otherwise acceptably licensed) is a condition for inclusion; it is not a reason for inclusion. Please do not conflate the two... Shimgray 11:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To get into a more general discussion, yes, we do have some inclusionary criteria; Wikisource deleted a large amount of statistical tables &c in the past. I agree in a broad sense that significant court rulings are "the right sort of thing" for us to have; but something about this situation doesn't seem quite right or leave me very comfortable with the results. To move to the "obvious" of the spectrum, would we consider it appropriate to publish the public court records of a routine divorce of two private individuals? It seems clear we ought to draw a line somewhere, whther for reasons of "significance" or not. Shimgray 11:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to consider 'notability'; other criteria are already defined in the inclusion policy. While I personally don't care to fill Wikisource with divorce records, I do realize that this is an arbitrary preference. What is mundane to me now may be historical in a hundred years, or even interesting to someone else now (for example, Lee Harvey Oswald's Soviet application). If we do decide that historical significance (or "notability") is a valid criteria, we'll need to find some way to objectively define it. —{admin} Pathoschild 12:52:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that the issue extends further. As there are many online resources that provide free access to court documents in the USA, Wikisource ought to have some basic exclusionary criteria, along the lines of significance rather than just notability. Otherwise, this loophole will be utilized by people with an ax to grind, such as partners in a divorce, or others wanting to upload an affidavit (even if that affidavit was never accepted in court), just for the purpose of gaining some kind of credence ("I am right, look it is in Wikisource!") and other controversial situations related to private persons. This is quoite a serious matter, and the negative consequences of not having an exclusionary criteria in this regard need to be considered in full by the community. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest to move this discussion to Wikisource_talk:What_Wikisource_includes so that the wider community can participate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The idea that no content should be added to Wikisource if it is available elsewhere online is quite a radical one, and thankfully one that has not been followed to date. Speaking just to the issue of court opinions (I'm more ambivalent on the addition of court documents, such as exhibits, transcripts, and the like, although I can see how they would be useful in some instances, particularly when they are cited and relied upon in the court’s opinion), Wikisource’s advantages over the other “online resources that provide free access” are (1) relative permanence (newly issued opinions tend to age off many courts’ web sites in a matter of weeks), (2) relative inclusiveness (most courts have made no efforts to make available online any opinions issued before 1995 or so), and (3) relative centralization (having a single repository eliminates the need to consult many different sites). I would hesitate to discard those advantages based on any individual user’s subjective notion of “significance.” Tarmstro99 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
(ed conf). I did not made the argument that you so eloquently rebutted. I would appreciate your opinion if we need any type of exclusionary criteria in Wikisource as it pertains to court documents.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I took your point to be that Wikisource needs some sort of special criteria to apply when it comes to adding court opinions, because those are freely available elsewhere online. (Or, in your words: “As there are many online resources that provide free access to court documents in the USA, Wikisource ought to have some basic exclusionary criteria”). My point was that deficiencies in those other sites, by themselves, supply what you seemed to think was lacking, a reason for hosting court opinions here. I don’t see those as different arguments. Whether Wikisource should be more reluctant to include court documents, as distinct from judicial opinions, is something I don’t have an opinion on. I suspect the copyright issues aren’t so clear-cut when it comes to materials that have only been submitted to (as opposed to written by) a court, but haven’t done any research on that point. Tarmstro99 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
My own personal opinion on this is a bit two fold. First in terms of the US Supreme Court, I am only adding cases that have an entry on Wikipedia, so that I can get a case summary from there. So in a way that is not including every case since every decision of the US Supreme Court does not have a page on Wikipedia. Second it is hard for any one person to determine what is "significant", just go into a history class full of history majors and ask them what is the most "significant" event in history and they will not agree. I believe it should be up to the person to add what they think is significant in terms of case law. Should every decision be added even in the appellate court and district court. Or only the US Supreme Court and the State Supremem Courts. But hey this is just my opinion. Wabbit98 8:31am PST, 13 June 2007
Coming from OTRS, I was pointed to the debate. Honestly, while I am not on Wikisource much and not sure what you really include in the project, BLP concerns does and will apply to Wikisource. Under OTRS, we manage all Wikimedia projects in all languages when it comes to deal with public relations. We get emails all of the time from people who want private disputes, private information. We even get emails about when people go batshit on the main page of this project (we just got one last night). So, like it or not, we have the right to have these minor court cases deleted outright and any restoration can be considered for blocking. (BTW, Wabbit98 has a good suggestion on dealing with cases in the future, follow his lead). Zscout370 20:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Note: Zscout370, as an OTRS agent, does not have special authority to issue decisions on the content. Consider, for example, that I am an OTRS agent and hold an opposite opinion in this situation. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:06:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What does OTRS consider a "minor court case" versus something that is allowed on this project? Smee 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
I think that was clearly addressed by Zscout370: "these minor court cases deleted outright"" (my emphasis). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like some more clarification on this. Which cases in particular? Should we no longer upload any cases from the United States Court of Appeals ? Only upload cases from the Supreme Court of the United States if they already have an article on Wikipedia? Not upload any cases to Wikisource, if they do not have an article on the English Wikipedia? Not upload any other documents on any other individuals, if they do not have existing articles on the English Wikipedia? This seems overly restrictive and exclusionary to this project. What do others think? Smee 21:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
I do not think that OTRS will give any further indications as related to exclusionary policy, as that is not their role. My understanding of their comment was to delete these minors cases as per this proposed deletion. A discussion about exclusionary policy can be held at WS:WWI talk. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
OTRS did not say which cases it considered "minor". It did not elaborate at all, or mention any case specifically. More clarification is needed here. In the meanwhile, the process should be allowed to continue, and the deletion debate should be allowed to play itself out. Smee 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
I don't think so, Smee. OTRS was quite explicit: So, like it or not, we have the right to have these minor court cases deleted outright and any restoration can be considered for blocking. That was quite unambiguous, I would say. But as you are insisting, I will ask OTRS to comment further. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
We cannot lists all cases here, since the list will be long. But what you have here listed is cases for divorce procedures, workers disputes that just happen to go up the food chain. But, as what Smee asked for, if the court case has an article on Wikipedia, you may upload the case files here. If not, don't paste them here. Even so, OTRS still has the right to delete cases when the needs arise. As for the blocking bit, while I might not do the blocking myself, I will have someone do the blocking if the content deleted due to OTRS reasons get restored. Zscout370 22:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Note: Zscout370, as an OTRS agent, does not have special authority to issue decisions on the content. Consider, for example, that I am an OTRS agent and hold an opposite opinion in this situation. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:06:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the real question becomes as I add the cases that have Wikipedia pages is the cases that get mentioned in the actual opnion, should all those be included. If you include all those then you are going to run into a lot of cases that have no Wikipedia page. But they are mentioned in an opinion that is already on Wikisource. Do we only include those that appear in 3 opnions or more? 2 opinions? etc. I do not know. For that is considered precedent, those other decisions, so what should be done about those that do not have a Wikipedia page but are mentioned as precedent for a decision that is already on Wikisource. Would those be considered minor and deleted? Again it is a tough decision to make. I feel that the top courts, US Supreme and a few state supreme courts should be included on Wikisource, and the rest by ear. The goal of the US Supreme Court page is to have every single opinion on there. So what about those decisions that mention others that do not have a Wikipedia page are those considered minor is the question here. Wabbit98 2:50pm PST 13 June 2007

All good questions. And what about the United States Court of Appeals ? Smee 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps a useul question to ask is... why do we want to keep these documents specifically, leaving aside broad questions of notability? Something about this situation makes me worry that wikisource is being used as a repository of material deliberately selected and organised in order to present the subject a negative light, which just feels wrong. Shimgray 23:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Something makes me feel that certain documents are selectively being put up for deletion, in order to avoid accessibility to these PUBLIC DOMAIN documents - which also just feels wrong, and it feels like censorship. Smee 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC).
How can a public domain document be censored? It does not make sense. What makes sense is Shimgray's perception of motives. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. How can a public domain document be censored on this project? And further, why? If the document is already in the public domain space, why remove it from this project? Is someone or some group afraid of the free pervasiveness of information on a certain topic? Smee 00:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC).
You are missing the point, you are assuming too much, you are blinded by your own bias, and you are not listening. This time I will not strike this through. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, lots of assumptions there in one run-on sentence. Attempts to get public domain documents removed from this project, in an attempt to make these public domain documents harder for others to access from the internet, is an attempt at a form of censorship, no matter how you spin it. Smee 01:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC).
You always like to have the last word, so be my guest. Fact is that advise given by uninvolved parties that go against you opinion, are always dismissed by you one way or another. So when you say "spin", look in the mirror. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, from reading above comments by multiple editors, there are opinions from different viewpoints on this issue, and no clear consensus. It would certainly be nice to be allowed to have this discussion and the process itself run its full course, as opposed to censorship on this project of public domain documents. That would be nice. Smee 03:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC).
Calling something something, does not make is so, Smee. You simply do not want to listen, not to me or others that disagree with you, not even OTRS actions are listened to. Unfortunately you only learn the hard way, and that is only to your detriment and standing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That is... not the question I asked. Please state clearly why you want us to include these specific documents, not why we should not be allowed to delete them. Your reasoning for inclusion seems to be "because I can" and "because you can't censor me". This is not helpful towards us understanding what's going on here, and just makes the motives seem more debatable. Shimgray 09:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well clearly I am confused, I was more concerned about if this issue was about what decisions we are going to add. Those that have a Wikipedia page are a easy decision. But I am still debating to include those that get mentioned in other decisions, even though they might not have a Wikipedia page yet. I did not think it was a censorship issue as Smee thinks it is. Also I do not believe that this material is being added in a negative light either. People can take it however they want. Here is a test example, James Monroe was a President of the United States, he wrote letters but on his page there is not a seperate page for letters that he wrote. But Thomas Jefferson has a seperate page for letters that he wrote. So does James Monroe deserve a page like that or only famous Presidents? I know that might be a bad example but it was the only I could come up with. Wabbit98 9:55pm PST 13 June 2007

Jossi, I respect the views of everyone who has commented above. I also respect the process of this project, namely the deletion discussion here. I feel that going to OTRS was a way to attempt to sidestep that, instead of letting this discussion run its course. Of course I respect the comments of someone coming from OTRS, just as I respect those of the other commentators, above. But I would have rather seen how this discussion would have played out, on its own, by members of the community here, and if you did not agree with the end result of that discussion, then you could have gone to OTRS. I still cannot see how there can be any sort of "BLP" issues, especially when all of the documents we are talking about are already Public Domain. Smee 05:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC).
Note: Zscout370, as an OTRS agent, does not have special authority to issue decisions on content. Consider, for example, that I am an OTRS agent and hold an opposite opinion in this situation. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:06:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If anyone feels material is being excluded to present a non-neutral collection (for example a dissenting opinion is here with the majority opinoon being excluded), please specify what is is being left out. Many, many materials on Wikisource are going to be a negative or distasteful in and of themselves. That is not a reason to disallow them. --BirgitteSB 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the case, and so I can't say what is (or isn't) being left out... but there's a comment Smee made on the admin noticeboard ("This is, in affect, an attempt at CENSORSHIP by Jossi. Check out the other material on WikiSource...") which seems to me to indicate a deliberate attempt to source and put up "balancing" negative material. I don't know the deep background here, I stumbled across this case when someone mentioned it to me, but something honestly doesn't smell right about that. Inherently negative material is fine - it's the apprearance of a deliberately negative selection, an editorial slant, that worries me.
On a more general note, there are serious arguments being put forward (privacy, for one) as to why this stuff might not be appropriate. It's pretty clearly a marginal situation; people are arguing over it, which shows that! In a marginal case, what we need to do is balance the reasons for getting rid of it (the detriment to the subject) vs. the reasons for keeping it (the benefit to the project). But whilst the privacy issues are specific to individual documents, I'm not seeing document-specific reasons to keep them, beyond an unsubstantiated and vague "sets caselaw" claim, only broad arguments of the "we are not censored" and "court cases are fine" line. Which is a perfectly valid position, but it's general, abstract - it's not a reason to keep this specific material...
...and when the person who originally put the material up refuses to answer a question on why this specific material should be kept, instead taking refuge in yelling "censorship!" at every opportunity, then the suspicions about motives grow stronger. I hope you can see where I'm really not comfortable with the arguments - or lack thereof - being put forward here. Shimgray 22:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
On the issue I raised. I would appreciate it if the people here who have been doing the work of putting up court cases would take a look at this and see if they can determine if it is the complete opinion. Smee if you have any direct links to this material it would be helpful, but I imagine there are should be people around who have access to Lexis-Nexis.
Assuming these turn out to be accurate and complete; these appear to court desicions written by judges (correct me if I am wrong). We are not disscussing the testimony of random people, or documents entered as evidence (things which would have copyright issues anyways); we are talking about what judges wrote as their judgement of court case. Things which are neither private nor unsupported.
On the issue you raise. I do not care to tread into the quicksand of judging the motivations of a person I have only come into contact with over the internet. Luckily there is no need to do so. All of our policy as well as our past practice here rely judging the content on it own merits with no relevence to what the motivations and prejudices of the contributer might or might not be. I don't care to determine why someone wants to contribute an article from 1871 on what may or may not be called Macedonia. I care to determine that the article existed, was published, is accurately translated under a free licsense, and is accurately labeled. As difficult as it is to spend some months working those issues out, they are things that can be determined definatively. The motivations for choosing to work on one thing instead of others are not. I don't think I could articulate very well why I choose to work on a paticular piece over all the other countless pieces I have not worked on. I am quite happy that it is not neccessary.
Now if it was possible to fix the provenance and accuracy of 100 year old Bulgarian language article, that had been floating around the internet for years in a translation with unfortunate editorial liberties, and original copies only existing in the Baltics. I think this case is quite possible to straighten out as well. However it will require sticking to the content and looking past the personalities.--BirgitteSB 00:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Birgitte, thank you for stopping by and commenting here, it is appreciated. To the best of my knowledge, these are actual public domain, court documents, and the opinions written by one or more Judges of those high courts. However, I do not object and would appreciate if if someone wants to double-check with Lexis Nexis or something like that as you have stated above. Smee 00:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
Birgitte, are you saying that any court case decision is OK, right? So, what would stop anyone to post a court order about your divorce? or about a work dispute you had with your employee? Wikisource, as Wikipedia already does, should care about private persons that are not notable, and policies have been defined to protect these people. See w:WP:BPL. We do not have something like that WS, and we ought to have it. I have raised this issue with OTRS, and will raise it on the mailing list as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The mailing list ? What is this mailing list? And court orders about divorces do not usually make it to the highest court in a State, or to the United States Court of Appeals, or another United States Federal court... Smee 02:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
It seems that you know little about the judicial process. Divorce cases do end up in court of appeals. One example], of many. Should we add that case to WS? Of course not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
"It seem that you know little about the judicial process." Jossi, I request that you do not make nasty comments like this about other editors, thanks. The case you cited is from the Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia. If it were a case from the United States Court of Appeals, that would be a different matter entirely. Smee 03:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
Smee, just do some research, would you? There are hundreds of divorce, bankruptcy and other such cases that end up on Federal appellate courts. One example of thousands [2]≈ jossi ≈ t • @
The way it works, Smee, is that a case from a state court (including intermediate apellate courts in that state) can be moved to one of the 11 circuits in the United States court of appeals when for example, the dispute is between two litigants that live in different states, or when the dispute is related to federal law. In these cases a plaintiff can chose to bring the case in a state court, or a federal court. In divorce proceedings chosing the court in these cases, becomes part of the litigation process as lawyers fight for the court they see to have a better chance to rule in their clients' favor. So, divorce cases, bankruptcy, employment disputes, and many other civil cases involving non-notable private persons, end up in Federal courts. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to disallow the decisions by the judges. As I said before we are not talking about the testimony, evidences presented, or the other nasty things brought into these cases. Just the words of the judges. People have espressed to me in the past how great it would be to develop a law library at Wikisource in the long term. Subscrictions to such services are an enormuos expense of non-profits. Also I don't see any bright line for what you propose we include or exclude here. I am strongly ooposed to inserting any reference to notability here unless it defined in a clear way that has nothing to do with the whims of en.WP. I have not yet seen notabily defined in a way I would not be opposed to.--BirgitteSB 12:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and those cases above are all in the Public Domain, way, way before this discussion ever took place, all of the above discussed examples and documents have already been in the public space, namely the opinion documents of the Judges of high courts. After the United States Court of Appeals, the next step would be the Supreme Court of the United States. Surely you are not suggesting that only Supreme Court of the United States court documents are the only ones that should be allowed on this project? Smee 04:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
The Supreme court will only review cases if the judgments involve a question of federal law. After a case has been heard in a appellate court, the next step is not the Supreme court, but in a very few cases. Since the Judiciary Act of 1925, most cases cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter or right: there is a need for four judges of a panel of nine (called certiorari) to grant the writ. This is called the "rule of four". Of thousands of cases brought in front of the certiorari, less than a hundred writs are granted each year to allow a case to go forth to the Supreme court. But you are changing the subject and you are not responding to questions asked by several editors above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 11:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on "BLP" Wikisource only allows exact transcriptions of what others have already published. We never make an editorial decision on what is publishable or not but rely on what others have published. We also disallow self-published material and material without editorial oversight. Everything we have has been looked over by someone else and someone else has decided to accept the liability of publishing it. These professional editors are inordinately more qualified to make these decisions than any editor at Wikisource. I strongly support this current policy to focus inclusion on what has been previously published and has an acceptable copyright. On the other hand I have problem NO PROBLEM hiding the names of private parties that are not named in the titles of a lawsuit.--BirgitteSB 13:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing deletion

I withdraw my request for deletion. Wikisource does not have an exclusionary criteria for BLPs, and until it does attempts to delete articles via the Proposed Deletion process will not work, given the small number of participants in deletion debates. In any case, I continue to believe that the fact that material in in the public domain, is not in itself a sufficient criteria for inclusion in this project. As WS grows in importance, editors will have to start to look into these issues more carefully and exercise the caution and god editorial judgment needed. Wikipedia did not have a BLP policy until last year (I pride myself for being one of the editors that help craft it). Before that, no one saw the need for it until the proverbial shit hit the fan. Hopefully Wikisource editors will learn from that and at the needed time work toward finding an exclusionary criteria that is acceptable in these cases. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • "BLP", as stated above by other editors, should not apply on WikiSource in the same fashion as on other projects. All documents are inherently Public Domain, in order to appear here. They have been previously disseminated, as mentioned above by Birgitte. Perhaps you wish to complain to LexisNexis and other publicly accessible legal archives, and ask them to stop hosting their Public Domain legal documents as well? This seems quite odd. Smee 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
    • Please refrain from making these kind of provocative remarks. jossi is withdrawing from the dispute, but he informs us that his concerns remain. There is nothing wrong in the way he has expressed his concerns in the above statement. It is certainly an issue I believe worth thinking about, even if I disagree with the particular suggestions he has made. I do not find his above remarks odd at all.--BirgitteSB 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The fact the documents are public domain is completely immaterial. The fact w:Jay Ingram's wife has said that he has a small penis is information, and thus automatically public domain (though her exact quote might not be public domain, but the fact she said that is, information cannot be copyrighted or similarly protected) -- yet we still choose that there is a marker of "common sense"/BLP that should be followed. Regardless of these particular cases, it's dangerous (and stupid) to say "It's public domain, nothing else matters". Sherurcij COTW:Lady Gregory 23:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The fact that information is uncopyrightable is not the same thing as saying the information is public domain IMHO. Simple information is simply uncopyrightable no matter what but since all copyrightable works are automatically granted copyright these days there has to some process that makes a work public domain (an author release, a clause in the US Constitution, etc.) However this irrevelevant here. While Wikipedia may deal in information alone, Wikisource only deals in documents so anything that is uncopyrightable do to being "simple information" is unacceptable here per the inclusion policy. On a side note, don't you love how every single issue here has the same people lining up differently? It really amazes me every time, how the chips fall.--BirgitteSB 03:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I am glad this issue right now is being sort of reseolved right now. But I have some issues still as well but now is not the time or place to discuss them. Wabbit98 12:30pm PST 15 June 2007
        • I will refrain from making provocative remarks, and hopefully in the future Jossi will do so as well, and be more polite in his remarks on talk pages. Thank you. However, I truly do wonder if documents are already hosted at LexisNexis, and other easily accessible sites that host Public Domain court documents and other Public Domain legal documents and Public Domain litigation and legislative documents - if we should not simply hold ourselves to the same standard as that of other sites that host Public Domain documents... Smee 19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

Deleted

Latest comment: 17 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

Works without translator information

  1. 1924 Constitution of the USSR (since 03 Dec 2006)
  2. 1936 Constitution of the USSR (since 03 Dec 2006)
  3. 1945 Party Day radio address (since 09 Oct 2006)
  4. Scél Mucci Mic Dathó (since 27 Nov 2006)

Unused templates

—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Divine Light Mission

The following discussion is closed:

speedily deleted


Not a text. This should be deleted from the Main namespace and turned into a category.--BirgitteSB 11:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK with this solution. Yann 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
There is already a Category: Divine Light Mission, so the mainspace page can be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleted mainspace page as it was a redirect.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

These are similar to the above. I feel most should be converted to categories. The exceptions are that I have mixed feelings about converting all the full pages that are on individuals. If all individuals mentioned in a documents are turned into categories, we will end up with unworkable amount of categories on every document. My first instinct is to only categorize documents with individuals who the major litigant or primary topic of the document.--BirgitteSB 19:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There are categories for each one of these already:
A question: what is the guiding principle related to redirects from mainspace to categories? I seem to remember a comment that these RDs are not acceptable either. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have redirected these to the categories, so there is no need for deletion at this point. This is useful if people come here from other external links, search for the related page, and do not find the category. Smee 01:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
Cross namespace redirects are discouraged. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Example: -- Prem Rawat, Maharaji, and Author:Maharaji all are redirects to Author:Prem Rawat. Smee 02:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
We are discussing redirects that are cross namespace, such as redirecting Erhard Seminars Training to Category:Erhard Seminars Training. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Main space --> Author space is cross name space as well. I don't know if anyone has ever put much thought into if we want these things or not. Some subdomains of WS do not use a separate author namespace so these redirects are helpful to people coming in used to a different set-up. I can se the harm in redirecting Main space to some user page, but I am not sure how I feel about these sorts of redirects.--BirgitteSB 03:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I see... In WP, mainspace to category is not acceptable, so that is what I am asking. Mainspace to author space, when the name is the same seems right. Author space or main space to category, does not. But as I am a relatively newbie here, I defer to the more experienced users such as youreself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Birgitte's points above are exactly what I was referring to. Users could come to WikiSource from other projects, check to see if there is an index page on a particular topic, and not be redirected to the relevant category of the exact same name. In this case, they will not find the information they are looking for. The "search" function, I have found, is not always the tightest and does not always give the best results. Smee 05:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

Comment I suppose my point is that we have never really discussed cross-name space redirects before. I can see where they could be a problem (going to a User subpage) as well as where they could be useful. Certainly these redirects currently exist , but they are not common. I am undecided about where the the line should be drawn and I imagine it will take a larger discussion from the community to decide. I expect the larger community is not likely to participate and discuss the issue if it they think it will end up like the discussion below. So I think it is a good idea to let everything calm down and then start a discussion in the Scriptorium about what limits, if any, we want to impose on cross-namespace redirects. For the record I am not sure why the redirects Smee has made would be a problem, but certainly there must have been a reason for en.WP to outlaw such things. So I am not decided on the issue. --BirgitteSB 11:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. A wider discussion could be useful. I would also want to know what is he understanding regarding adding "See also" sections to source text pages. What I have seen in WS is that categories are used for navigation and that "See also" sections are avoided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2007-06&oldid=14533677"