Talk:Phoenix Declaration

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Phoenix Declaration article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Content of at least one revision of the associated article was derived in whole or part from non-free copyrighted material on the website http://nolongersilent.org/PhoenixDeclaration.html. This material was (prior to placement or subsequently) freely licensed in a manner compatible for Wikipedia's use by the posting of one or more compatible copyright licenses on the external website. Though the release notice for the material, which is irrevocable, may have been later removed from view, or the URL may have changed or gone dead, an archive of that webpage, including the copyright release notice, is available at http://www.webcitation.org/65DAFKosw.

Secondary sources

A Google search for "Phoenix declaration" yields nothing significant (at least in the first 2 pages). Primary sources (from nolongersilent.org, phoenixdeclaration.org), facebook pages, youtube pages, and pages from unknown sites). If you want to remove the notability tag, then add to the article two secondary sources from some professional website.

I provided you with a link in my edit summary. Don't waste your time and mine by edit-warring a notability tag in when notability has been demonstrated; you are welcome to follow the link and add the sources yourself. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, your link was broken. Second, I searched myself and, as I noted above, found nothing. Third, it is your job to provide the sources (since you claim they exist). Jorge Peixoto (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there are no secondary sources, the tag belongs there. Jorge Peixoto (talk)

That's the wrong tag; you're looking for refimprove, not notability. Notability having been established, you're just being disruptive by edit-warring in a tag that gives the impression that the subject is not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is notable. Anyway, if other editors care about this subject, they will add references. If, on the other hand, three months pass and no one adds references, I may propose it for deletion. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry--it's not going to take three months. I've got a lot of valid references and will start adding them now. Speaking of Google--their recent changes to their proprietary algorithms have unfortunately pushed a lot of valid results off the first few pages. In my more thorough Google search, I was still finding valid references on page 30 (!) and only stopped there due to lack of available time to proceed further. DTinAZ (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Emeril Lagasse, "BAM!!!" (seven secondary news sources from professional websites added). DTinAZ (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text

Any reason that the whole thing is written out here? - Haymaker (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, I'm still a relative noob. I see some declarations/documents with their full text, others with summaries, others with external links. DTinAZ (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty unnecessary and its counter-part doesn't have it. - Haymaker (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "counter-part," are you referring to the "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience"? If so, the the obvious answer is that it is much, much longer and it has a self-summary available to publish. The Phoenix Declaration is very short.

Upon reviewing recent edits (prior to the Copyvio tagging), I see that someone who didn't bother to join this discussion blanked out the text, so now that the Copyvio is no longer an issue, I have restored the text. Other declarations/documents do indeed appear on WP with their full text and this particular one is very brief. Let's give this a rest now, please? DTinAZ (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DTinAZ (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, but it is very hard to see the most recent flurry of revisions (starting 1 February 2012) as anything but an edit war between people who stalk each other around WP and do this out of spite, but I will try my best to assume good faith and deal with the potential copyright issue in keeping with WP policies. I'll take care of this, but am genuinely annoyed. DTinAZ (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't believe it's necessary to release the text (brief excerpts from the document in an article on the document itself qualify as fair use), you can look at WP:Donating copyrighted materials if you want to learn about how to grant Wikipedia permission to use the text. Note that because all Wikipedia text is under a Creative Commons license, you can't release the text just to Wikipedia, and you may find it more efficient to put a CC license on your website itself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: As per the provisions found at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, a Wikipedia-compatible copyleft notice has been placed on the source page and I am utilizing the {{Text release}} template as proof that the material in question is no longer being protected by copyright. DTinAZ (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the editor who apparently chooses not to discuss his contrary rationale here has once again removed a large portion of the quoted document, commenting (rudely, BTW) "we do not store entire documents here per WP:LONGQUOTE--this is NOT WikiQuote." WP:LONGQUOTE is from a "guidance essay," and is "not a Wikipedia policy or guideline." Speaking of quotes, "I'll be back." DTinAZ (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back already. Just a few examples of documents with their full text quoted on WP: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Declaration of Independence of the Mexican Empire. Will the editor in question be visiting those pages, and many others like them, to remove the storage of entire documents on WP? (Assuming good faith, one would think so.) It is germane to point out that the Wikipedia:Do not include copies of primary sources guideline link actually redirects to Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, the key word being "lengthy." IMO, the full text of the document at hand is relatively brief, but I won't revert the removal of much of the document just yet, and ask Roscelese not to to so as well. I have a different strategy in mind. DTinAZ (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though your argument falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF, yes, I will be tagging them {{copy to Wikisource}}. The regular editors will be given reasonable time to summarize the texts and then I will move the texts to WikiSource and delete them from the articles. – Lionel ^(talk) 11:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]