Talk:Sermon of the roar of a camel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 June 6. The result of the discussion was keep.

Striver, you need to provide references as to where you got your text of Ali's sermon. Dev920 13:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. I need to do something, brb in one houre or so and continue with the article. --Striver 14:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. Dev920 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, i look forward to get more tips on how i can improve this article --Striver 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My primary comment is that the article should be primarily prose, not lists. Choose the most significant quotes, and use those in prose. See also the AFD comment by Lukas. Consider moving the bulk of the text of the sermon to wikisource, and referencing it here. As you build out the theological significance, use relevant short quotes from the sermon. Focus on why the sermon is significant today. This should be visible from the introduction and built upon in a section. GRBerry 21:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Have just discovered that virtually all of authenticity controversy is a copyright violation. While the quotes themselves may be 1000 years old, the format and surrounding text are immediately available at http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/3.htm. Striver, do you have copyright permission from the owners? Dev920 09:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, i dont personaly, and i dont know if its required. But lets assume it is, just for the sake of being constructive. How do we need to reformate the information? I have already made some changes, but maybe that is not enough? What more needs to be changed? --Striver 09:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest with you, Striver, I'm not sure. WP:COPY says "if in doubt, write it yourself", which seems to suggest that you use the information as a basis for your own work. But how to do that? I don't know. Dev920 12:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a problem i have had several times. When somebody takes a list of quotes, quotes he can not copyright, and then arranges them in a specific maner, say cronologicly, does that mean that nobody can ever arrange those non-copyrighet quotes in that given order? If yes, is it enough that we jumble the order? Or does it mean that its a copyvio to even have all the quotes in the same page? If no, does it simply mean that there is no copyvio here? I view it as there is no copyvio, its a list of quotes, its not sensible to claim copyrights over it.--Striver 14:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Since we're both clearly stumped, I think we need an expert opinion of some kind on this - do you think an RfC might be able to produce someone who might know? Dev920 16:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree, lets ask more people.--Striver 23:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've listed this article at RfC and posted on the talk page of Kjkolb, who is recommended to ask about copy vio. Now we wait and see. Dev920 23:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, coming back from RFC (as opposed to AFD above), I'll say again that the article needs more text and fewer lists. Try writing prose that covers the controversy, including those portions of the quotes that you need to have good prose. Then get rid of the quote list. It might also be necessary to delete the copy-vio out of history, but that is a question for an expert on copy-vio issues. I think the relevant portion of WP:COPY is "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored." To me that means that the authenticity controversy needs to go. Find a couple other sources on the authenticity controversy, and cite them in the prose replacing the list. GRBerry 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)