Talk:Agreement of the Chamber of Deputies of Chile

Bad-faith deletions
I consider repeated deletions of this article on the (spurious) grounds of copyright violation to be made in bad-faith. The Declaration is a public pronouncement by a national governing body, and hence not subject to copyright protection in any event.--76.17.171.199 08:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Declaration itself may be free of copyright but the editor's note does not benefit from the same freedom, nor the translation unless it was published under the same circumstances which made the declaration free of copyright. It is the english translation that we are hosting on wikisource and I find it doubtful that the Chilean legislature would issue such a decree in English as well as Spanish. Please provide information about the translator --Metal.lunchbox 08:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All of that information WAS provided in the pre-deleted version's discussion history (accounts now conveniently hose-bagged; I've restored as much as I recollect...not that it isn't hard for anyone to figure out by back-tracking the provided URL). Jose Pinera is a Chilean politician and economist who has freely hosted several language translations of the Declaration for over a decade (indeed, he's the primary proponant of making it more open knowledge among the non-Spanish-speaking), and there is no copyright notice on his particular webpage. Be that as it may, there is no compelling reason to delete the entire article -- linked to by a half-dozen Chile-relating Wikipedia entries -- on the grounds of a small editor's commentary possibly being copy-righted under the most preposterous of circumstances (the comment itself would qualify as Fair Use otherwise, since it is from a public personna commenting upon a government pronouncement).--76.17.171.199 09:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This work was first discussed in May 2005 at Scriptorium/Archives/2006-05, with User:Pathoschild indicating that he marked it with PD-manifesto.

It was then raised again at Possible copyright violations/Archives/2006-11. I have reviewed the deleted content; the copy deleted on "22:34, 25 November 2006" by Newmanbe did not have PD-manifesto but it did link to the translation and state that the text was published in La Nación on August 25, 1973. As this did not have a license tag on it at the time, and there was a deletion discussion, this was not a bad faith deletion. In order to keep this work, more work needs to be done to establish why it is "free content".
 * This is one of the the most important Latin American documents of the 20th Century, and at least half a dozen Wikipedia articles link to this page; every effort should be made to contact Mr. Pinera in order to confirm his intent to publicly distribute his translation. (Rant: This intent is bluntly obvious.)

—unsigned comment by 76.17.171.199 (talk).


 * If you are aware of the importance of the document, you are in a much better position to appeal to Mr. Pinera to explicitly release his translation into the public domain, or to relicense it under the GFDL or a CC license. Please take the initiative and do this so that his translation is guaranteed to be kept on Wikisource. John Vandenberg 22:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not in a "better position" than anyone else to appeal to the far-flung Mr. Pinera to goad his staff into updating his website at the behest of the ever-evolving copyright annoyances. If this article is hosed off Wiki(whatever), it, not the truth, will be what suffers when all of those pages start linking alt.dev_nul.--76.17.171.199 09:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (sorry, I didnt mean to remove your reply)


 * Mr. Pinera does not need to update the website. We need some permission to be explicitly provided - that could simply be an email.  If you are not willing to tackle this, it will need to be put on WS:COPYVIO. John Vandenberg 23:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've emailed several times, but haven't received a response yet.--76.17.171.199 07:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting the ball rolling. We can wait a few weeks, to give them time to work out what is going on. John Vandenberg 10:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To be fear here is the President Allende reply to the accusation:

To the people of Chile: The House of Representatives has approved, with the votes of the opposition, a political agreement destined to discredit the whole country abroad and to create internal confusion. It will facilitate with it the seditious intention of certain sectors. For which the Congress is pronounced on the legal behavior of the government only exists one approach: “the constitutional accusation according to the procedure specifically contemplated by the Constitution”. In the last parliamentary elections, competing sectors tried to obtain two thirds of the senators to be able to accuse the president. They did not obtain sufficient electoral endorsement for it. That is why now the opposition tries, by means of a simple agreement, to produce effects of the constitutional accusation. The faulty approved agreement does not have legal validity for the persecuted aim nor ties to anybody. But it contains the symbol of the desertion on the part of some sectors to the more essential civic values of our democracy. --Angel de la Guardia (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Public Domain license
jose(at)chile.com to me, Nov 26


 * I release my translation to English of this document into the "public commons" and will indicate so in the webpage. Please feel free to contact me again if I must write to someone in Wikipedia.


 * Best regards, Jose Piñera

...."--76.17.171.199 11:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fantastic. Did he also release the other translations (German, Spanish, French, Polish) ?
 * The email you have have received from him needs to be sent to permission@wikimedia.org to be kept on file.


 * I have moved the license to the bottom, and added no license back again, because we dont yet have any legal basis for the original Chilean document to be considered PD.John Vandenberg 09:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The original Chilean document is the text of the Resolution of August 22, of the Chilean legislature, and was printed in Chilean newspapers the day after its passage.--76.17.171.199 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC )
 * This is much less drastic, and the work is not likely to be deleted. The solution is merely that we need to investigate the copyright law of Chile, and create a template for this new type of document.
 * I was involved in a discussion about this type of Chilean work a while ago. See commons:Template talk:PD-Chile.
 * As an example, I created PD-INGov today.
 * I've changed the original source tag to PD-manifesto.--76.17.171.199 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The resolution of a government is not a manifesto. John Vandenberg 15:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the resolution of a government copywriteable? I'm not seeing the necessity of an original translation tag associated with this page.--76.17.171.199 04:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, many governments retain the copyright for the usual period of time, and at the same time describe it as "public information". This is done so that the text can not be misrepresented, and to ensure that unofficial translations are not redistributed.  I do not know what the laws of Chile are, but it is reasonable to assume that we can figure this out with a bit of time & effort.  As a result, I have created a new tag "new license required", which is a bit less scary. John Vandenberg 01:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

''I also release our translations to German, French and Polish of the text ''of the Chamber of Deputies Resolution of August 22, 1973 into Public Domain.

''Best regards, ''Jose Piñera

''PS. The original text in Spanish is public domain, as every official ''document of the Chilean Legislature. It was published in the government newspaper LA NACION on August 25, 1973. --76.17.171.199 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. I have rolled back to the "new license required" tag, as we are not finished with this yet - that tag is there to remind us that more work needs to be done.  We need to create a new license that will cover all Chilean government documents.  For this we need to find out the legal definitions of what types of documents are released by the government - i.e. we need to know the section of the Chilean law.
 * Once we have created a new template, we will not have this problem when new Chilean government documents appear on Wikisource. John Vandenberg 02:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation
How can the title be "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", while in Spanish it's "Acuerdo de la Cámara de Diputados sobre el grave quebrantamiento del orden constitucional y legal de la República" or just "Acuerdo de la Cámara de Diputados" ?


 * The right title is either Agreement of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies or Agreement of the Chamber of Deputies of Chile. --Vanngot (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As a comment, the title would be the name given by the translator to their work (if it was named), as it is there work that we are reproducing. Happy for a redirect to be created for the literal translation. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is ludicrous to insist upon such utterly generic titles -- because then every resolution passed by the CoD would have to bear the same title under the same spurious logic if the Wikis are to be consistant. -- Are you so insisting that all other resolutions passed by the CoD and with Wiki references bear the same bland identical title? I doubt it. Consequently, such desires are obvious obfuscation and historical air-brushing attempts by defenders of the Allende regime wishing to conceal the fact that Chile's own legislative branch of government, by an overwhelming margin, called upon the military to throw him out.Mike18xx (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not ludicrous; the standard practice. Every Proclamation and Executive order uses the bland number designation - not its descriptive subject or topic title. That title or topic is what the associated Wikipedia article should be discussing. Wikisource is just that - a reference source - NOT the place to inject subjective analysis. One look at the textinfo box and one can see this is no longer an attempt at source material but an attempt to frame some aspect found within. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 23:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so where's the "bland number" designation, then? Do you really think the CoD entitles every single resolution identically? Sorry, but no sale. Not buying the BS. At least provide the date in order to distinguish it from all the rest. Furthermore, I've been around since long before Wikisource was an off-shoot of 'pedia, and consider the whole thing pretty much a "memory hole" anyway -- a place to surreptitiously dump things to hide them away from the general Wikipedia and Google-browsing audiences attempting to inform themselves quickly. The agreement (which should at least be entitled "The Resolution of August 22, 1973" was the pivotal legal basis for the legitimate removal of Allende of power; and his supporters have been attempting to bury it for almost forty years now.--Mike18xx (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's the rest of the body of work to warrant inclusion of a date or number designation? If there is only a single work from what I assume is a volume of works, there is no need to add dates or numbers at this stage. Had someone created some of the entire output of whatever government body this is & not just one narrow product, the need for sub-designations and eventual expanded disambiguation would be applied. Nobody is attempting to hide anything - we are merely trying to maintain a decorum of standardization across all hosted works of such general-type (gov't). I'd gladly change the title to anything officially documented as such if it matters - but I'd prefer to inspect that version's designation; hopefully at a well established and credible source first. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 00:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Would Chamber of Deputies of Chile Resolution of August 22, 1973 be more along the lines of the official? — It's kind of problematic because its a translation by someone & he doesn't necessarily use the official designation it seems. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 00:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The redirect is in place, and getting some sort of information around the original bureaucratic recording would be most useful. FWIW, it seems unusual for you to make statements against others with regard to POV, then have issue with a bland title. As I said initially, the work should replicate the naming that the translating author gave, as that it what is being reproduced.  Analysis is separate from the naming. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure if that was directed towards me or not so I'll clarify my simple "concern". In this case, I believe the translation IS injecting undue & unintended consequences. It may be grammaticaly correct to transfer the term "Agreement" from Chilean to English but that term makes little sense when used in a "traditional" English governmental application. Agreements are typically not made within a set body of peers (any number of Deputies of Chile I surmise); they are made with other bodies of the same government or with external bodies. The House of Representatives comes to some sort of consensus within that chamber, denoted by a pass or fail vote. This result, while may show a majority IN agreement, is not the same as reaching an agreement with the Senate; (the external body in relation to the House).
 * I'm concerned over, what I feel, is a mis-use of the English context of Agreement and therefore a mis-representation of a measure put up and passed by vote (i.e. passing a Resolution etc.). Other, than that, I think the other points stand as were outlined prior to my reply today. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 06:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Is wrong to say that the Chamber of Deputies had a valid action agains the President; the House of Representatives or Chamber of Deputies did not have authority to accuse the President of unconstitutional conduct according to the effective laws in 1973. The section 4 of the Constitution did say: that no organized body, no person or meeting of people can to attribute itself, nor even to pretext of extraordinary circumstances, other powers and rights that the laws confer to them…, all act in opposition to this disposition is null.--Angel de la Guardia (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)