Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (Because it is not a plagiarism, I did a great research to write the article that did initially in Portuguese and then to English. How could I commit plagiarism of this kind since I have the supplies necessary to write the article? In the article used the DW as a source, the Yearbook 1996 can also be read from the CD-ROM "Watchower Library 2014 Portuguese as well as English" and other secondary sources. When writing the article tried to be as neutral as possible, for if it were to be the part would be for therefore abound me the reasons, but out of respect for the principle of neutrality isolated myself, then it would be considered as violation of Copyright this article? The Macua Blog is the author of the Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses 1996? So how he transformed the Yearbook articles of the year referred to in World System since this is not allowed in the privacy policies on JW.ORG site? I think the Macua Blog is having committed such offense not this article that neutral and impartial manner tries to show the history of Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique.) --rgimo (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

As I stated at the discussion page for deletion of the article, at least one section is obviously a direct translation of paragraphs taken directly from the Portuguese edition of the cited source. Simply translating the original text into another language is still copyright infringement.

On Wikipedia, notability is established by discussion of the subject in reliable secondary sources. The Watchtower Library is not a secondary source. It is a primary source. It presents the Watch Tower Society's views about itself.

I don't know what the 'Macua Blog' is, but it certainly isn't the author of the JW yearbook. Whether some website independent of Wikipedia has violated the Watch Tower Society's copyright is not relevant here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

My friend understand you, but you see quoted the DW as a secondary source, and others that may not sejem as relevant as well, but DW is a reliable secondary source. How to Blog Macua saw no need for it to be shown in the table is at the outset that contributes to Wikipedia in English. So what me slang to improve the article?rgimo (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The DW article is not about Jehovah's Witnesses. It only very briefly mentions them, and they are not the focus of the article.

Your question about 'Blog Macua' is unintelligible, and I don't see how an external blog is relevant to Wikipedia, which does not accept blogs as sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies in English may differ slightly in the Portuguese, but one thing I do not like to use blog as a source, it is somewhat incomprehensible question about Macua Blog I ask you to let us allow the sponge side and let the solution of this discussion . Tell me what well do to improve this article because I think not logical to eliminate an article that it must exist because the story of the beginning of a religion in one country and taking into account that there is the lack of Mozambican stories, I am want make them more visible to the general public ... Remember is an effort to contribute an article here on Wikipedia ... I think I told you that I only created the article in Wikipedia in Portuguese initially and translate it into English. Good contributions!rgimo (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If you already know blogs are not suitable sources, I don't know why you mentioned the blog in the first place.

Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique do not make up a significant portion of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide or of people in Mozambique, so there is no indication of notability for requiring a specific article, and the sources you have provided do not indicate sufficient notability either.

If you translated the text into English from what you already supplied at the Portuguese Wikipedia, then you also need to delete the portions from the Portuguese Wikipedia article that have been copied directly from the source material, as it is a copyright violation.

Also, the notability guidelines for the Portuguese Wikipedia are almost certainly the same as those for the English Wikipedia, so the article probably lacks sufficient notability there too.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not separate the Jehovah's Witnesses as a World Organization for a group of Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique, if I perceive Jehovah's Witnesses have very large history that not one page of Wikipedia could endure if we are more specific in matters. So in Wikipedia in Portuguese history exists of Jehovah's Witnesses of Portugal, Brazil and Mozambique. All these page has the parent page Jehovah's Witnesses and here in English these pages if I remember correctly there are no ... it is not to divide the history of Jehovah's Witnesses. And another in Portuguese made a deep study of the history of Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique and ordered the Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1996 that Portuguese used as a source and DW mentioning the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, as you say not as focus, but it is a source which proves that history is real, it is credible. And again I think it would be illogical for example someone wondering: When Jehovah's Witnesses started their activities in Mozambique? And he did not find any reliable source Blog but they are not reliable. This is how I did my part, ta! I want Wikipedia to be the union all know and my authors is violating Rights wash my hand. Good issues.rgimo (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability isn't determined by what you think someone 'might' search for. It is based on discussion of the subject in reliable secondary sources. Passing mention in DW of JWs as one group of people among several that were persecuted at some point does not justify an article about JWs in Mozambique. As you have been told already, it may justify a brief paragraph at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments.

According to official JW statistics, JWs in Mozambique make up only 0.69% of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide and 0.23% of the population of Mozambique.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jeffro77 if you have read the DW in Portuguese, does not speak of a group. Speaks of Jehovah's Witnesses in the entire country. And mention in particulat Sofala province, Maputo and Nampula, ie in Samora government, the first President of this country, because according to DW were TJ Mozambique as a whole were preseguidas. And having some fled to Malawi and succor me Yearbook of 96 to support my research and an official blogsite of a colonel / general (?) And I'm getting kind of upset about the ongoing discussion.rgimo (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

DW speaks of various groups who were oppressed: "thousands of people - including prostitutes, political dissidents and Jehovah's Witnesses", "In addition to prostitutes, thousands of other people as political dissidents, link suspects to the Portuguese colonial power, alcoholics, traditional authorities (like chiefs and traditional healers) and Jehovah's Witnesses (a Christian group that refuses, among others, compulsory military service)".[1] The article does not put any special emphasis on Jehovah's Witnesses at all and doesn't discuss them specifically.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, the article tells of many groups being persecuted, and give what's the problem? The Nazi actaque Jehovah's Witnesses were not the only ones persecuted the Jews had it and some who refused to submit to the Hitler government. However there is a purple triangulates article of TJs here on Wikipedia whose main focus Germany in the Nazi time. I am not guilty if Mozambique has abito to publish your real story, but as the TJs of Mozambique those I mentioned are the only sources available to me me. The purpose is to improve the power or change for me all right, but I would consider eliminating this lack of consideration for my contribution as well as you did in the article: "Man's Search for God." rgimo (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

JWs in Mozambique have not had the same degree of coverage in reliable secondary sources that there is of JWs under the Nazi regime. If the only sources available to you do not provide notable coverage from reliable secondary sources, then an article is not warranted.

Your other promotional article about a religious publication did not present anything to indicate that the book is notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jeffro77, I told you that I am not guilty if many Mozambicans do not value their stories, but I value the history, this includes Mozambique. Well there are not many available data on the subject, because it was never debated or analyzed and, for only walks in the mouth of "living libraries" subject to death and oblivion of history. That's why I tried to do some research on google by topic under discussion and not a single reliable source spoke of the matter and when researched in another way encotrei DW and other not very reliable sites and read the story in the yearbook 96 I tried to preserve the history here using these unique sources that had access ... and its already discussed this tediar me ... and I see that we are running out of solution, I VOTE in Article permança even if it is re-created, but without losing focus. And even if only to improve it can try, but not garranto by escasses trusted sources. Tell me your opinion!rgimo (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You are going round in circles. The benchmark for inclusion of articles on Wikipedia is notability indicated by discussion of the subject in reliable secondary sources, not simply because a particular editor likes the subject. If you 'value the history' of JWs in Mozambique, then you can start your own blog about the subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro77 not make me laugh, I'm Blogger, but do not like to tell history in an unreliable platform. Okay, I said I'm walking in a circle, I do not, but us. As the history of Mozambique, I said I like the history of this country that includes the history of the TJs of it. This article submitted to the Contact panel to Wikipedia in Portuguese, he deserved to be there, some administrators approved the article. And intrrogo why there is so much complication here. rgimo (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if the Portuguese Wikipedia has the same standards for reliable sources as the English Wikipedia. The sources you have provided are mostly primary sources, which do not indicate notability of the subject based on the standards on the English Wikipedia. Unless the subject is discussed in reliable secondary sources, it is not proper to try to promote the subject on Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I understand you, I will do more research to improve the article.rgimo (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation

As no one else has bothered to remove the copyright violation translated from a Portuguese version of the source, despite ample time do so, I have deleted the most obvious problematic text. It is possible that other text directly translated from original sources remains in other paragraphs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I support one vandal-free Wikipedia, but I'm fluent in Portuguese. Not my will have an article with poor quality, but the article needs more secondary sources. But I think well, coming and thank you for your cooperation.rgimo (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are fluent in Portuguese, why did you paste copyrighted text at the Portuguese article instead of writing original text supported by sources? If the standard for notability of articles is lower at the Portuguese Wikipedia, you should still at least remove the copyright violation from there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Take it easy, I do so! Edit the article in Pt and then put in en, ie make a general change in topic: First Contact with the truth, but without removing the essence.rgimo (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The text in the section is very obviously copied from the primary source material. This can be established even by comparing the English version of the source with a Google translation of 'your' text at the Portuguese Wikipedia article.

Google translation of Portuguese article

1996 Yearbook, page 118–119

Albino Mhelembe one Mozambican who worked in the mines of Johannesburg in 1925 , in South Africa , got to know the good news of God's Kingdom . The seeds took root in his heart and soon he was baptized . Returning to his home, he went to preach to members of his former church of the Swiss Mission in village Luisa (now Maracuene), in the most southern province of Mozambique . These Africans newly interested were very zealous and often traveled 30 km to reach the meetings . They formed groups, including in Lourenço Marques , now Maputo .

It was in that year that Albino Mhelembe, a Mozambican working in the mines of Johannesburg, South Africa, heard the good news of God’s Kingdom. The seeds of Kingdom truth took root in his heart, and soon he got baptized. Returning home, he began to preach to the members of his former church, the Swiss Mission, in Vila Luísa (presently Marracuene), in the southernmost province of Mozambique. The newly interested Africans were very zealous and often traveled 20 miles [30 km] to get to meetings. New groups were started, including one in Lourenço Marques, now Maputo.

It is not sufficient to make just small changes to otherwise copyrighted text; that is still a violation of copyright. Additionally, good quality articles in an encyclopedia do not make non-neutral claims about things like the "boas novas do Reino de Deus" ("good news of the kingdom") or use figurative expressions like "sementes criaram raízes no coração" ("seeds took root in his heart"). If either article (English or Portuguese) is to be retained at all (despite the lack of suitable secondary sources), the entire section must be rewritten, along with any other copyrighted content that has been copied and pasted from source material.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Jefrro77 Hello, I see you have the reason in the context of rape. I guarantee that will remove the marking! Thank you for your discussion ...rgimo (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about rape (estupro?). Perhaps you are having trouble translating?? My best guess is in reference to violation (infração) of copyright.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I meant Subtitle. As for the removal of matter it is becoming hard I remove as put back into the panel talk to see Wikipedia: https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C3%B3pico:Sjjjku3th55se0ho&topic_showPostId=skiq7yw34rq1wv2w#flow-post-skiq7yw34rq1wv2w. And there is no pronuciament.rgimo (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on the earlier responses on the page you've linked, editors at the Portuguese Wikipedia don't seem to be as concerned about the notability criteria that apply to the English Wikipedia, based on discussion of the subject in reliable secondary sources. Aside from that, I'm not sure what you mean by 'pronuciament'. Maybe you're saying there is no response to your latest question there?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, then I think there should be end of discussion! Why so long? Where's a Bureaucrat to end the discussion that follows .. If editors it in Pt care less about the notalidade that page, I do not know. But in a I asked a very strict veteran administrator and approved the page as well as already told you.rgimo (talk) 10:49 pm, Yesterday (UTC+10)

DO NOT dispose of other issues without that these are answered, unless not in the context!rgimo (talk) 7:35 pm, Today (UTC+10)

I didn't 'dispose' of anything. You deleted the Talk page headers and previous discussion without explanation, and I restored it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I pronounce myself against the decision, which is so dear editors voting this epatada and not only the accusation that the expensive Jifrro77 editor was the violation of Copyright. He removed ...rgimo (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)