Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Developing A Universal Religion

Developing A Universal Religion
While this really is well written and thought out, unfortunately this doesn't really fit in with what Wikibooks is all about. If we decide on a delete, the author should be allowed to transfer content. Serge 10:27, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have not learned anything about Stephenson-Hockey Publishing other than that they published this one book, so this case is hard to know. --Kernigh 03:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC) maybe i'm in a the wrong section but...you keep saying that this book will be transfered...but where
 * Comment - Actually, I've since read the author's user page, and it appears this content comes from a paper book he wrote anyway. So content transfer might not even be a problem. Serge 10:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is indeed a well written book, at least as far as something covering the subject is concerned. If we allow a theology bookshelf to be started, I would imagine that there would be several Wikibooks that would be written along these lines, which is why my first impression is to keep and allow stuff like this.  If this turns out to be simply somebody who has already published a book or e-book elsewhere and just wants to dump it onto Wikibooks, I would be much less inclined to keep it.  In terms of something that could be used in a theology "class" at Wikiversity, this would make for some very interesting discussions.  --Rob Horning 05:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this book is (while, I'll say it again, well written), it represents very much the individual opinion of the author. I am strongly of the opinion that this sort of thing should be welcomed at a future Wikiversity project, however, it probably doesn't belong on our website due to its being an opinion rather than an instructional resource. Serge 08:47, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, both of you, Serge and Rob, have hit the nail on the head. I wanted to offer a fact-giving text (see Parts One, Two and Three), in a way that is not over-done (other books in Wikibooks will do a much better job of this), but offer a text that might promote discussion. If there is another place to provide such a thing, that would be great! : David H 16:05, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, Serge, I fought long and hard against offering opinions when writing the book, but in the end I had to, simply to show how the ideas being discussed might be practically applied. But I do say in several places that my suggestions are only examples—that others have to do the "real" work! And, thanks, Rob and Serge, for saying it’s well written. David.)
 * Even if an individual's opinion is predominantly the content, this subject deserves a wiki exposure. In the absence of a universal religion, you have various religious factions, and we all know what such factions can bring about in this world.
 * Delete - Just by being developing a universal religion, this is primary research. And its impossible to NPOV in any way- what belongs in a universal religion, or even if any religion is a good thing to have (can you tell what side of that I'm on?), is purely a matter of opinion.  An instructional book describing or comparing religions is one thing, but this seems to violate several wikibooks policies.--Gabe Sechan 21:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikisource if it is indeed merely an electronic version of a published paper book. - Aya T E C 18:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps paper-or-no it would be a good idea to put already completed books (not created on wikibooks) on to wikisource. For example, The Way of the Program was a GFDL book already written that was brought over to here. But if the changes we make aren't significant, it might be in everyone's best interests to just leave it unedited at wikisource. When there are plans and ideas for a way to change the book significantly, then it could be brought over the wikibooks for editing. --MShonle 21:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyright violation? Would we this book and the other three parts (Thinking And Moral Problems, Religions And Their Source, Purpose)? I have decided not to add the Template:copyvio unless someone else wants it.
 * "Developing a Universal Religion" appears to be a published book. Look at this page on www.amazon.com. The text of the book is searchable, suggesting the book being sold is very similar to the one here on Wikibooks. It is still possible to print and sell a GFDL book, though, and the author can use any license.
 * Apart from someone creating a wiki account called User:David Hockey, there seems to be no evidence that the author actually licensed it as GFDL. In fact, this page on www.pmaonline.org suggests that the someone is actually trying to sell foreign publishing and translation rights; the GFDL grants such things freely.
 * Keep. After reading the comments, it does not seem that there is any obstacle to keeping this book (unless David H wants to move it to Wikisource). --Kernigh 23:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I am David Hockey, the author of this book. I have been away and have not read this discussion until today, sorry. I sent the book to Wikibooks because I thought that it contained enough facts to be useful to those searching religions, and maybe interesting to those trying to understand why we have religions. (I am also sure that the book could be improved by edits!) I started and ran Stephenson-Hockey Publishing to sell the book, but dropped the endeavour when I moved to Kingston (Ontario). During that time I joined PMA (the Independent Book Publishers Association) and asked them to try to sell Foreign Rights to the book. They have not done so. Does this stop me from giving Wikibooks the material? If so, I'll write PMA and ask them to stop offering the rights. At the moment, I am the only one who owns them. (Plus, via Wikibooks, everyone else?) I kept the Amazon.com site going, and sell copies of the book through them, Quality Books, Baker & Taylor, etc. I did not state that the book could be bought because Wikibooks' should not do that, I think. David H 11:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll put a note on your user talk page as well, but I want to note that generally speaking, if you are the author and have full copyright to some material, it would not be automatically considered for deletion because it has been published elsewhere. There is a "sister" project that deals with source materials that have been previously published called Wikisource where republishing material that you are willing to license under the GNU Free Document License would be permitted.  This distinction is because on Wikisource the goal is to make a copy as close to the original as we can (dynamic with web pages permitting and other limitations due to the medium) and generally speaking it is not available for editing.  On Wikibooks, however, by you posting it here you are asking for collaborative editing and people to add/change the content of what you are writing.  If that is what you are asking for, it would be a good idea to put a comment to that effect on the module discussion pages and suggest areas that new contributors can help to improve or extend an existing book. Another issue you have to deal with regarding previously published material is that often you may not be legally able to grant the GFDL license, especially to an international project like Wikibooks.  We have servers in several countries now, so technically you can't sell "international distribution rights" once you have published here on Wikibooks.  I don't know specifics of any contract you may have signed, so this is something you need to consult an attorney about, especially an attorney who specializes in copyright law and hopefully one who understands the GFDL...quite rare at the moment.  Depending on what publishing rights you may have already signed away, you may or may not even be able to publish the material on Wikibooks. You couldn't sell exclusive international distribution rights very well. Problems would occur if you agreed that you would not compete with the buyer. If the buyer is aware and accepts this though, I don't think there is a problem. AlbertCahalan 21:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The original research restriction is a more universal issue that is more a safeguard here with Wikibooks and other Wikimedia projects to avoid controversial topics and somebody who wants to turn these projects into a personal political platform. That is also the reason for the Neutral Point of View standard (usually written NPOV in discussions) to try and "report just the facts".  These two standards are subject to interpretation, and is usually the justification used to remove content from projects like Wikibooks.  We here at Wikibooks are trying (sometime unsuccessfully) to avoid becoming a "vanity press" and instead want to raise the standards of the content here to make these Wikibooks something that people are seeking after.  Wikibooks follows similar policies to Wikipedia, but here we try to encourage more depth to the subjects, which is why most Wikibooks contain multiple modules (separate web pages) and quite a bit more structure. I also think knee jerk reactions to theological discussions should also be avoided.  You can have a NPOV discussion about a theological concept like Universal Religion.  By publishing here on Wikibooks, you should be prepared for other people to poke at what you have written, and perhaps even do major revisions of anything you have put down in these discussions.  That can be a little harsh at time, so you have to develop a little bit of thick skin when you see stuff that you have worked so hard on get changed, or when you get criticized for misspellings or even sloppy writing styles.  The original research objections can be overcome, but you need to provide independent sources for where you are gathering material for a discussion.  Theology in particular has thousands of potential sources for just about any topic, so this shouldn't be hard regardless of what you are talking about.  Again, don't get thin skinned, and know that by trying to overcome these objections you are going to have a better written document in the long run as a result.  Welcome these criticisms and you may find that instead of struggling to find a place to publish the book that instead people will be seeking more from you as an author.  Whatever you do with this Wikibook, welcome to this project and I hope that you continue to help out here and add content and suggestions to other projects and books here.  --Rob Horning 16:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rob: (This first paragraph copies part of what I wrote in My Talk page because I read that before reading this.) I do understand that anyone can edit and change what I have written. I very much like this idea and hope that editing can improve what has been written. I don’t even mind if the consensus is to completely change the book’s focus: if that is what people of the world think is best, then it is OK with me. I haven’t sold any publication or translation rights, although I did ask PMA to try to sell them for me. They haven’t done this. I will write to them to tell them to stop advertising that they are for sale, simply because I think that Wikibooks (or one of its colleagues) is a better place for the text to be. If there is something that I should do to ensure that GFDL requirements have been met, please let me know what to do. I thought that simply submitting writings (that are one’s own) automatically granted free use (provided that no rights have been released/sold to anyone else). David H 15:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's automatic if you have the right to do so. As the copyright holder, you always have this unless you have agreed with someone else that you won't. Even in that case, you might still have the right... but expose yourself to damages as a result of destroying the value of that agreement. (see a lawyer if you worry enough) AlbertCahalan 21:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Albert. I have not sold or given anyone any rights. David H 12:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am changing my "vote" on this subject from neutral to keep, because I feel the "Original Research" issues are dealt with at least as fairly as can be with a subject of this nature. There are formal footnotes and references to other sources that have at least some academic credibility.  It should also be noted that this is really only one part or one volume of a much larger work.  Clearly there is some additional work to clarify things like the footnotes and internal links between different sections, but that can be dealt with over time.  This is a new contributor "experiment" and IMHO part of what Wikibooks is trying to encourage.  This is a philosophy book, and that can be tricky to work with, I know.  By rejecting this Wikibook, we will have to come up with a strong policy statement that will have to reject just about any philosophical book of any kind.  Are we prepared as a community to do that?  --Rob Horning 14:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I vote to Keep the book and note what we learned from the discussion:
 * In the future, we merely have to establish that the granter of the GFDL is the copyright holder to avoid any confusion on issue of copyrights. As AlbertCahalan mentioned above, the copyright holder always has the right to release the book under the GFDL, regardless of other commitments. Other commitments are entirely the author's business and legally have nothing to do with Wikibooks.
 * On the issue of POV, I'm sure we can agree that a book will always be influenced by the POV of the author. The advantage of opening the book to unrestricted editing is that the POVs of multiple authors can proof and neutralize each other.  POV in a book is a great reason to edit it, but if we deleted books that had POV at any time in their existence, Wikibooks would be devoid of content.  --Zephram Stark 21:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

i've not read the book but i think that i've catched the spirit of it

mabe the autor wrote this book on order to change the world and make it better and so this is not a didactic book

i'm very interested because maybe one day i'll write a book about politic and economic theory that can made the world better and asking where such a (wiki)book could be hosted i'll avoid the deletion process


 * Keep The keep comments above are much more compelling than the delete ones.  :) - Nyarlathotep 17:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks like a real book to me. Should be kept for all sorts of reasons including the novelty of having a complete book with, summaries, endnotes and references.  I wish I were conscientious enough to turn the Visual Basic Classic book into something a tenth as thorough.  --kwhitefoot 19:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)