Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Relationships

Relationships
Bizaarely this book was once a featured book but it is very biased, pushes a right-wing religious agenda and is selective with the information it uses to push these views. Wikibooks should not be a host for books like this. The main problem is with the Relationships/Sex page. Xania talk 18:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Also see this for the discussion which led to the book's removal as a featured book Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 18:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Far too biased for any decent book, and includes essentially nothing on queer relationships (not surprising given the aforementioned slant). I hate to see so much work go down the tubes, so massive editing could be done to bring it up to snuff - but as it stands? no place on WB for it, so far as I can see. Mike.lifeguard 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC) (I read some more) Ridiculously sexist in many places. And equates GID with homosexuality. (GRRRRR) However it does say gays and lesbians make good diplomats or spies, so I won't go off the deep end about things. I don't think WB has room for this book as it stands though - delete. Mike.lifeguard 22:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is at least the third time (i think it might even be the fourth) that this book has been nominated for deletion, and every time i want to delete it, and everybody else doesn't. Let's hope that this time around we can actually evict this garbage. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'm almost sorry I attempted to help this once, every time I look at it it seems more hopeless. Mattb112885 (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - initially, I thought it was just the one page that was awful. However, upon further inspection, I see that most (if not all) of the book is horribly prone to generalisations in line with a specific moral viewpoint. POV, and likely some OR, possibly also some breach of copyright (e.g. references to images "on page [n]" suggest text copying). Webaware talk 09:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, The bias is really strong and inappropriate for a reference book. Jsdratm (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I understand the huge POV bias in violation of WB:NPOV, and I also strongly agree that the POV bias would require a massive effort to rewrite this content. But I find it incredibly disturbing that the participants here on Wikibooks are pushing here what appears to be a political bias of any kind, and this seems to be here at the moment a bias against conservative thought.  I'm not necessarily saying that POV edits should be permitted either, but the solution in nearly every instance I've seen with other Wikimedia projects and even here on Wikibooks was to resolve POV problems with cleaning up the content and editing out the POV bias.  Not deleteing the content. We have deleted books in the past because the topic itself (such as Nudism and White Heritage Society) was deemed so controversial that trying to make an NPOV book about that topic was considered impossible.  I'm wondering if the same argument is being made here about a book about relationships?  This boggles my mind here to think about that philosophy.  It also appears to be a really harsh personal attack here against one particular user and their political philosophies.  I have not seen problems with this Wikibook in terms of an edit war where two or more people are attacking each other and engaging in an edit war.... there just hasn't been any attempt at all to try and clean up the NPOV problems with editing at all.  A POV bias will end up in nearly any article/book/news story that is written by just one or a very few individuals, and that is something we need to deal with somehow here on Wikibooks.  Does this mean that we should delete content that has been written by just one or two individuals from all of Wikibooks, as a matter of general policy, when nobody is willing to help clean up NPOV concerns?  BTW, this is hardly the only Wikibook with this problem either. --Rob Horning 12:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's wrong to assume that we are deleting this book for any kind of political motivation. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum this book falls onto, it is still heavily biased towards a particular viewpoint. Beyond the politics, there are a number of comments and statements riddled throughout this book that smack of the immaturity of the "How to get a girl" book (a book which was eventually deleted, despite a persistent minority who insisted it was somehow valuable). What we arent talking about here is a book with minor POV flaws, we are talking about serious POV that would require a major rewrite. Combine this with a shortage of people willing to perform such a rewrite, and we are left with an outstanding policy violation. It would be different if somebody were willing to put in the work and effort to fix this book, but considering that this is the third VfD for this book, it seems to me that nobody is going to fix it. There are two options for a POV violation (or a policy violation of any kind): We can try to fix it, or we can delete it. Since the former option has been tried several times and been deemed unfeasable, the latter option is our only reasonable choice now. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't the 3rd VfD proposal for the book, but for the particular module about Sex. That particular module (mentioned directly here by Xania) may simply need to be deleted.  OK, I can live with that.  But either the Wiki concept works at all and eventually somebody comes and fixes it, or the whole concept of what we are doing should be abandoned.  I don't mind marking up the whole book full of ugly NPOV markup tags, and perhaps making them even more prominent, larger, and perhaps on each and every page of the book.  Make it very apparent that the Wikibooks community doesn't think this is something that follows the NPOV policies we have talked about, and if you want to help Wikibooks by either rewriting or simply replacing this book with something else would be strongly encouraged.  I'm suggesting that this is a dangerous precedent to delete a book just because several individuals here don't agree with the content.  I have seen some Wikibooks turn out much better on the rewrite when a full rewrite was proposed, however.  I would also strongly support that the printed version of this book (PDF form), if there are some grave POV concerns, be deleted.  Such a POV biased book should not be treated as a featured book or given even the attention a printed version often brings.  --Rob Horning 13:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The other nominations for deletion were started because of the problems with the sex page, but in every other nomination it was suggested with all seriousness (and considered appropriately) that the rest of the book be deleted as well. And each time the issue comes up, people say "but somebody will eventually come by and fix this, they just must". At the same time, however, the people who are voting "keep" are not chomping at the bit to actually do the work necessary to fix it. I mean it's all good to say "This book might be able to be fixed", it's another thing entirely to say "I'm going to fix this myself, right now, and I'll report back when I am done with the results". We don't have a surplus of editors around here, and the editors that we do have are busy working on worthwhile projects, and not trying to salvage every piece of garbage that gets by the gates. This book is a policy violation, history has demonstrated that it will not be fixed, and we need to consider that when we make our deletion decisions. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have to agree with Rob here with a caveat. If there are copyvios as Webaware suggests (and there is strong evidence that there is), those parts should be deleted post-haste.  I don't know where the "see page n" part is in this book, but if I did, I'd go there, paste some unique-ish looking text into Google and see what turns up.  I have found a lot of copyvios this way.  Copyvios aside, I think the rest of the book should be riddled with NPOV tags and then we should give the book time (a lot of time) for someone to adopt it and neutralize the POVs.  --Jomegat 14:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Far too much will need to be re-written if it were to adhere to WB:NPOV. DaGizza 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've made my arguments many times before. This really needs to go because it's had enough time to decompose now and with no new development to fix its massive flaws. -within focus 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I share Rob opinion also with Jomegat exception (copyvios must be dealt with). --Panic 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Terrible! The more I look at it, the worse it gets. To make it more accurate and NPOV would require a near-total rewrite. Also, it does look like a copyvio---see the first sentence in Relationships/How_Our_Ancestors_Lived: "If human existence were as long as two copies of this book, for all but the last page of the second book—10,000 years—humans lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers." Obviously, a wikibook doesn't have a static length, so it looks like it was copied. PurplePieman 04:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can't help but think that if the POV of the article was liberal or libertine, POV would not be an issue. This book has been excerpted in at least one place on the web, but I did not find any direct evidence of it being a copyright violation. The book is fairly extensively sourced for a Wikibook, and statements that it has not been improved since it was last listed for deletion are not true. The editing history demonstrates otherwise. It was last listed for deletion 3 months ago (not a year) and the VFD was initiated by the same individual that initiated it this time. I don't think it's good precedent to delete this book. Books should not be deleted for being US centric any more than they should be deleted for being UK centric, or Australia centric. POV should be fixed or specific POV sections removed. I disagree that the whole book would have to be completely rewritten to remove POV. -- xixtas talk 04:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - regarding the possible copyvio, it was largely a feeling I got whilst reading some of this book. Relationships/Monogamy and Polygamy was where I saw "see photo page 193". I Googled, but drew a blank. It may be simply referring to one of the footnoted citations, or it may be a text copy from a printed book (i.e. no on-line copy). Regarding Xixtas' comment above about the book being US-centric, that surprises me - I simply thought it sounded very POV, not realising that it was mainstream US POV. That aside, the "facts" in the book are heavy on the pseudo-science; I suspect there are factual errors, most likely because the POV of the authors demand it. If this book is not deleted, then there should be a concerted effort to tag all suspect "facts" for checking. I'm a computer geek, so I can't speak to the veracity of the book's citations, but I get the impression that the citations have largely been used to support a POV rather than present useful facts. Webaware talk 14:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that the POV issues and the fact that the book is US centric are two separate things. Facts are facts no matter where you live. The reason for deletion specifically lists that the book is US centric. I do not think this is a valid reason to delete a wikibook. One of the great things about Wikibooks is that there can be two different books intended for two different audiences. (One relationships book for Americans, another for Australians... why not?) Not everything has to be written for a world-wide audience like at Wikipedia. That is very disturbing that the book references a photo that doesn't exist in the text, but it is not proof of copyvio. It is simply proof that the book was originally written in a different format. If it was the same author who first wrote (see photo page 193) that uploaded this content to Wikibooks, then there is no copyvio. The writing is so unpolished that I can't imagine that this book has actually been published so I actually think the chance of it being a copyvio is slim. My main point is that not enough time has passed since the book last was up for RfD and there is nothing here that was not already discussed there. There have been contributions to the book since that discussion and the book is improving bit by bit. -- xixtas talk 20:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I missed something, Xixtas, but I only see mention of the book being US-centric in your posts. I agree that there is nothing wrong with having a country-specific textbook on Wikibooks, but I can't see where anyone but you has claimed that this is the perceived problem with Relationships.
 * Regarding facts, you are correct - facts are facts. However, this book presents things as facts, but they sound more like POV dressed up as facts and supported by carefully selected citations. I question how much of the book is like that. If this book survives the VfD, we should do as Jomegat suggests and riddle the book with NPOV tags, and I'd suggest also fact tags, then see if anyone fixes it. Webaware talk 01:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As for copyvio, I'm happy to back down on that. If we can't show that it is, then just ignore me - it was just something I got a feeling about when reading the book. Webaware talk 01:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The criticism about the book being US centric is at the top of the Relationships/Sex page. The last VfD was closed as keep only a month before this one was opened (with exactly the same justification by exactly the same Wikibookian.) -- xixtas talk 15:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought I must have been going blind(er)! I had read that page again, but had skipped over the tags to just read the content. cheers, Webaware talk 13:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The first page of the book Relationships/About This Book, says not many people bought the book Hearts and Minds so its being made available free as a Wikibook. The same page also states it includes their personal opinions. Better for Wikisource maybe? --dark lama  13:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good eyes. I had read that page, but never made it to the bottom. I think it falls under Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Analytical and artistic works, provided the author is going to license the text (which is obviously the case, although the publisher may be involved somehow - I'm not sure) and it can be verified that this book has been published (which I just did via Amazon). Mike.lifeguard 22:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The same logic could be used to say the FOSS Open Standards book should be moved to Wikisource. -- xixtas talk 00:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Except the FOSS Open Standards book isn't a terrible POV violation. Wikisource allows materials to be POV violations (so long as the material is uploaded and edited without bias). At wikibooks, we actually delete content if it doesnt fit policy. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Regarding copyright, http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Relationships/About_This_Book explains that I wrote "Hearts and Minds: How Our Brains Are Hardwired for Relationships." I own the copyright to the book I wrote, and I uploaded the book to Wikibooks with my permission.

Regarding the "Sex" chapter, looking at the edits history, I uploaded the chapter on October 2, 2006 (nine months ago). I count about 40 edits since then, by about 15 individuals, of whom Xania, Az1568, Archolman, Herbythyme, Mattb112885, and Remi0o stand out. 95% of what I wrote is gone, and 95% of what's in the "Sex" chapter now wasn't written by me. If you vote to delete the "Sex" chapter I won't be personally offended, as I didn't write what's in that chapter now. If that's your vote, then you should also propose a policy that Wikibooks can never have anything about sex. The "Sex" chapter was produced by 15 people over nine months. If the result isn't acceptable, then maybe Wikibooks should stick to books about C++ programming and not get into sticky subjects like sex.

(It's also ironic that the edits page suggests Xania is a primary author of the current "Sex" module, yet he/she wants to delete it.)

If you want my opinion about the "Sex" chapter, it's awful. It looks like it was written by a school board committee. The original chapter I wrote had good stuff in it, such as a recommendation to the only book with excellent information about birth control ("Our Bodies, Our Selves"); a study finding that when parents take a sex education class their children have less sexual activity (due to better communication about sex between parents and children); pages about how alcohol affects consent issues; Nevada's three rules for brothels that kept HIV infection at zero levels, as compared to Nevada's streetwalkers (who don't have rules enforced on them) being 6-10% HIV positive; and that nibbling your partner's sternocleidonastoid muscle can be overwhelmingly pleasurable for your partner (don't worry, the SCM goes between your ear and your collarbone).

I don't have time today to see how the rest of the book has changed since I uploaded it nine months ago. I'll try to look at it in the next week or so.

The rest of my comments are about the book I wrote, which may or may not be the same as the current "Relationships" Wikibook.

In the reviews of "Hearts and Minds" on Amazon each reader appears to have read a different book. I seem to have written a book that readers either love or hate, because they see in it support for their views about relationships, or attacks on their views about relationships. Yet what readers say is best or worst about the book often isn't in the book! For example, one Amazon reader complained that the book said that "women must wear short skirts with a slit." That's not in the book I wrote!

I see comments here saying that the book is "biased" or lacks a NPOV, yet few people articulate what the bias is. One person commented that the book promotes a "right-wing religious agenda." I've received complaints from other individuals that the book promoted liberal views such as homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and condom use! I'm happy to see that I've pissed off both right-wing and left-wing extremists. I suspect that half the commenters think it's liberal and half think it's conservative, half think it's pro-homosexual and half think it's anti-homosexual, half think it's pro-polygeny and half think it's anti-polygeny, etc. If so, then the book has a NPOV even though each individual thinks that it doesn't. Relationships in general and sex in particular is an emotionally charged area. It's impossible to write a relationships book that doesn't offend someone.

That the book is biased towards understanding women is true. A bisexual woman thanked me for writing the book, saying that it helped her understand women. She said that men are easy to understand, but dating women had always baffled her. Another bisexual woman said the same thing later. The first chapter of the book explains this (women are hardwired to seek two, opposite goals: the best genetic donor, i.e., men who are desired by many other women; and a single partner who'll make a long-term commitment, which often means that no other woman wants the guy).

The book has almost 400 references, largely to scientific textbooks and scientific journals. The book presents the scientific facts about male-female relationships. These facts are often little-known, unpopular, and controversial. That's why I wrote the book. --Thomas David Kehoe


 * Though I am not listed in your list of authors, the state of the /sex module is primarily my doing. I basically rewrote the whole thing in an effort to keep this book from being deleted and will happily admit that it is not my best work. I intend to improve it but it is (of necessity) not my highest priority at the moment. -- xixtas talk 17:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have intentionally not voted in this to allow me to close it and was reviewing it yesterday with that in mind. Reading and assessing the comments it did strike me that it was possible that this might be moved to Wikisource - as such I have emailed the author today along those lines.  Can I ask that no one else closes it for a few days or until a reply is received - thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 12:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From the Relationships/About This Book page, the author makes mention of the fact that this book was not previously published anywhere before. Wikisource does not accept self-published work, nor work that has never been previously published. We can ask the Wikisource people if they would make some kind of exception for this, but I doubt they will go for it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been published before: Amazon.com  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Amazon: "Publisher: Thomas David Kehoe; First edition (May 2003)" This means the book is self-published. -- xixtas talk 20:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then it hasn't a place here (not a textbook and massive POV violations) nor there (self-published). May I suggest Project Gutenberg since WB and WS aren't acceptable locations for this book?  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 20:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind - PG won't accept it either (self-published). Have we heard back from the author?  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 14:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)