Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Relationships/Sex (2)

Relationships/Sex
I'm nominating this page as it's been listed as NPOV for some time and it's shockingly biased and in many parts lacking sources. It reads like a pamphlet produced by the United States Republican party or some kind of right-wing Christian group. The 'advice' about not dating drug users is without any suitable sources and this book seems to be encouraging abstinence which, again, seems to be US policy in recent years and completely based on religious belief. It might also be racist as it seems to employ that black people are more likely to carry STDs. In short, this module is terrible. This nomination should also be considered to be my supporting vote. Xania talk 22:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, even though I agree with Xania for the most part. Yes, there is a POV bias and some lacking in references.  So what?  What actual Wikibooks policy is being violated here?  When put into the greater context of the Relationships Wikibook, it seems to be a much more realistic topic that should go with that book.  And Wikibooks is not censored for minors.  If you disagree with the POV, fix it.  There are other modules in this Wikibook which are of nearly the same quality and would also justify a POV dispute.  There is no need to single this particular module out of the whole book, nor a reason to delete it when you can simply edit out the content you find objectionable (but assuming good faith on the part of the original contributor).  This is clearly something in book form and can be used (in theory) as a textbook for a legitimate university-level course. --Rob Horning 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - If you need a policy reference to delete, WB:WIW is one. This reads like someone's personal essay on sex and by looking at the history I can see that one user formed almost all of its content. There's a big difference between a page with some POV to be fixed and tweaked later and an advocacy essay. If I had more time I would inspect the rest of the book to see if it is as similarly biased and we may want to expand this VfD to the whole book if the rest of it is this bad. If the rest of the book is so similarly written as Rob suggests, then I would say that WB:WIW might also be violated since User:Tdkehoe really wrote this entire book and we shouldn't host his/her original research and stance on relationships, one that is extremely biased by the looks of this one page. I realize that there are numerous citations throughout the pages, but a biased article can be created easily when all the sources you select agree with you, something that can be found without much difficulty using modern research tools. This page would need to be emptied to get the POV out of it and also reminds me of a pamphlet a religious group would give out. This page has gone way too far and can be re-created properly after deletion should we choose not to delete the entire book. Furthermore, I would lose a great deal of respect for a university that chose to use this text. I don't think you can say this essay is very academic even with its references. Politics uses this writing style, not the field of psychology. -within focus 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as being used in a university setting, I've actually had textbooks on human relationships and sexuality with a much stronger POV bias than this one both in my high school and at a university. I understand your concern about the NPOV here, but does it rise to a level of deleting an entire Wikibook, when the NPOV bias was the only justification for its removal?  I do think this VfD ought to be about the whole book and not just this module if that is the case.  Typically NPOV bias is not used as rationale for simply deleting content but as a motivation for editing.  And I do think this book is something that could be written in an NPOV fashion.
 * I guess this also seems to suggest to me a sort of attitude of "I don't like the POV of this Wikibooks contributor, and therefore we need to kick him off this project". --Rob Horning 15:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We can extend this VfD to the entire book then. Adding POV that is as extreme as this cripples a book. Correction requires removal of content almost entirely and takes significantly more effort than just creating the book properly from the beginning again. We can go in and rip out all the POV but that's essentially deleting the pages and takes more time. You assume bad faith when you suggest such things to yourself as well since I could care less about the main editor's personal POV. What I do care about is that user writing a book here comprised solely of his/her POV and not a collective stance, something explicitly forbidden here. This user can come in and work on the new book as long as he/she works on it with an NPOV stance. -within focus 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the assumption of bad faith here is on the part of the person who actually wrote this stuff in the first place. By focusing on out right dismissal of the content of this page as a violation of NPOV principles, and not attempting to educate the contributors on what NPOV standards actually mean but instead simply taking the easy road and just deleting the content, we have taken a legitimate attempt at writing a book and telling this person to go away, we don't need him here on Wikibooks.  This is not assuming good faith at all.  And yes, by you saying that this needs to be deleted is indeed saying that you have a strong objection to his POV.  I think you care about this particular editor's POV because you wouldn't be willing to take such drastic action if you didn't.  By deleting this whole Wikibook (and the same arguments can be applied to all of the rest of the modules in this book), you are saying that nearly all of the contributions of this user are meaningless and without any value at all.  --Rob Horning 15:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You've extremely overreacted to what I said and made it some huge issue. Calm down please. No one is telling this person to go away and that user has edited several other books without issue. Let's not generalize this user's entire world of Wikibooks to a single VFD discussion because he/she has worked on many other projects. Deleting a page or book will say the same thing as ripping 99% of it out and re-writing it. I'm not labeling your solution with such ridiculous terms, so don't label mine. Once again, you have no concept of my personal opinions on this user's POV. Deleting a socialist or liberal POV work is the same as deleting whatever we want to label this more conservative work as. We've deleted other radically biased works here before. Again, this user worked on other projects here and has plenty of other pages to work on. You've turned this thread of discussion into discussing me and not the work anymore, so like several other times in the past I will no longer be responding to your incorrect assumptions. -within focus 17:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page was previously nominated for deletion, a motion that failed to acheive concensus. I was in favor of deletion then, and I am in favor of deletion still. The section about AIDS is particularly appalling. There are almost no mentions of using birth control or condoms, except stating statistics where these methods fail as a demonstration of the relative success of abstinence methods. No serious book on sexual practices, unless it is motivated by particular bias, is going to ignore contraception and prophylactics. By comparison, the Sexual Health goes into detailed instructions about how to properly use birth control and condoms, and explains that proper use of these methods can help to prevent STDs or unwanted pregnancies. Sexual Health also has a long, respectful page about abstinence as well, so I dont want to hear people say that it is similarly but oppositely biased from the Relationships book on the subject. Here are some quotes that I found to be particularly disturbing: "Stereotypically, a woman wants to find her knight in shining armor who'll make her life perfect in every way" (implying that women are subservient, or are dependant on men for happiness), "There are a number of mechanical devices that increase sexual arousal in women. Among these is the Mercedes-Benz 500SL" (implying that women are attracted to wealth), "the BDSM lifestyle ... encourages some dysfunctional behaviors" (implying that BDSM partners are dysfunctional), "If you have unprotected sex once with an HIV+ partner, you have about a one in 500 chance of infection" (implying that contracting AIDS is based on luck, or chance), "women are seen as victims and men are seen as offenders when unwanted intimacy occurs. Although the following paragraphs maintain this gender bias..." (further propagating this myth), and there are a million more. To fix all the NPOV violations in this page would require the current text to be almost removed entirely. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep with extensive rewrite. A book on relationships would be remiss without a chapter on sex. The NPOV problems, although numerous, can be fixed. All the arguments for deletion are over content, not whether or not Wikibooks should have a chapter on sex in the Relationships book. Therefore, it should be labelled with an "NPOV" or "neutrality disputed" tag, not deleted. PurplePieman 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is useful and sourced material included. POV can be edited. We have decided to keep books that exhibit strong and debatable POV with far less substantiation than this in the past. -- xixtas  talk 04:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep yup problems on the POV and lacking references but has good content. --Panic 17:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I refuse to close this as keep (although this may well be the consensus) given the really very poor POV as Xania's original comments. Equally the keep votes (virtually) depend on it being rewritten & from past experience here that is quite unlikely to happen before some of us have shuffled off this world! If nothing else happens (a rewrite, another person closing it?) I think I will close as delete given the fact that it is very unlikely to be rewritten -- Herby  talk thyme 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I tried to say above, I think any such decision to keep or delete this module should also apply to this whole Wikibook. Nearly every module in this book has similar POV problems, and I think it is misguided to delete just this one module on these arguments alone, if the rest of the book is going to come back here to this VfD page again.  --Rob Horning 15:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Textbook? No. Kellen T 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless some poor sod wants to do a rewrite--Dick 23:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ive attempted to start a rewrite of this thing, I think it's a lot better than it was, still could use a lot of work but I'm not really sure what the scope of the page is supposed to be... but if it's not enough that's fine by me. I'll stay neutral on this one for now. Mattb112885 (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Including the nomination there appeared to be 5 votes for deletion and only 4 against yet it's been closed as 'keep'. I do agree though that recent changes have improved the article so I'll keep quite for now. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 12:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talk page but it is not about numerical votes AND the article has been edited constructively in the time in VfD -- Herby talk thyme 12:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Community Concensus" requires more then 5 votes out of 9. Concensus favors the status quo, so the burden is on those who vote to delete to make that case that this page should be deleted. Apparently, we did not make that case convincingly, and so the page stays. To get a page deleted, we should expect an overwhelming majority of people to agree on it, or for the page to be such a blatant violation of policy that it qualifies as a speedy. I wanted the page to be deleted, but I agree that there was no concensus for that action. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to where that definition is written and approved ? Or the rational you are using for thing like "overwhelming majority". txs.
 * Nevertheless and not that is considered important, I agree with your final interpretation of the wish of the community. (this is no attempt to bait you into any further discussion on the subject just another request for clarification and validation to see if I finally understand something that still escapes me)
 * From Deletion_policy (active), "After one week, if the voters have mostly reached a consensus about what to do, the appropriate action will be taken by an administrator. If not the voting may continue until a consensus is reached.", the keyword to validate your assessment is the word "mostly" but no clear ratio is defined or can invoked.
 * Mostly may be 51%, but I think it deals with no active block to the decission. (one may be against but not willing to block it) --Panic 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I take also the chance to point out that the word "mostly" isn't at this time included on the Deletion policy/Unstable version of the policy. --Panic 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WB:DP states that in VfD, "...reaching consensus should occur according to the decision-making policy" (it should likely be changed to say "guideline" instead of "policy"). Going to the decision making page, we see:
 * Ultimately the state of "community consensus" involves the vast majority of users agreeing on some decision.
 * The decision making page also says:
 * Wikibooks is not a democracy, and a simple voter majority is not the default, nor the recommended method of deciding any discussion.
 * This second quote shows that a 51% voter majority does not win a discussion. Even a discussion with a 75% majority after a straw poll should not be called in favor of the majority, unless perhaps there were only 4 people voting, and the dissenting vote isn't particularly strong. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree, these seems to be very contradictory and it lets much left to interpretation, but at least some factors must be considered it is indeed a guideline as such not enforcible (it expresses an intention or interpretation and was not fit by the involved on the voting to be made a policy, taking in attention that the voters are a minority actively expressing what they perceive to be the will of the community), it should indeed be taken in consideration but can't validate any decission (I have also taken in consideration the archived discussions and the still standing posts that target this particular problem). So, taking all that was written the single and common ground must be the general definition of consensus and that doesn't support any vote by majority, (laking a local redefinition of the term) that seems not to be the intention of the users discussing it. (even some expressing direct opposition to it)
 * The standing VfD policy goes even further and expressly states the normal interpretation of consensus (and it is a policy).
 * So in this my point is reinforced barring any historical facts, what was the default ? how it was previously or in the beginning ? how is it on another Wikimedia projects ?
 * I even see it as dangerous (to the evolution and representation of the community), the the wording used from "Wikibooks is not a democracy, and a simple voter majority is not the default, nor the recommended method of deciding any discussion." (that I interpret as don't give voice to a user blocking a decission in bad faith) to vast majority (75% my interpretation) to "overwhelming majority" (85% my interpretation) to "Mostly" (51% my interpretation), taking in consideration our previous talks/events about this subject numbers of voters don't get any consistent application to the decisions and aren't particularly mentioned on the texts. Since you have [stated previously] some point that give enforcible value to a guideline (against a policy that states the contrary) or make 3 users ultimately responsible for the decission of what constitute abuse of the process of decission I think this is a question of major importance since we don't have a policy on the subject at the moment.
 * (I request that anyone that can provide answers to my questions to post them on my talk page)
 * Ok I think we shouldn't continue to debate it until more facts are presented, hope you agree with the assessment that a guideline can't be used to base the decission process. (that would be a different subject) --Panic 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-opened. Frankly I cannot be bothered dealing with this. I have not got the time nor the inclination to deal with this -- Herby talk thyme 08:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * reset
 * 1) Closing VfD does not depend on the numerical votes but on argument as well
 * 2) The article was improved during the time in VfD (thanks to you both)
 * 3) There is a presumption to "keep" if the article is not actually outside scope
 * 4) This is not the place for discussion of VfD policy - it should be elsewhere


 * Sorry we weren't directly discussing VfD (actually we are but on that module talkpage), it was only a request for information fallowed by some commenting and sharing information about the statement made about consensus and voting in general with direct implications on the VfD, I could have made my comment on the user talk page but this would prevent others to fallow the discussion that is of general importance. Anyway improved articles are always a good thing... --Panic 08:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Herby, your closure of this VfD was made in good faith, and neccessitated a judgement call from somebody "in authority" and having a neutral bias to this. I think you fit the bill here, and it is unfortunate that your judgement was questioned.  I do think that this discussion has run its course, although it should be noted that the decision did have a very split opinion on the topic.  In this case we should try to follow WB:DP that says "When in doubt, don't delete."
 * This module certainly can (together with the whole book) be renominated again, and with a split decision like this you can't bring up a strong case like "it survived a VfD... therefore keep". Since I've already voiced my strong opinions on this module, I will not remove it from here, but I hope that others like Herby aren't discouraged from closing VfDs like this... and making a decision which goes against the raw vote count.  --Rob Horning 18:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody really questioned the motivation to keep the module, I think that there are some people who simply don't understand the method of consensus-driven decision making. I'm not sure how many times we need to say "consensus is neither 100% agreement nor 51% majority" before people understand. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup I clearly stated on my first post that I agreed with the decission, I just can not let pass incorrect information on the decission process anymore, 100% agreement == unanimity, anything that gets any opposing vote is not consensus (like 51%), it is called a vote by majority. Consensus means no active objection, it means people may disagree but may chose to let the decission proceed, consensus means the ability to end a discussion without disregarding anyone's opinion.  --Panic 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, consensus is not the same thing as unanimity. I think that this is self-evident to native speakers of English and I find your insistence that only your idiosyncratic definition of the word is correct to be baffling. Web Definitions of Consensus -- xixtas  talk 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)