Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Relationships (2)

Relationships
I am aware that this book, and its module Relationships/Sex have survived 1, 2, 3, requests for deletion in the past. This book does not satisfy NPOV policy. One look at the Category:NPOV disputes speaks volumes about the content of this book.

Everything from the basic structure of the book to the content breathes sexist, heterosexist, and pseudo-scientific opinions. Content is tangled with rude or misogynist anecdotes. It is offensive, and it is un-salvageable. I strongly believe it should be deleted. --Thereen (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * All 3 past nominations were based on NPOV issues and failed. POV alone is usually not enough reason to delete because with heavy edited it can be improved. Do you have anything new to add which hasn't already been thoroughly discussed before? I propose speedy keeping this if not. --dark lama  16:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The theory behind not deleting a POV book is that just because it's POV now doesn't mean it has to stay that way. That's a healthy attitude to take in most cases, but it breaks down when there's reason to think that the material cannot possibly ever be transformed into something NPOV.  I agree this is unsalvagable; and we do have objective evidence to support this that was not available to those who failed to reach consensus on the earlier book deletion nom: we have the lack of repair during the ensuing three plus years.  The problem is, as Thereen mentions, structural.  Symptomatically (as well as contributively), the About This Book section is focused on the author, is written in the first person, is signed, and promotes a view of the book as fixed except for formatting &mdash; all violating the meta-principle of collaborativity.  It claims, note, that this was a published book that wasn't very successful and "[m]any people were extremely offended by", whose author decided to make it available "free as a Wikibook".  Hearts and Minds: How Our Brains Are Hardwired for Relationships.  Speaking of which,
 * Symbol question.svg Question I don't deal with copyright issues much, but is there confirmation that the registered user involved really is the author of the published book, so that the whole thing isn't one massive copyvio? It seems pretty weird to make it a wikibook and then charge fifteen bucks to get it on Kindle (though that doesn't mean it wasn't done, of course).
 * --Pi zero (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyright issues were discussed previously as well. Apparently the person that started the book here is also listed as the publisher at Amazon for the book. AFAIK the names being the same was the only confirmation that I know of that was done. I previously proposed moving this book to Wikisource as a solution upon that discovery. People believed Wikisource policy wouldn't allow its inclusion due to being self-published, though I wonder if that wasn't a stretch or misinterpretation of their policy. I would assume Wikisource policy was meant to exclude using Wikisource as a means to self publish rather than to exclude works that have already been published by a person. I do acknowledge this would likely mean any contributions to the book since being added to Wikibooks could not be kept. --dark lama  18:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now edited the About This Book page to deal with the first-person perspective issue, the sense that the book is fixed, and the tone to be a bit more neutral. I think that should serve as a good example illustrating how the POV issues could be fixed by anyone at any time. --dark lama  19:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The more I think about the copyright situation here, the worse it seems. The sentiment in the previous discussion, I read as "well, we can't prove it's a copyvio" &mdash; but the registered user who originally wrote it claimed that it's the same as the published book, and I think we should be taking xyr word as our default position on the sameness of the books.  And if the books are the same, our default position on copyright has to be that it's a copyvio unless we have better proof of permission than the contributor's choice of user name and unsubstantiated claim of identity.


 * I noticed a flub in your rewrite of the "About" section: all four parts of the book are from the published version.  I'd had trouble being sure about that when I read the "About" myself, so I checked the Amazon page for the print book &mdash; and there, in a customer review, is the complete list of parts and chapters of the book as it occurs on Wikibooks.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The attitude about copyright could possibility have to do with the fact that there is an wikimedia essay that advices to avoid copyright paranoia. Maybe you (or someone else) can find a way to get in contact with Thomas David Kehoe to get the concern addressed? --dark lama  22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * - Under WIW,  "Wikibooks is not a mirror or a text repository" seems to sum up another important point about this wikibook. The original author dumped this sexist work into Wikibooks because few people bought it, and most were offended by its content. This is the authors own statement. Does wikibooks need this work? Does wikibooks as a community want to accept work which is admittedly offensive? The standard counter to an NPOV-centred RfD is that it may be dealt with down the line, in some unforeseeable future. As a person who went through the Relationships book with the intention to deal with the POV issues, I can say that the book itself is an NPOV issue. Every page. The structure. The anecdotes. If I was to sort out the NPOV issues entirely, I would be starting from scratch. Deleting the book would make more sense than taking out 95% of the content, renaming most of the pages, and entirely refocusing the book. --Thereen (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Under certain circumstances Wikibooks can be a mirror and it is certainly a text repository (it all depends on the educational value of the text and the context). I really think that you are removing the WIW wording out of its intended context.
 * I think Darklama's views are to the point and that this RfD is without merit if it only centered on the NPOV rational and any of the already previously discussed issues. Nothing seems to have changed.
 * I would on the other hand support a move to Wikisource, as proposed by Darklama, (that would result in losing any changes made to the original text so far) and would support anyone taking the context to create a better book, but that is not on the table and goes beyond simply deleting content. NPOV issues aren't resolved by deletions but by content that provides a balanced or neutral view point over the issues. --Panic (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Arguments that this book isn't NPOV, both now and in the past, seem to be based on personal beliefs rather than objectivity. I think it is important to remember that NPOV and verifiability are linked. Wikibookians should attempt to teach/explain facts objectively without including their own opinions or commentary, and should cite sources for any viewpoints expressed. This book cites sources, which means to begin with there are a few possible objective questions to answer:


 * Q: Are the cited sources reliable?
 * Q: Were the sources accurately cited?
 * Q: Was the citations complete?
 * Q: Are there any other major opinions in the field? (cite sources)


 * I suggest before continuing down the line that this book in its entirety isn't NPOV, people must verify the answers to the above questions, and cite sources for other major opinions in the field to prove lack of NPOV. Facts are not always politically correct, neutral, covenant, or non-controversial, nor are facts required to be so. If for example a fact is controversial in the field than a book should explain this and cite a reliable source that mentions that the fact is controversial. Removing reliable and verified citations can actually bias a book further. --dark lama  13:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * When a text is POV, the people most likely to notice that it's POV are those who disagree most strongly with that POV; likewise, the people most likely to object to its being POV. If you only listen to objections of POV from people who agree, you would conclude that FOX News is fair and balanced.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't expect people to agree, and I agree with you. My only hope, like you above, is to rely/expect objective reasoning and evidence to be used. We don't allow people to include their personal opinions in books just because they happen to disagree, we expect people to cite sources. We should also expect people to cite sources if they are going to use lack of NPOV as the main argument for deletion in order to keep discussion objective and productive. --dark lama  14:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we should (on Wikibooks) rely heavily in sources (and that hasn't been done so far, but I have noted that you defended that they should have a greater importance also in previous discussion, hence this counterbalancing post).
 * We, the community, have already established that this is necessarily a gray zone of the Wikibooks project in regards to original ideas, sources are important, but unlike Wikipedia, here they are not an end on themselves as to establish validity to the content. We do support "personal" interpretation (and some times projects focus exclusively on that), what we should focus is on permitting divergent opinions to be constructively expressed and enable, even promote, people to use critical thinking over the information presented and to express it freely, protecting works that have violations of the NPOV from deletion. This is a necessity due to the project relying on volunteer work. People will mostly only contribute content that they see as valid, even if others find it erroneous or skewed, this is why NPOV issues arise and a consideration that should be kept in mind when discussing the subject. Sources (among other factors, like even a prof of credentials) may be important to establish a valid common ground, but some leeway must be provided if we intend on keeping contributors, as every one has its own special view or opinion on a multitude of subjects. Minority opinions are extremely important and educative, we can even say that a NPOV violation issue in itself is educative as it demonstrate, even if sometimes in an uncomfortable way, that not everyone sees the issue in the same light and that may permit to have more valuable and abrangent content. --Panic (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Though I resent the idea that keeping a 'minority opinion' that expounds sexist and and relies on stereotypes because it is educational (in fact, my feminist bias says it's counter-educational), I would definitely support a transwiki to Wikisource with it's original content intact. That does seem to be the most logical solution. Also, as a note to Panic, with the utmost respect, I do not believe I am using WIW out of its intended context, as it can be manipulated in what one would perceive as the educational value of the text. I would consider it to have none.--Thereen (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned removing content solely on the basis of the potential to offend would set a bad precedent that we shouldn't want. What researchers learn from doing research can sometimes be offensive, or sound sexist, racist, etc. What is learned from sampling of research subjects is often generalized and statistics used to explain what percentage of or group of people in a populations are likely to fit into a specific classification. People should be able to refer to and cite peer reviewed research where that is the case in books at Wikibooks regardless if it may offend some people or sounds sexist, racist, etc. as part of any objective coverage of a topic. If there are other peer reviewed studies that found different results I think those results should be included too. I'm aware of studies where I personally find the results offensive, but I still think people should be able to cite them because it is what is currently known. BTW I'm against deletion, if Wikisource won't accept it. --dark lama  18:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Opinions or bias only have problems when used to oppose, suppress or disregard alternative views, I don't see any other way that acknowledging the existence of minority opinions, especially if they aren't conventional, as beneficial and educative, the only alternative would be dismissal and suppression, in Wikibooks that can only occur by exerting editorial control or by the deletion of content, and that will always, in general terms, be objected to. Even if most of us at one time or another recognized or even supported silently or by inaction those actions, as I said is in our nature to act mostly on self interest, hence the need for protecting works that are tagged as NPOV violations, of course within reason...
 * I recall editing some of the pages on that work and there is indeed a post of mine on the book's talk page. I remember preventing the exacerbation of some o the sexist views and contributing some small content to it. I'm also a feminist, but I'm also a realist. Feminism to the extreme erodes and challenges the structures of society, with hopefully short term negative impact, it even contradicts biological imperatives and the evolutionary specification of the sexes, and in that respect I also have to state that I view most societies as flawed, unsustainable artificial social structures, that have imperatively to continue evolving as to be beneficent. In any case I have no bias (that word can have a broad interpretation) on the subject and do recognize that other views exist, that the subject is not black and white. One shouldn't intentionally or with awareness skew information to promote a view point or go out exclusively to promote it as the absolute truth by suppressing different view points. Have you contributed to the work, engaged its contributors before promoting the deletion?
 * My opinion is that any view point can only be defended if contrasted with an alternative, that this contrast is what is intended by providing a NPOV. In fact in this subject I also defend that a specific point of view could be implemented, to the exclusion of others, if clearly stated as part of the subject of a work (as a way to inform readers and contributors), in some regards this is already done in several works as a way to define what and how a subject should be covered.
 * Taking for instance the most objected page Relationships/Sex I see some minor issues but I would define it as having intrinsic educational value. --Panic (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comments have nothing to do with what was actually written. I never suggested anything about a heavy reliance on sources. Interpretations are different from opinions. WB:NPOV mentions that NPOV is not necessary all encompassing, that non-mainstream views are almost always irrelevant, and there is a limit to what POVs are worth mentioning. I suggest the idea that minority opinions must be included/covered in our books might almost always go against NPOV. I think what is a minority opinion depends on the subject, scope, and audience. --dark lama  17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your wording could be (and I have) interpreted that way, that is why I have seen the need to provide a counterbalance, since this was not the first time I've read your position as promoting a heavier reliance upon sources on the Wikibooks project, am sorry if I got your position wrong and glad you made it clearer.
 * I also am having difficulty in understanding the last section of the above post, because of the use of the word "must", did you mean "if"? or are you supporting the need for an imperative inclusion. I agree they may be included and should be welcomed, but not as an obligation and disagree that by doing so "might almost always go against NPOV", except in controversial issues, especially in relation to contemporaneous subjects (we had several issue regarding politics and prominent figures), it also depends on the level of activity on the work, doing so doesn't directly signify increasing tensions and conflicts and are beneficial to permit complete coverage of the subjects. (See also the above post on defining a specific view point on a book's subject).  --Panic (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No I'm not suggesting a need for an imperative inclusion. I interpreted what you wrote as there being a need for an imperative inclusion of minority views. I consider an imperative to include minority views to almost always go against NPOV and to contradict NPOV. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  21:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)