Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Vegetarianism as Stewardship

Vegetarianism as Stewardship
Simple copyright violation of the eBook "Good News for All Creation: Vegetarianism as Christian Stewardship". A quick search of the site reveals no indication that the books are licenced under a GFDL-compatible licence. Uncle G 02:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * delete The e-book is a $10 item. It also feels inappropriate; it is a very one-sided political paper. I suspect that the original author would not take kindly to me correcting his massive NPOV problems. (we seem to get a lot of these copyright violations of political rants; see the item right above this one) AlbertCahalan 02:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * keep This item is offered by the authors freely on the Internet and is perfectly suitable to be modified substantially, which is what the authors explicitly hope for. As indicated, NPOV needs to be adjusted so that this can be a more "objective" work.  It is difficult to argue with the idea that "Vegetarianism represents stewarship" for a wide variety of religious and ethical traditions, so this should be explored and modified accordingly.  I have contacted the author and they said OK. bookeditor 13:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you have contact with the author, please get them to place a notice on their site that places the work under the GFDL or into the public domain. I really hate to be so suspicious, but after the Pokemon incident, one can't be too careful. Note that mere redistribution is not enough; we expect to edit the work on this wiki. AlbertCahalan 03:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * keep Keep, but only on the condition that it is not in violation of any copyrights. Further, I've said it before: POV issues in wikibooks are completely different than they are for wikipedia. Neither forms should have bias or false information or misleading half truths, but for something as interesting as a book it's suitable that a particular opinion is explored fully. In particular, notice how wikipedia reports opinions all the time, but only with respect to reporting other people's opinions? Well, those opinions come from source materials, including books. A nice slogan for my view would be "There's a place in wikibooks for both books on evolution and books on intelligent design. And it's ok if the books even disagree with each other." MShonle 01:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * (Even though it's an e-book for sale, does that mean the seller has the exlusive rights or not?)
 * Good question. I've seen free GPL software, including TuxPaint and PearPC, being offered for sale without the required GPL notice. So the seller might even be violating the law. AlbertCahalan 03:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'd love to know how both an Evolution book and an Intelligent Design book could survive without turning into identical Wikipedia-style pro-and-con lists or having one side crush the other in a brutal edit war. That's a bit like storing matter and anti-matter in the same box, isn't it? AlbertCahalan 03:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * One note: I really hate that wikipedia schizophrenic style of "some think X, but others think Y. And then others say that Y is not a problem because of Z." Given that, I think a book on intelligent design really shouldn't have a "critiques of ID" section, unless it was geared to address common concerns and is therefore something the ID writer wanted in there. I wouldn't want the Evolution book to be cluttered with ID mutterings, so I would just hope that when cross posts and attacks happen the writers would say "this isn't consistent with the POV this book assumes; you should put this material in the other book instead." The real purpose of taking a POV is just to make the book readable. I mean, I would hope that an evolution book could have a section that rips ID to shreds, but in no way would it need to be appologetic toward ID. MShonle 22:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to direct you to Policies and guidelines, where we have the one big difference between the 'books NPOV policy and the 'pedia policy. I think I'll quote verbatum.
 * modules should represent differing views on a subject fairly and within the context particular to the Wikibook's scope (in other words, if the scope of the Wikibook is the consensus view of physics, then non-mainstream views on this subject are almost always irrelevant; but competing mainstream views can and should be presented).
 * Thus, if the book in question is about evolutionary biology, the editors do not have to provide the creationists equal time, and don't even have to mention creationism, really. However, the creationists are free to write their own wikibook that doesn't mention evolutionary biology, either. Gentgeen 07:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! To be sure, I was getting at your final point exactly. The best way to resolve these irreconcilable debates is to just have different books present the different POVs (and that should not preclude an NPOV book from existing along with them). The point is that if every interesting statement had to be qualified and given counter points and counter-counter-points it would be so impossible to read that no one would be interested. Thus, POV isn't even an issue when discussing the merits of a book specifically about vegetarianism: The meat eaters can write their own books. Similarly, I hope the Intelligent Design people write their own books so as not to cloud an interesting book on Evolution. So, I would hope never to see an Intelligent Design book up for deletion just because an Evolutionist doesn't like it. MShonle 01:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that User:Bookeditor still has not responded to my request that the original author post a note about GFDL licensing on the original site. AlbertCahalan 23:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)