Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/White Heritage Security

White Heritage Security
Quotes:

"Whites may need to create a separate nation to defend themselves from racial destruction by racial mixing."

"Other races exploit the white race in a number of ways to their detriment."

That's an essence of pure racism! The same sentences could have been written in Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. The book in this form is nasi propaganda. I don't think that any book with such title (white heritage? Ku Klux Klan?) should be tollerated. --Derbeth 19:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC) - This very sentence should eliminate this book from the project. Datrio 09:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * yes this is rasism this is a non neutral book... if theses things needs to be exposed they sould take another form: taking as example mein kamph: itcan be explained trough the autor logic and thoat BUT needs to be replaced in the actual context in order to be neutral,to relativise what hitler says White Supremacy needs to be EXPOSED as RACISM and the TRUTH needs to be REVEALED - If this page serves to do that - then it is VITAL
 * Dude, who doesn't know it is racism? Some may not care of course, but it's not as if this is some dirty little secret that people are unaware of! Now, if you want to expose racism and reveal truth, you can discuss university admissions and financial aid policies that are quite severely racist. Then there's how US Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas got treated for not fitting a stereotype. US government contracts are racist too. AlbertCahalan 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As much as i hate to say it, i don't think that this book has broken any policy yet. We might all not like this book, but if we delete it without citing a clear violation of policy, we are simply inviting a huge freedom-of-speach war that could hurt wikibooks in general. This book is very careful to say that white nationalists are not necessarily violent towards other races, and until this book does step over the line, we shouldnt touch it. Of course, if this book starts to get more blantantly racist, or if it sparks a huge flame war, perhaps we should consider canning it. --Whiteknight T C E 22:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wikibooks should serve as propaganda tube (even for right purpose). I see Wikibooks mission as helping people learn new things, not convincing them to this or that idea. --Derbeth 22:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What it should serve as, and what it is are two different things. Wikibooks is a site devoted to the public creation of books, written by the public to help inform the public. Whether we like it or not, there are people out there who want to learn about these subjects, and people who are willing to teach it. Also, hard as it may be to beleive, there are places in this world where separating races to prevent "mixing" is considered common sense. If we stand up on our soapbox and state that this book is in violation of the NPOV clause because it violates our point of view on racism, then we are no better then the book itself. If we delete any books that pose a moral controversy, on the grounds that those books go against the general point of view, then books on evolution would be deleted, along with books on dozens of other topics. I'm sure the amish would like us to remove any books that express the benefit of electricity, as well as many enlightened people would like us to remove books that express an antiquated notion of race. However, based on our dislike alone, i cannot justify deleting this book. --Whiteknight T C E 04:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates NPOV. A book describing the movement would be fine, but this is just propaganda.  --Gabe Sechan 23:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only does this violate the enforced policy of having all modules with a neutral point of view, but it is also clearly a soapbox political discussion conveying personal opinions as well. This books has a blatant racist tone and clearly violates these and other policies.  In theory I think you might be able to create a Wikipedia article about the topic using a NPOV philosophy, but this is not a real attempt to explore in a scholarly sense the concept and is instead racist tripe.  This is also not an attempt to try and create a real book but instead is also a fork of the Wikipedia article and a poorly written version at that.  This is not an attempt to write a real book, which is much harder than an encyclopedic article.  To finally top it off, this module  has a copyright violation that forces us to kill the page.  Is that enough reasons to delete?  Can there be more problems with any module added to Wikibooks? --Rob Horning 01:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep For the reasons I expressed above. I qualify that with the statement that my vote is extremely tentative, because i am well aware that this book could crash and burn like the flaming pile of shizzat that it is. However, I will temporarily extend it the benefit of the doubt that it will provide some benefit to potential readers, and carefully skirt the NPOV clause and the politics clause. --Whiteknight T C E 04:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion policy: A page must be "on the system for more than one week" to be eligible for VFD. White Heritage Security is two days old, being created on 4 November. This is the only reason for my "Keep" vote. --Kernigh 05:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as a copyright violation. --Kernigh 22:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, or even Speedy - although I'm not a frequent visitor to Wikibooks, I just had to sign here. This is racism. If the book would be called in a different way and it would focus on, for example, White-Black racism wars, written from NPOV - I'd be really happy to let it stay. But what the HELL, White Heritage Security?
 * "Whites may need to create a separate nation to defend themselves from racial destruction by racial mixing."
 * Delete I agree that no book with such title should exist at Wikibooks. Plus previous issues (copyvio, absolutely not-NPOV). --Derbeth 09:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment There is an interesting preface on the book now that I think everybody here should read. It may not change your mind on the vote, however. --Whiteknight T C E 17:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is very interesting. It lists four other books that are equally deserving of deletion: Making an Island, Christianity, Islam, and Feminism. Anybody want to brave the political correctness police by listing them here as well? AlbertCahalan 18:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Making an Island had a vfd for not being a book at one point. It won.  It also seems to have improved- I see no broken policies here.  Feminism seems to actually follow NPOV fairly well, for the first 3 sections I read.  A fairly straight forward history of the movement, little to no rhetoric about it. Christianity looks like it has some problems.  The giant list of prophecies fullfilled on the first page, for example, is higly POV.  Mianly in how its passed off-  these are true, rather than Christians believe these to be true.  I for one think it should be reworked to fit guidelines.  I'd rather see it reworked than deleted, however.  I'd give this book the same benefit of the doubt, but I don't see it happening.  --Gabe Sechan 19:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This has already been brought up on the talk page, and I think this issue should be taken there instead. GarrettTalk 21:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - While in general I support the idea that a VfD discussion is out of order for a brand-new Wikibook, in this case it is being created by a long-time Wikimedia user who really should know better than to stir up the pot like this. You can look in the history section of this Wikibook to see who I am talking about.  Although it isn't formal "policy" on Wikibooks, I do in general advocate giving new Wikibooks a chance to see if they can conform to general guidelines before the VfD discussion even takes place.  Things happen at such a snails pace on Wikibooks as it is that you need to be quite a bit more patient than comparable issues on Wikipedia.  This has to do with the nature of this project.  I'm willing to wait and see what may become of this Wikibook, but as I put down on the talk page before the VfD, I'm keeping a close eye on what will happen here.  Based on the policy violations alone, this Wikibook is worthy of a speedy delete if but for the fact it is a brand new Wikibook.  That is the only reason I have not gone in and deleted it myself yet.  --Rob Horning 01:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates NPOV.
 * Delete - at the moment I am unconvinced that this book can maintain NPOV. GarrettTalk 07:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't believe in NPOV, never have and never will. NPOV is a POMO idea and POMO is an ideology by idiots for idiots (as well as 'to' 'from' and any other article you can think of). POMO is a viciously destructive self-contradictory set of beliefs held seriously only by Americans because they've been propagandized into ignorance of the last two centuries of progress in moral philosophy and human rights theory. POMO is barely more credible than Behaviourism which is not much more credible than Ayn Rand's Objectivism. POMO is the very bottom of the academic and intellectual barrel. I vote to delete this racist piece of shite because it promotes mindsets that invariably lead to blatant violations of human rights. Oh, and I also believe in justice above the law, so I really don't care what policy has to say about this issue. If the book doesn't violate policy then it's obviously time to change policy. And for the witless fools who will brainlessly cry Censorship Censorship, I will point out that NPOV is a censorship policy and one that violates the mission of wikibooks. Despite what POMO zealots would like to believe, truth and reality embed value judgements (as any serious philosopher or historian of science will be able to tell you) and so to censor value judgements is to censor truth and suppress the dissemination of facts. NPOV is a censorship policy and a pretty heinous one at that. Finally, I will also point out that NPOV, the policy of wikipedia, only works on wikipedia because its mission is to strengthen the dominion of orthodox beliefs over dissident viewpoints. The role of wikipedia isn't to actually educate people, which implies a notion of progress, but to preserve cultural hegemony, to inculcate people into the dominant mainstream culture. That cannot be the mission of wikibooks. 24.200.176.92 07:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The Neutral Point of View is nothing to do with censorship, and is a foundation issue that is global to all Wikimedia Foundation projects (including Wikibooks) and non-negotiable. Editors who do not want to be subject to the Neutral Point of View policy will have to find wikis that are not run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Uncle G 15:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * NPOV is all about censorship and anti-education, this is a provable fact with plenty of citeable examples and not a mere article of faith, ideology or propagandistic belief supported by endless repetition and brainless chanting like your own position. And I really don't give a damn whether NPOV is or is not a foundation issue since I don't possess the bootlicking gene everyone else seems to enjoy expressing, the one that alternately upsets me and puts me in a rage whenever I see it in action. As for its being "non-negotiable", this will have to be renegotiated. Your sanctimonious, and typically American, advice to "love it or leave it" is particularly brainless since there is no "elsewhere". The moment someone points out another significant wiki dedicated to the collaborative creation of free online books, a wiki without policies as egregiously anti-intellectual and anti-education as NPOV, you can be sure I'll move my ass out of here. 24.200.176.92 10 November 2005


 * There are plenty of subjects that can be taught perfectly well, even in the presence of the "anti-education" NPOV policy. NPOV prevents people from using wikibooks (or any sanctioned wikimedia project) as a political soapbox, for the free dissemination of propaganda. As for the "Love it or leave it" point: you don't need to love wikibooks to follow the rules and use it in accordance with policy. However, we do have an NPOV policy on the books that is regularly enforced, and we will vote to remove POV material. Also, if you are looking for an alternative to wikibooks, where you can write collaborative textbooks, while at the same time spinning everything according to your own personal viewpoint, you are more then welcome to buy a domain name, rent server space, and host it yourself. --Whiteknight T C E 19:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's easy to tell you're an American. Your proposal of non-solutions and your "love it or leave it" attitude, but especially the hypocritical usage of "love it or leave it" all while denying it. Okay, since you're sadly in need of a clue, I'm going to offer you one; take it, it's free! Nobody gives a rat's ass about NPOV. 90% of people on this page who voted to delete this racist tripe just looked for any excuse at all to vote to delete it. They picked NPOV because it's an "enforced policy". If yodelling had been an enforced policy, they'd have said the book violates the yodelling policy. Now, that's all fine and dandy so long as we all agree on the real reason to censor something. I have no problem, for example, censoring propaganda and original research. I'm not so fine when, for example, NPOV is used to suppress a minority viewpoint that also happens to be the correct (scientifically proven) viewpoint, in favour of what "everyone knows" to be true which happens to be a sack of lies (not a shred of scientific evidence has supported it ever). Oh, and don't claim that such conflicts don't happen because I can cite example upon example upon example; it actually happens as a matter of routine with NPOV. Wikibooks needs a censorship policy that works for it. And it can't adopt some other sites' censorship policy when that other site has completely different goals and structure. That's just completely brainless. What people need to do is to actually write down all the things that are censored (original research, propaganda, racism) and not be too afraid of a debate when things get added to the list. Now, I appreciate that people like to be brainless and have their thinking done for them, but I can't exactly respect such a position. 24.200.176.92 22:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, and ban the racist c**t who started this piece of f**king sh*t. Racism should never have a place on Wikimedia. --wikipedia:User:Spe88

Deleted - week is over, no progress, not for Wikibooks, most of votes for deletion. --Derbeth talk 19:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)