Wikibooks:Requests for deletion: Difference between revisions
→Developing A Universal Religion: new section |
|||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
:Thanks! Sorry I forgot to sign. [[User:Mbrickn|Mbrickn]] ([[User talk:Mbrickn|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mbrickn|contribs]]) 20:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
:Thanks! Sorry I forgot to sign. [[User:Mbrickn|Mbrickn]] ([[User talk:Mbrickn|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mbrickn|contribs]]) 20:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
||
*{{vd}} per nom. --[[User:SHB2000|SHB2000]] ([[User talk:SHB2000|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/SHB2000|contribs]]) 10:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC) |
*{{vd}} per nom. --[[User:SHB2000|SHB2000]] ([[User talk:SHB2000|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/SHB2000|contribs]]) 10:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC) |
||
== [[Developing A Universal Religion]] == |
|||
'''Transwiki to Wikisource'''. This book survived VfD in 2005 ([[Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Developing A Universal Religion]]) but it should not have. The book contains multiple inaccurate claims and its title makes it unsuitable for Wikibooks. Material in Wikibooks should strive to be factually accurate and neutral, which this book cannot be. Since this book by David Hockey was previously published, and there is a pdf to check the text against ([[:File:Developing a Universal Religion Parts 1-2-3 & 4.pdf]]), it can be hosted on Wikisource. |
|||
The book presents a ''philosophy'' of the purpose of life and ethics, not a ''religion''. The book does not involve God or gods except that it portrays evolution and the life on the Earth as a quasi-god for being alleged potentially ''omnipotent'' and by its occasional capitalization of "life" as "Life". It is not true that any philosophy of purpose of life is a religion and the book does nothing to distinguish itself from philosophy as a religion. |
|||
The book's key tenet is that we should adopt as a ''surrogate'' purpose of life to "support life’s continual evolution and focus upon helping it to achieve an omnipotent ability". There is nothing factually neutral about this idea; it is one person's philosophical position. And it is not just a minor part of the book that can be edited away; it comes in part 3 and is built upon in part 4. This follows from [[Developing A Universal Religion/Looking For A Purpose/What Purpose Can We Use?]]: "Given that there is no detectable purpose pre-designed into life or the universe, then, if we must have one, we must adopt a surrogate. To my mind, the only viable option is to support life’s continual evolution and focus upon helping it to achieve an omnipotent ability. Such a purpose is universal and rational; it is a purpose that will last as long as life itself lasts. It accommodates the whole of life, and shows that we care about more than just our own well-being. It declares that we value life for its own sake and think little about the death that must follow, taking it simply as the price to be paid for living." |
|||
The book contains multiple dubious claims about life's omnipotent potential. There is nothing factual about it: not only can life not become omnipotent but it cannot become ''nearly'' omnipotent either. To begin with, given our current knowledge, there is no chance life could ever inhabit planet Pluto and the book does not support this idea in any way; and there is no way life can spread from the Earth to the Earth's nearest star given our knowledge. One can find multiple such claims and I will quote just one: "This omnipotent consequence of evolution is just that—a consequence." It is trivial to come up with capabilities that life including humankind may never achieve; one needs just a little bit of imagination. The argument that our ancestors could not have imagined our present capabilities has very little force to support the idea of future near omnipotence. It is obvious but you can read more at [https://www.quora.com/Is-evolution-omnipotent? Quora: Is evolution omnipotent?]. |
|||
The book examines some of the ethical consequences of its proposed ultimate purpose, e.g. in [[Developing A Universal Religion/Determining Moral Behaviours/Killing]]. Its examination in unconvincing. For instance, it says "The rationale for stating that it would be wrong to kill an individual is easy to state: any individual’s actions may contribute to the objective of supporting Life’s continued evolution, thus each life is valuable and should be preserved", but it is not obvious that each and every human including those severely disabled can contribute to Life's continuing evolution, so it does not follow that each human life should be preserved. Those following the stated purpose could decide to exterminate a technologically weak nation and take its resources and there is nothing obvious in the stated purpose to prevent them from doing so; the author does not seem to realize that. |
|||
As for the previous VfD: |
|||
* As for the book being "well written": It may be fairly well written from a stylistic perspective, having been created by a single author outside of Wikibooks and published, but it is not well and plausibly reasoned as shown above. |
|||
* As for "Looks like a real book to me": It surely is a real book, which alone does not make it includable in Wikibooks. |
|||
* As for "There are formal footnotes and references to other sources that have at least some academic credibility." Footnotes and references do not save the book from being non-factual and non-neutral, and the whole of the text is nowhere close to being referenced using Wikipedia's referencing standard. The few references scattered throughout the book do not save the book content from criticism. |
|||
* As for "This is a philosophy book, and that can be tricky to work with, I know.": Most philosophical books ever published do not fit Wikibooks since they are not neutral and their factual accuracy can be disputed. Philosophical surveys can be made to fit, though, mostly in the form of "some authors argue that X, other authors argue that Y". |
|||
The stated problems with the book cannot be addressed by collaborative editing, starting with the observation that it is not about religion and that it depends on a posited purpose that is not neutral. It should not stay in Wikibooks. [[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dan Polansky|contribs]]) 07:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 07:24, 28 August 2022
| Discussions | Assistance | Requests | Announcements |
|---|---|---|---|
| General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books | General | Technical | Administrative | Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions | Bulletin Board |
| Requests for (Un)deletion Archives |
|---|
|
Deletion and Undeletion
|
Undeletion
Pages and books can be deleted by administrators. These decisions are generally backed by consensus from a discussion on this page under the deletion section. No process is perfect, and as such, pages or books can be nominated for undeletion in this section. The following is the procedure:
- Locate the page entry in the deletion log or the archived discussion. Some deleted pages have been speedily deleted without discussion.
- Review the Wikibooks:Deletion policy and Wikibooks:Media. If you can build a fair case on something which wasn't considered before, you can raise the issue here.
- Please add new nominations at the bottom of the section. Include a link to the archived discussion (or deletion log if there was none) and your rationale for why the page should be undeleted. If the community agrees, the page will be restored.
If you wish to view a deleted module or media file, list it here and explain why. An administrator will provide the deleted module to you in some form - either by quoting it in full, emailing it to you, or temporarily undeleting it. If you feel that an administrator is routinely deleting modules prematurely, or otherwise abusing their tools, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Administrative Assistance.
Deletion
Pages that qualify for speedy deletion do not require discussion. This section is for discussing whether something belongs on Wikibooks or not for all other cases. Please give a reason and be prepared to defend it. Consensus is measured based on the strength of arguments not on numbers. Anyone can participate and everyone is encouraged to do so.
Please add a new request for deletion at the bottom of this section with a link to the page or book in the heading and a justification. Also place the {{rfd}} template at the top of the page you want deleted. If you are nominating an entire book, {{rfd}} goes on the top-level page, but not subpages. Nominations should cite relevant policy wherever possible.
Please format the heading as == [[PAGE]] == in order to let the bot archive it. If there is a subject box, type [[PAGE]] into the subject box.
General Internal Medicine
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Transwiki:Termina,Transwiki:Spectacle Rock,Transwiki:Zelda franchise strategy guide/Locations/Lost Woods,Transwiki:Lost Woods,Transwiki:Gerudo Valley,Transwiki:Subrosia,Transwiki:Lon Lon Ranch,Transwiki:Koholint Island
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.Subpages of English-Hanzi
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.Same issue as Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Pinyin. Either unsourced/primary research, see creations of Special:Contributions/Efex3. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete pages in question for the same reasons as Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Pinyin and also Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/English-Hanzi. Phrases shouldn't be hard to verify facts; they are also dubious as far as being pedagogical aids, also likely are copyvios. They have no place in language guides in my opinion. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
My wikibooks
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments. The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.Reasoning for why "Suicide/Suffocation" should be deleted: The page violates Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. It advocates for methods of suicide as being "advantageous" due to their success rate. This content is deceptively masked under a false label ("video game strategy guides"). It is irresponsible and dangerous as it reads like a "how-to" manual for desperate individuals contemplating suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.46.214 (talk • contribs)
- Delete I'm hesitant to agree. Wikibooks does not seem like the place for such a 'guide'. I don't see what value this brings to the project.--Xania
talk 00:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC) 
Keep . Wikibooks is not censored. If you don't like the way it is written, it can be changed to reflect a neutral / factual position. The "delete the suicide book" discussion has come up repeatedly with the same outcome - it's been kept. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware that it's been nominated again and again (I remember it being nominated about 15 years ago for the first time) and I'm sure the consensus this time will also be to keep the page but I'd still like to voice my opinion. I'm sure this won't be the last time it's nominated either :) --Xania talk 12:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment previous discussions at Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide, Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide (2), Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide/Suffocation, and Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide/Toxification/Repackaging drugs in capsules. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete What is the point of a book about killing yourself? It's a bit... Wrong. At least to me. L10nM4st3r/Roar at me 10:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I would agree with QuiteUnusual's reasoning. Also the OP references Wikipedia, not Wikibooks, and additionally I see nothing about video games in the linked page. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think the OP may be confusing the site banner with a label (which naturally appears at the top of every page). The site banner is about video game guides.--Xania
talk 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments. The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.Orphan page that is nearly a duplicate of content located at Visual Basic .NET/Visual Basic 6 to .NET Function Equivalents. -MBrickn
- Delete per MBrickn (p.s: you forgot to sign. L10nM4st3r / Roar at me 07:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Sorry I forgot to sign. Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 10:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikisource. This book survived VfD in 2005 (Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Developing A Universal Religion) but it should not have. The book contains multiple inaccurate claims and its title makes it unsuitable for Wikibooks. Material in Wikibooks should strive to be factually accurate and neutral, which this book cannot be. Since this book by David Hockey was previously published, and there is a pdf to check the text against (File:Developing a Universal Religion Parts 1-2-3 & 4.pdf), it can be hosted on Wikisource.
The book presents a philosophy of the purpose of life and ethics, not a religion. The book does not involve God or gods except that it portrays evolution and the life on the Earth as a quasi-god for being alleged potentially omnipotent and by its occasional capitalization of "life" as "Life". It is not true that any philosophy of purpose of life is a religion and the book does nothing to distinguish itself from philosophy as a religion.
The book's key tenet is that we should adopt as a surrogate purpose of life to "support life’s continual evolution and focus upon helping it to achieve an omnipotent ability". There is nothing factually neutral about this idea; it is one person's philosophical position. And it is not just a minor part of the book that can be edited away; it comes in part 3 and is built upon in part 4. This follows from Developing A Universal Religion/Looking For A Purpose/What Purpose Can We Use?: "Given that there is no detectable purpose pre-designed into life or the universe, then, if we must have one, we must adopt a surrogate. To my mind, the only viable option is to support life’s continual evolution and focus upon helping it to achieve an omnipotent ability. Such a purpose is universal and rational; it is a purpose that will last as long as life itself lasts. It accommodates the whole of life, and shows that we care about more than just our own well-being. It declares that we value life for its own sake and think little about the death that must follow, taking it simply as the price to be paid for living."
The book contains multiple dubious claims about life's omnipotent potential. There is nothing factual about it: not only can life not become omnipotent but it cannot become nearly omnipotent either. To begin with, given our current knowledge, there is no chance life could ever inhabit planet Pluto and the book does not support this idea in any way; and there is no way life can spread from the Earth to the Earth's nearest star given our knowledge. One can find multiple such claims and I will quote just one: "This omnipotent consequence of evolution is just that—a consequence." It is trivial to come up with capabilities that life including humankind may never achieve; one needs just a little bit of imagination. The argument that our ancestors could not have imagined our present capabilities has very little force to support the idea of future near omnipotence. It is obvious but you can read more at Quora: Is evolution omnipotent?.
The book examines some of the ethical consequences of its proposed ultimate purpose, e.g. in Developing A Universal Religion/Determining Moral Behaviours/Killing. Its examination in unconvincing. For instance, it says "The rationale for stating that it would be wrong to kill an individual is easy to state: any individual’s actions may contribute to the objective of supporting Life’s continued evolution, thus each life is valuable and should be preserved", but it is not obvious that each and every human including those severely disabled can contribute to Life's continuing evolution, so it does not follow that each human life should be preserved. Those following the stated purpose could decide to exterminate a technologically weak nation and take its resources and there is nothing obvious in the stated purpose to prevent them from doing so; the author does not seem to realize that.
As for the previous VfD:
- As for the book being "well written": It may be fairly well written from a stylistic perspective, having been created by a single author outside of Wikibooks and published, but it is not well and plausibly reasoned as shown above.
- As for "Looks like a real book to me": It surely is a real book, which alone does not make it includable in Wikibooks.
- As for "There are formal footnotes and references to other sources that have at least some academic credibility." Footnotes and references do not save the book from being non-factual and non-neutral, and the whole of the text is nowhere close to being referenced using Wikipedia's referencing standard. The few references scattered throughout the book do not save the book content from criticism.
- As for "This is a philosophy book, and that can be tricky to work with, I know.": Most philosophical books ever published do not fit Wikibooks since they are not neutral and their factual accuracy can be disputed. Philosophical surveys can be made to fit, though, mostly in the form of "some authors argue that X, other authors argue that Y".
The stated problems with the book cannot be addressed by collaborative editing, starting with the observation that it is not about religion and that it depends on a posited purpose that is not neutral. It should not stay in Wikibooks. Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)