User talk:Neil Brick/Sandbox/Ritual Abuse in the Twenty-First Century (book)

The {{subpages}} template is designed to be used within article clusters and their related pages.
It will not function on User talk pages.
starting discussion page Neil Brick 03:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I object to a pattern of behavior

...which seems to consist of importing articles about books and surveys that assume the existence of widespread ritual abuse, but seem immune to challenge as the article "merely" reports what the book says. Is there never to be any open discussion of the topic other than by an advocate? Howard C. Berkowitz 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, as long as the articles are accurate. CZ has many book articles. Neil Brick 03:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is more appropriate in a bibliography

Recommend moving it to Ritual abuse/bibliography; it will actually get more exposure there. There's no more content here than in many bibliography listings, and it would seem that it be more likely that the articles be cited than the book.

Other reasonable book listings include major reference books, books that are part of fictional series, books made into movies, books with a significant historical role (e.g., The Origin of Species). I'm afraid I don't see how this is comparable, although it's perfectly reasonable in a bibliography.

I speak as an author of some respected technical books -- I wouldn't want them as their own article but in bibliographies. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea that a listing could be put in Ritual abuse/bibliography, but I think there is sufficient content here for an article.Neil Brick 22:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand you think there is sufficient content for an article here, or you wouldn't have created it. I don't think there is, or I would not have made my comment above. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Howard -- this is a bibliographic annotation, not an encyclopedia article. Shamira Gelbman 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In essence, it is a stub article. I checked and saw that there were 400 stub articles. I will look for material specific to the book to help enlarge the article.Neil Brick 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Two Citizens have suggested it belongs in a biography. In any case, it would be the articles of the book that would have the specific content, not the book. May I ask why, other than you want an entry for the book, why your response is to insist that you will expand what is here?

As I have mentioned, other book articles variously have literary or historical significance established over significant periods of time, are parts of series, or are definitive technical references in specific fields. This, by all description here and on checking, is a collection of individually written articles. You have made no case why it should be expanded. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)