User talk:Neil Brick/Sandbox/Ritual Abuse in the Twenty-First Century (book): Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (Are not the opposing positions obvious without being restated?) |
imported>Shamira Gelbman (→This is more appropriate in a bibliography: agreement) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
::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. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 23:52, 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. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 23:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::I agree with Howard -- this is a bibliographic annotation, not an encyclopedia article. [[User:Shamira Gelbman|Shamira Gelbman]] 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:20, 29 March 2009
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)