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.

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)

I offered to expand the article because the comment was made that there wasn't enough content for a full article. This would make it more than a bibliographic annotation.Neil Brick 03:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reed Publishing -- a crank publisher of crank books

I've just looked at the publisher of this book. It is a home-directed, agenda-driven, non-professional, non-notable publisher, publishing mostly books that the mainstream would clearly call cult or crankish books. That the book that Neil is espousing here was published by this house clearly undercuts almost any arguments that he can make for it. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Howard is correct about this book. It should either be relegated to a Bibliography (annotated, sure) in some article BUT it should not be a stand-alone article. Although I am an inclusionist to the point that it makes Howard want to tear his hair, I do NOT believe that every crank publication ever put into Print-On-Demand visibility by a crank publisher deserves its own article. Unless, perhaps, Edmund Wilson, Gore Vidal, John Updike, or Martin Gardiner decided to review it in, let's say, The New York, Esquire, Skeptical Inquirer, The New York Times Book Review, or some such. Otherwise, this publishing house, and its products, are simply too marginal to be written about in CZ except as a bibliographical note. Having written this, I, as a Constable, cannot act in any Constabulary manner regarding the ultimate disposition of this book. There are, however, other Constables. Hayford Peirce 03:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In defense of the publisher, I found this -

Robert D. Reed (Bob) is the publisher of nearly 1,800 books and co-author of more than 50 books and resource guides on a wide range of subjects, including: environmental issues, current affairs, health, business excellence, responsible leadership, helping women to get elected to political offices, creating high-quality education, effective parenting, psychology, ending domestic violence and child abuse, homelessness, human and animal rights, healing racism, and peaceful activism. Profits from one of his cookbooks fed millions of children worldwide through the C.A.R.E. Organization in New York City. Many of his authors have been featured on television and radio programs, and in newspaper and magazine articles throughout the world. The founder of Robert D. Reed Publishers, Bob has produced and distributed over 165 titles, including House Calls: How we can all save the world one visit at a time by Patch Adams, M.D. - the compassionate and humorous doctor portrayed by Robin Williams in Universal Picture's hit film, "Patch Adams."

[1]

The editor of the book has published in Prager, a more respected publisher.

Though the above may not save this article, hopefully it will at least be considered. I of course will accept a constable's decision about this.Neil Brick 04:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...that link goes to the publisher's own website; I'd tend not to expect harsh criticism there. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is probably accurate.Neil Brick 04:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, he's published 1,800 crank books -- so what? A crank is a crank. And a minor, POD publishing house is that, nothing more. Has *anything* he's every published been peer-reviewed anywhere? Hayford Peirce 05:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)