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)

In theory, if the articles are accurate, then it isn't a problem. But, and this is Howard's point, it becomes a problem if all of the books are non-notable, particularly if they have been published by either POD publishers and/or crank/non-mainstream publishers with a agenda to push. In this case they *may* be cited in a bibliography (annotated) in a suitable article, but they shouldn't be the focus of a separate article.

Let's make what I think is a clear distinction here. If a mainstream author such as the late thriller writer Donald Hamilton (who wrote about Matt Helm) published, during his lifetime, 27 novels by Gold Medal, a major publishing house, then each of those books is worthy of a separate article, at least in my opinion, and if there is someone who actually writes a well-rounded article about that book. AND, let's say, after his death, and 15 years after his reputation has faded, an unpublished manuscript comes to the surface but no major publisher will bring it out. So it's brought out by a reputable POD such as Wildside Press, which is the leading POD in the fiction field. That new Matt Helm book would, in my opinion, be worthy of an article, because it fits into the entire corpus of Hamilton's work.

On the other hand, if we have a thriller writer who has *never*, except for two or three short stories published in minor magazines, had anything published in the mainstream press but who *has* written 30 novels in the last 20 years, all of which were published *only* in the POD press and/or the vanity press system, then almost certainly those individual books are not worthy of inclusion here, since they are essentially unpublished manuscripts as far as the mainstream is concerned.

This, Neil, is what Howard is saying about all of the offerings for which you have been creating stubs and trying to get them accepted as worthwhile articles. Unless they have some additional notability, however, I have come to the conclusion that they should *not* be within the CZ framework other than as bibliographical entries. Hayford Peirce 15:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said Hayford. Chris Day 15:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have read that "Citizendium does not have a "notability" policy." To me, this means that Citizendium has a more inclusive policy than other wikis. This means that being "mainstream" is not necessarily a guideline for Citizendium articles. The danger with deciding which books can have articles and which do not is that more controversial books may appear to be unworthy of articles if they are not embraced by mainstream thought or have opponents in the field that may consider their views to be inaccurate. To me, an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic and should not necessarily pick and choose according to popularity or one's opinion about the publisher. Also, I do not believe that RDR publishers is pushing any particular agenda in terms of this book. Authors may be attracted to RDR due to the freedom it may allow them as opposed to a larger publishing house. Neil Brick 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You are arguing CZ policies and their interpretation here. An article talk page is not the place for policy discussions. Take it to the Forum.

Indeed, there have been considerable discussions if a Notability policy is necessary. There is definitely a Maintainability policy.

Switch roles here. If I were told that a pattern of articles suggested a bias, and I simply kept repeated "I don't think it is", would I be adding information? When I did encounter a bias, in a different topic, I made a point of developing top-down definitions and establishing context. You have made, quite clear, your beliefs about what CZ should be. Even on this page, several people, some with substantial experience at CZ, disagree with you. Repeating your interpretations of CZ, without adding context or experience at CZ, is not advancing your point. Move it the Forum. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was replying to other comments made about the same topic. My arguments entail more than simply disagreeing, as I have shown on this talk page. I agree this should be in the Forum. Neil Brick 02:34, 1 April 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)

I'm happy with it being included in a bibliography subpage of a big picture article. This is the whole point of subpages. Chris Day 15:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Hayford Peirce 16:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And, if you'll note, moving it to a bibliography subpage was my original proposal -- and, I suppose it is only fair to add, some other single-book anecdotal or no-substantive-detail reviews that don't merit an article. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens in this case, I think that the question is what an encyclopedia should and shouldn't carry. If we raise the bar too high, then we filter out all articles. Not all books have publishers that have peer reviewed publications.Neil Brick 18:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to move this discussion to the Forums, such as in the Inclusionism and Exclusionism area. This is not the first article about which there has been such discussion and will not be the last. Even among the people questioning if this article belongs, there is a wide range of opinions about inclusion in general. This is not a policy to be set for one article, or one subject.

It is also a policy that has been evolving, and, might I suggest, some of the people here have been discussing for months. Yes, some of us are quite aware that certain articles will be filtered out, and we are quite willing to accept the consequences. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree this involves more than just this book and bringing it to the forums would be a good step in the right direction. D. Matt Innis 16:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but how? Just do a cut and paste of much the above material? Either you or Chris (I believe) did something like that a couple of weeks ago, in which all of the above material was put into individual blue quotation blocks, one block at a time.... Hayford Peirce 16:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I started a forum link here. D. Matt Innis 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)