Talk:Recovered memory: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
imported>Neil Brick |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
There is unquestionably child abuse. Oddly, the existing article on the subject is not being edited, but new articles, on possibly controversial theories, keep getting introduced. What would a search engine see as the growing amount of CZ material focused on repetitive child abuse? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 03:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | There is unquestionably child abuse. Oddly, the existing article on the subject is not being edited, but new articles, on possibly controversial theories, keep getting introduced. What would a search engine see as the growing amount of CZ material focused on repetitive child abuse? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 03:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
:None of the links are about ritual abuse. All are directly related to the topic. All of the articles are accurate as written. It appears that you are following me around on Citizendium now, which feels like harassment. [[User:Neil Brick|Neil Brick]] 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | :None of the links are about ritual abuse. All are directly related to the topic. All of the articles are accurate as written. (reverted by user: It appears that you are following me around on Citizendium now, which feels like harassment.) [[User:Neil Brick|Neil Brick]] 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Harassment? Perhaps concern with [[CZ: Neutrality Policy]], which is reasonably within my scope as both a Citizen and a member of the Editorial Council. | ::Harassment? Perhaps concern with [[CZ: Neutrality Policy]], which is reasonably within my scope as both a Citizen and a member of the Editorial Council. | ||
::I certainly don't object to someone "following" my contributions. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 03:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | ::I certainly don't object to someone "following" my contributions. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 03:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::I was going to strike the comment, but you replied first. Will do so now. [[User:Neil Brick|Neil Brick]] 03:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:46, 15 March 2009
Appropriateness of external links; pattern of introducing content
I would ask Citizens to look at the article, which deals with neurology and psychology, and then to look at the External Links page. Are the external links consistent with the scientific approach of the article, or are they a way to have CZ pointing to ritual abuse advocacy sites? How many of them are neurological?
Do also look at the article, which starts on general neurological aspects, but, without emphasis, focuses on repetitive child abuse.
There is unquestionably child abuse. Oddly, the existing article on the subject is not being edited, but new articles, on possibly controversial theories, keep getting introduced. What would a search engine see as the growing amount of CZ material focused on repetitive child abuse? Howard C. Berkowitz 03:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- None of the links are about ritual abuse. All are directly related to the topic. All of the articles are accurate as written. (reverted by user: It appears that you are following me around on Citizendium now, which feels like harassment.) Neil Brick 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Harassment? Perhaps concern with CZ: Neutrality Policy, which is reasonably within my scope as both a Citizen and a member of the Editorial Council.
- I certainly don't object to someone "following" my contributions. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to strike the comment, but you replied first. Will do so now. Neil Brick 03:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)