User talk:Neil Brick/Sandbox/Cult and Ritual Abuse (book)

The {{subpages}} template is designed to be used within article clusters and their related pages.
It will not function on User talk pages.

Article name

I'm thinking this article is going to need a rename because it is about a book. Maybe something like Cult and Ritual Abuse (book), but let's see what others think as well. D. Matt Innis 03:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is fine with me. Neil Brick 03:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be for the best, I think. --Joe Quick 14:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, please move it to "Cult and Ritual Abuse (book)" (fully capitalized). --Larry Sanger 17:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I regret the pattern

I object to the pattern of importing book articles that argue that ritual abuse is widespread, but apparently cannot be challenged because they "merely report the book". Might I, then, keep producing articles about books that present only one view of an issue, until CZ is filled with them?

Further, literature is often associated with fiction. Should this book not be under the oversight of a social science workgroup? Howard C. Berkowitz 03:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

CZ can have books on many topics. I don't see a problem with this as long as the articles are accurate. Neil Brick 03:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a good question, Howard. It probably should be on the forum, though. Do you want to start it? D. Matt Innis 03:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, just put it in the workgroup - it's an academic book.Gareth Leng 12:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of affililiation

It's useful to identify an individual with their academic affiliation. ", and is the executive director of a professional organization dedicated to treating survivors of cult and ritual abuse," however, is not useful if it does not identify the organization. Further, the wording assumes the existence of the disorders. Might I suggest a more neutral phrasing might be "a professional organization for the concern of patients reporting experiences with cult and ritual abuse"? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just do it, seems fine by me.Gareth Leng 16:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to change the text; I'm having a little trouble tracking the organization, which seems to have gone through some name changes. Will put in my best information. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is turning into an argument defending the book's premise

The book has a premise. It is fair to say that many disagree with the premise. I believe it to be fair, within CZ: Neutrality Policy, to articulate the disagreement.

This article is alleged to be about a book, not about the overall existence or nonexistence of the conflation of cults and ritual abuse. Trying to counterargue the disagreements gets away from the topic of a specific book. Generally, CZ has not had articles on specific books, other than long-recognized literary or intellectual masterpieces. It certainly has not, and in my opinion should not, have articles focused on advocacy books. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To make the article neutral, I thought it important to counterbalance Victor's arguments in the paragraph before. Neil Brick 04:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)