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)

No, I don't think that's making it neutral. The book makes premises. There are disagreements with its premises. When you start arguing with the critics, you've left the subject of the book proper.

Frankly, I'm dubious that any article about a specific research project or advocacy book can ever be completely neutral. Homeopathy probably was our toughest challenge, but it took on a set of ideas as a whole. There have been less controversial issues about complementary and alternative medicine, but all dealt with a set of ideas; there are no articles about individual books or publications.

If you ever expect to see a CZ-style consensus, you are going to have to accept that there will be arguments you don't like. Again, look at homeopathy, and perhaps some of its voluminous talk archives. It presents the basic ideas of the field, accurately enough that practicing homeopaths could live with it. It also makes it clear that there is no widespread medical acceptance of those ideas.

I have difficulty with the definition saying "the phenomenon of ritual abuse", because there is no consensus that systematic ritual abuse exists. The definition could say that it discusses ritual abuse from the perspective of writers who believe in its existence. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The article itself is well balanced and neutral throughout now. The first paragraph describes their credentials and goals "raising awareness." The second paragraph gives a balanced view of their views "Some authors contend that these claims represents fantasy material, dissimulation, or delusions. Others maintain that patients' descriptions of ritualized trauma may constitute a newly identified psychiatric syndrome."

The next three paragraphs provide balanced critiques of the book, two neutral and one anti. The paragraph on Victor and the reply also provide a balance view of the topic.

The word "phenomenon" is appropriate in the counter balancing sentence in the third paragraph because it explains the point of view of those defending the concept. Neil Brick 01:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)