Talk:The Way of a Man with a Maid

message: I'm wordering why the individual words "sadistic" and "pornography" are seperately referenced in the intro: "The Way of a Man with a Maid is an anonymous work of sadistic[1] pornography,[2]". Does the ref to the word "sadistic" refer to the book in question or does it merely refer to a definition of the word "sadistic"? If the latter, the ref is redundant as we don't need refs to ordinary English words. The wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. The book in question is:  Katchadourian, Herant A.; Donald T. Lunde (1972). "Fundamentals of human sexuality" which seems to me to be a textbook about sex, and not about the book "The Way of a Man with a Maid". Colin4C (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is specifically for the fact that "The Way of a Man with a Maid" is a sadistic work, not a definition of the word "sadistic". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we to understand that Katchadourian and Lunde describe "The Way of a Man with a Maid" as a sadistic work, rather than just talk about sadism in general? If its just the latter than the ref is illegitimate. It would be the same if a book on excellence was given as reference for the supposition that Shakespeare's Hamlet was "excellent". I.e. a reference to Boggs and Boggs (1902) Excellence in Literature would not be sufficient grounds that "Hamlet is "excellent"", if Boggs and Boggs do not mention Hamlet. Logically the supposition that "The Way of a Man with a Maid" is sadistic must be original research of the editor if Katchadourian and Lunde do not mention that it is. Colin4C (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I had made myself clear, but, yes, Katchadourian and Lunde describe "The Way of a Man with a Maid" as a sadistic work. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Okay. Colin4C (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, we do.  The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A link was added, then quickly removed, to the full test of the book on Wikisource. That would seem to fulfill the verifiability requirements. Any idea why it was removed? I thought this book was very clearly in the public domain. The entries on Fanny Hill links to the full text on Project Gutenberg. What is the issue? K8 fan (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The link was presumably removed because it duplicates the link that is already in the article, in the box on the right under "bibliography". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Making the text available does not verify an assertion about the text.  A secondary source making the assertion is required.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I have removed some POV pushing and redundant bits from article. For instance this bizarre unreferenced bit of moral indignation at how a fictional character is flouting the law: 
::Though British courts at the time of writing dealt severely with rapists, Jack has no hesitation in again and again raping women who know him and then setting them loose with not the slightest apprehension that they would complain and lead the police to him - feeling completely and arrogantly sure that once having been forced to taste the "charms" of his love-making they would not do anything of the kind.
Rape is wrong, but this book is er...a fantasy...It didn't really happen... Colin4C (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I really can't see how this can justifiably still be called a stub. It looks more, to me, like C class. But I'm no expert.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DewiMorgan (talk • contribs) 02:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub?