Talk:Vladimir Shlapentokh

Proposed merge with List of scientific publications by Vladimir Shlapentokh

insufficient importance to justify a full list of publications; the books areenough, and will fit in the main article. � DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

In Russia, his publications about its totalitarianism are important enough to be studied and listed in full. Similar troubles may await the US.--Psychiatrick (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It isn't enough that his works are "important enough to be studied and listed in full". All that matters is if they "[have] been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (WP:LISTN). Show us some sources that discuss his works as a whole. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A critical review of Shlapentokh's early writings (published up to 1999) as a whole is contained in Markwick, Roger (December 1999). "What kind of state is the Russian state if there is one?". Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics. 15 (4): 111–130. doi:10.1080/13523279908415422. Critical reviews of Shlapentokh's more recent writings are contained in various sources. --Psychiatrick (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Good. Finding those would be a good start. Then work them into the lead at List of scientific publications by Vladimir Shlapentokh. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to read and work Markwick’s article into the lead. I read the article long ago and no longer have it at hand and access to it. --Psychiatrick (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I do not think there is enough. Every book published has critical responses, and there is no indication that the book mentioned is devoted primarily to him. I'm going to merge, as usual. `` talk
  • Firstly, not every book published has critical responses; secondly, this notwithstanding lists of scientific publications by prominent scientists like Albert Einstein, Manuel Iturralde-Vinent, Jacques Cauvin are mentioned and considered as a whole in many sources. Why are you not going to merge at first the lists on the ground mentioned by you? Psychiatrick (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

see WP:EINSTEIN DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ccomment

The material on this page is mostly uncited; it needs specific citations. The detail of his theories must vbe supported not just ffrom his own work, but in comments from 3rd party reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)