Talk:Vulnerability and care theory of love

Untitled
I have removed the link to the publisher's page and substituted a link to an academic journal which contains a review of the book. If this still bothers somebody I can easily remove this link.Othersideon (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A review of the book is not a discussion of the theory; it does have one paragraph on the third chapter and the relevant theory. However, that review on its own would not qualify the book for WP:NBOOK, much less making the theory sufficiently notable. A google search finds only 7 hits for "Vulnerability and Care Theory" - fewer still if one eliminates this page and references to this page. A Google book search finds zero occurrences of that term (although the Dr. Ruth book is not searchable), and cutting it down to just "Vulnerability and Care" and "Giles" produces only Giles's own book. As such, I remain concerned about the notability of the theory on its own. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Giles' book has been reviewed at least in: Relation Research News, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, Sex & Relationship Therapy, Culture, Health & Sexuality, Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, Journal of Marriage & the Family, British Journal of Sexual Medicine, British Journal of Psychology, Journal of Sexual Aggression, Journal of Sexual Compulsivity & Addiction, Sexual Health, Trek Magazine, Heal India, AIDS Care, Anthropological Quarterly, Antrhopological Forum, Journal of Social Psychology, Metapsychology Online Reviews.

Giles has been interviewed about his views of love in such highly popular publications as Nature and Men's Health.

Dr Keesling, who discusses Giles' theory, is a best-selling author whose books have sold millions of copies. The most famous sexologist in America, Dr Ruth, has presented Giles' theory of love as one of the three most significant theories of love (the other two being Sternberg's and Lee's theories).

All of this demonstrates quite clearly that Giles' theory has notability.Othersideon (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"such scholars as"
The use of the term "such scholars as" in the opening paragraph creates the suggestion of a category of these people, and we do not have reference given for this category. If it's Dr. Ruth and Dr. Keesling, then we should just name them, and not imply more. (As for Dr. Keesling, her "Dr." should be removed per WP:CREDENTIAL; it's not necessary for Dr. Ruth, as she gets the stage name exception, a la Dr. J.) --03:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I changed it to just name the 2 scholars and not suggest more. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)