Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-02/The Tales of Beedle the Bard

[[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal closed cases|The Tales of Beedle the Bard]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|The Tales of Beedle the Bard]]

The problem is on the talk page of The Tales of Beedle the Bard

Just a list of the users involved. For example:

• User:Graemedavis
• User:HelloAnnyong
• User:Anakinjmt

This is the page for an article on J K Rowling's book published 4th December 2008. Last December I made a mistake. I published a paperback (Exploring Beedle the Bard) through a mainstream publisher (Nimble Books LLC) which specialises in very quick publication of books on current affairs, celebrities, etcetera - the book came out 8 days after J K Rowling's book, just about in time for the Christmas market. My mistake was that I put a note on the talk page for the Wikipedia article The Tales of Beedle the Bard telling editors that this book had been published, as I thought it might be of interest. I was told that this was self promotion (although my note was just on the talk page). I did try to argue my corner (probably another mistake). Basically I feel that because editors had decided that this was self promotion there were no circumstances whatsoever in which they were ever for any reason going to reference or mention my book. The issue they raised was notoriety. I quite see it was my mistake in the first place - I should have waited for someone else to notice the book and post to Wikipedia. But I can't now undo this.

Nearly a year on several things have changed:

• Spanish Wikipedia has made extensive reference to my book on their article on Beedle the Bard (and this is nothing to do with me).
• Our Wikiedia in the article The Tales of Beedle the Bard has links to sources including an anonymous article probably by a teenager on the website "The Leaky Cauldron". I don't have a problem with this - but if the article can link such low notoriety articles they can surely find notoriety in a book by an experienced author qualified in literature criticism and published through an established publisher.
• Many articles on Wikipedia about recently published best sellers have links to sources with far less notoriety than my book.
• There's now a google preview of my book which makes it very easy for any Wikipedia editor to see some of it, and allows online linkage.
• The critical reception section of the article is weak, even nearly a year after publication.

A couple of days ago I posted brief info on the talk page. I thought that with the passage of time a calm discussion would be possible. Big mistake! There have been some lively responses.

• A comment by Anakinjmt is certainly offensive and borderline libel. I have asked for it to be deleted (and been refused). I would like it deleted. This is the sort of thing that publishers get very hot under the collar about - it has the potential to cause a lot of unpleasantness for me. And does Anakinjmt really want it up? - it's a rather nasty comment presumably written without much thought.
• The notoriety issue is a matter of judgment. My book is by an established author with specialisation in the area published, is through an established publisher and with the quirk of very quick writing and publication which supports the idea of celebrity status for J K Rowling. It is far easier to defend its notoriety than an essay by an anonymous teenager on "The Leaky Cauldron" webiste. Not mentioning my book (say in the link list) distorts the neutrality of the article as a decision has been made to exclude it seemingly solely because Wikipedia first heard of it from a note posted by the author on the talk page.

• Please keep this light. Standing back some of this is a big laugh. I've been asked to prove that I am me. I've been asked to prove my book exists. Is this a course in practical philosophy? And I've formed the view that some of the editors would rather delete half the article than admit that my book might have notoriety - I see the links to some of the less notorious material have just been taken down.
• Please give thought to the following. Had I a year ago or even a couple of days ago instead of myself posting to the talk page asked a friend to do it (or just to edit the article) I am pretty sure Wikipedia would have happily improved the article by adopting a reference. Of course this would be wrong and I didn't do it. And that is the crux - I didn't abuse Wikipedia. I've been up front throughout. And the penalty has been an unproductive exchange a year ago, and an exchange now which is most unpleasant and offensive.
• The notoriety issue seems to me to be capable of solution by making comparison with what counts as notoriety in this article and other similar articles in Wikipedia, or how other language Wikipedias treat this same topic. I think it needs someone to look at it and give a view. The publisher is established. I'm an established author. I'm qualified in lit crit (MA and PhD).
• The easy way forward would be to link in the "external links" section to my book and any other books of criticism published (and indeed to the Leaky Cauldron articles that were linked, for while they are low notoriety they are quite interesting). I also think that publication in 8 days of a book about Tales of Beedle the Bard says something about the celebrity status of JKR, but maybe that's just my view.
• If someone unconnected to me should edit the article with a reference to my book then this edit should receive just the ordinary scrutiny, not an automatic deletion.

Any help on this would be great. Graeme Graemedavis (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to review the case, but I need confirmation from all parties that they are willing to procede. Mediation is a voluntary process that requires support from all sides. Reubzz (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I am willing to procede. Graemedavis (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graemedavis, please see my comment at the bottom of the 'Discussion' section. Reubzz (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first time GraemeDavis came to the Beedle the Bard article was at the end of last year. He told us that he had written a book about the topic, and that his book had been released eight days after the book came out. Davis wrote that "I think Exploring Beedle the Bard should be mentioned under reception on the page, but I would like someone else to make the decision, as I'm the author of the book. I also think the speed of publication is worth a note - 8 days from publication of JKR's book to publication of a book of literary criticism". Myself and another editor or two told him that that's not what qualifies a book as notable, and furthermore that he is a conflict of interest with his own book.

Fast forward to now. Davis comes back and mentions that his book is now available in preview on Google Books, and that it should be considered for inclusion. Anakinjmt and I both repeatedly explained that there isn't anything particularly notable about his book, so it doesn't really warrant inclusion. I asked how Davis would include the book in the article if he could, and he wrote that "Probably I would expect it to be mentioned under critical reception as it includes an evaluation of the literary merits of the book. Probably the quick publication is relevant - Nimble Books LLC is an established publisher, and in giving JKR their quick publication treatment they are giving her celebrity status." Again, all of this seems little more than advertising or using the article as book promotion. I honestly see no reason to include his book in the article: it's a non-notable book by a non-notable author. There would be no way to include it in the article without saying something like "Graeme Davis wrote a book called Exploring Beedle the Bard, which was published eight days after the book came out." - and that's pretty unacceptable.

As to this question of libel, Anakinjmt and I asked for clarification and received none. Anakinjmt questioned if User:Graemedavis is really Graeme Davis the author, but I don't see how that's libel. Perhaps it's where Anakinjmt asked if "having something out THAT fast leads me to believe that there was not a lot of thought put into it, making me think it's not reliable." And while that may be a fairly blunt statement, it's not "certainly offensive and borderline libel", and most definitely not "the one which may cross a legal line".

No other avenues of dispute resolution were taken, but if MedCab wants to take this one on, I'm willing to go along with it, I guess. As a side note, I see that Graemedavis is going through a similar thing at The Lost Symbol, and was warned by Elonka about it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to work this one out with Wikipedia. The problem seems to have arisen because I have been up front with Wikipedia. Had I asked a friend to make a posting (which is ethically iffy and breaches Wikipedia's rules) this problem would not exist. If I had a user name that was not my own name and made a posting (again ethically iffy and a breach of Wikipedia's ruls) this problem would not be here. Additionally many publishers make postings for their authors, often under the personal user names of their marketers - again I think this is morally iffy and probably breaches a Wikipedia rule (but authors don't have any say in this). A few days ago on the talk page for The Lost Symbol I asked advice of editors on what is basically the same problem and received a suggestion that I might like to post a link to my draft page and post material there. I did this, and was advised I had probably posted too much, so I took some of it away. At the moment we seem to have a system where right action is penalised. If I or a friend or a publisher had done something morally iffy and breached Wikipedia's rules we wouldn't be having this discussion - it is most unlikely that anyone would have noticed. There has to be a way to work with Wikipedia with honesty. How do I do this? The issue is going to come up time and time again. If I don't tell Wikipedia about publications then many of my publishers will (with or without my consent). This is happening with every author and every book. Asking around I gather it is usually done through posts by other people. Well I don't like this, I've been straight with Wikipedia, and I think there must be a solution.

The notability issue is not a credible reason for not including a link. Rather it appears to be a justification for action taken for a different reason, because my telling the talk page of a book was perceived as self-promotion. I regarded it as providing relevant information of interest to the Wikipedia community - and it was on the talk page, not the article. This article until yesterday posted links to material relevant to the article but clearly of a much lower level of notability. For example an anonymous essay (probably be a teenager) on the unrefereed "Leaky Cauldron" website may be of use to Wikipedia readers but is demonstrably of lower notability. There is much comparable material linked from other Wikipedia pages on best selling books. Rather the issue I think is solely about the circumstance where I initially told Wikipedia about my own book. Because I've been upfront I'm told it is self promotion.

I did ask on the talk page about a possible complaints procedure. No specific suggestions were made and I found this Mediation system by hunting around. If there are alternative dispute resolution procedures that's fine. I'm not familiar with the systems. Graemedavis (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Leaky Cauldron is hardly an "unrefereed" website. It's one of the largest Harry Potter fansites, and the webmistress, Melissa Anelli, has a degree in journalism and has written for local papers and for MTV. Not to mention, she's also interviewed J.K. Rowling herself, several times in fact, one time which was for the book Melissa was writing about the Harry Potter fandom, which happened to sell very well. I don't know if the essay Graeme is referring to was written by Melissa Anelli, as I'm unsure what exactly he is referring to, but calling Leaky Cauldron a non-notable source about something Harry Potter is, honestly, foolish.

Secondly, again, what comment of mine was libel? Please, tell me, as I'm really interested to hear this. Everything I said was true. One, we can't know for sure that you are the author. It's simply because anyone can BE anyone on the internet. Therefore, the book Graeme wants to use as a source needs to stand on its own, and not because of credentials someone claims they have. And frankly, looking at what he himself has pointed us to, I'm not convinced it's notable enough to use. The fact that Graeme seems to think otherwise essentially is the issue, and he has, for whatever reason, decided to attack me on this. As I've stated before, I have nothing personal against him. I'm simply not convinced that either or the book or its author are notable enough to be considered a reliable source.

Would we have said anything if he had simply put it in? Who knows? Maybe not now, but if someone else checked the source later, they might have determined that it wasn't notable and removed it, and then where would we be? Back here I imagine. I appreciate Graeme being upfront and honest. I truly do. It makes it easier to determine the notability of a source when an editor brings a potential source to attention, rather than simply sticking it in and hoping that someone else later goes back and double-checks. Regardless, it has been brought to our attention and I, as a member of WP:HP, feel like the source is not notable enough to warrant being used as a source.

Finally, in all honestly, I'd probably be quite interested in reading the book myself. I have several Harry Potter analysis books which I've enjoyed, and something on Beedle the Bard would I think be quite interesting. And yet, hardly any of the books I own I think would be notable enough to be used as a source for a Harry Potter article. The only ones I would are the two books written by MuggleNet and the Melissa Anelli book, and that is more because of who the authors are and their status in the fandom rather than the content inside. I don't see the author of the book of being as notable as Emerson Spartz of MuggleNet and Melissa Anelli of Leaky Cauldron, and therefore must judge solely on the merit of the book, and while I think the book would be an interesting read, I simply do not feel that it is notable enough to be used as a source. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LIBEL is defined by Wikipedia in the following terms: it “… is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).” That Anakinjmt’s comments (“having something out THAT fast leads me to believe that there was not a lot of thought put into it, making me think it's not reliable”) gave a negative image to the book and me as its author seems clear; additionally it is in a public forum and I believe could be demonstrated to be untrue. The discourse structure of the comment makes the libel borderline as Anakinjmt refers to his own belief. Anakinjmt’s comment is in my view (applying the Wikipedia definition) either libel or borderline libel within the definition of the term in most jurisdictions. It is also a rude comment which I certainly found offensive. Graemedavis (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTABILITY is a Wikipedia guideline at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. Here it states about notability “These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles.” It goes on to set out other guidelines regarding content. I think the idea that my book is not sufficiently notable is a complete red herring in terms of Wikipedia's use of the term. Graemedavis (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I not say that I'd probably have an interest in reading the book? I simply said, because it came out so fast, it might not be all that reliable to use as a source. And I, frankly, think that about a lot of the current events books out. Books that came out a week after Obama was elected President, for example, being a "tell-all" about the campaign, I thought must not have had a whole lot of thought into it. Something that came out now about the campaign, like the Edward Norton documentary he's releasing, is a different matter. The fact that I applied that to your book isn't libel at all. You may take it as rude, for which I'm sorry, but I'm also sticking to it. As a Harry Potter fan, I'd find your book quite interesting I'm sure; as an editor of Wikipedia however, I must be more critical. I'm not personally attacking you, so the only thing I can think of is "I said something negative about his book and he doesn't like that." Well, critics are out there. Can't really do anything about it. How it could be demonstrated to be untrue I don't think you can. I never said it was a fact, I simply said "leads me to believe" which, as far as I can tell, is me stating an opinion. I didn't say "your book didn't have a lot of thought put into it, meaning it's not reliable." I said "leads me to believe" and "making me think." I'm stating an opinion, not a fact. Someone else may read it and go "I don't think it was rushed. I think a good amount of time and thought was put into it." That's their opinion. An opinion is not factual, hence there is no way what I said was libel. And every time I've talked about your book being notable I've said "I feel it's not notable."

And, again, I think the fact that YOU wrote the book makes you think it's notable. But that's not the case. The book can't be notable simply because you wrote it, whatever you may think. It must stand on its own merit. And, once again, in my opinion it is not notable enough to use as a source.

You seem to have an issue with people who disagree on your notability. I noticed that you deleted comments from an admin, User:OrangeMike in fact, when he stated such things. You also failed to notify me that you had involved my name in this mediation, which isn't civil and nor courteous. User:HelloAnnyong had to tell me about this. You didn't say a word about it on the Beedle talk page either where this whole thing was started. Annyong told you it would be a courteous thing to let people know, and you deleted his comment without taking any other action. Frankly, it seems to me in my opinion like you were trying to get this case to go through quickly so that you could go "AHA! See? Other people say it's notable, so it is" without giving us dissenters a chance to voice our opinion. At the very least, I think you owe me and Annyong an apology for not notifying either of us, who you listed, that you had brought this up to MedCab. Thank goodness Annyong happened to find the case. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the system and/or mediator would notify you. If it became clear this hadn't happened then I would have contacted you - we can't hold a discussion unless you are here! I'm very pleased you are here. The comments from the administrator you mention refer to a different article, were actioned and I deleted them from my talk page. Graemedavis (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On reading Wikipedia's guidelines on notability I think this concept would only apply if we were talking about an article about my book. This isn't the case and I'm not proposing such an article. Rather the idea of neutrality of point of view should mean that published views are reported in Wikipedia articles. Otherwise the article isn't neutral. Graemedavis (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we wait now until we get some mediator guidance? We've set out two different views and I don't think we are going to agree on our own. Graemedavis (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After informing all parties of my intention to mediate this case, several parties stated their belief that it would be best for the dispute to be resolved within the confines of the article and its projects rather than proceed with the case at this time. I believe it would be a reasonable compromise to allow the matter's resolution to be discussed within the Harry Potter Project community and similar associates prior to mediation. This step should only be used as a means when there is no way to resolve something - until all things have been attempted, I would ask the filing party if they would agree with this temporary resolution. Cheers, Reubzz (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's fine. What I don't understand is on what page we will be discussing this on. The Beedle the Bard talk page? The WikiProject Harry Potter talk page? Or this page? Or somewhere else? Graemedavis (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the Beedle the Bard page. After all, we're discussing that article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]