Talk:The Tales of Beedle the Bard

Fancruft tag?

So... I don't think there's a reason to have a fancruft tag on the Synopsis section. It's not excessively long, and it's just a summary of the stories. I'm wondering what RedPen wants here - like an article published by a third party that does the summarizing for us? Copying that sort of source verbatim would be a copyvio. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Tales of Beedle the Bard

There is a book of literary criticism of The Tales of Beedle the Bard - called Exploring Beedle the Bard. This is now available in a substantial free preview on Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=e87Jh3iUAmcC&pg=PA5&dq=beedle+the+bard&ei=ad7uStSfAqn0yASVyfXQDw#v=onepage&q=&f=false I think there is material here which could improve this Wikipedia article. However I am the author of this book so I'm doing no more than mentioning here that the book exists and that much of it can now be accessed online. Graemedavis (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a bias, if you really are the author. We'll wait and see when it comes out before deciding anything. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at /Archive 1, you'll see that we had a fairly lengthy discussion with Graeme about this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I went back and took a look at it. Thing is, why does the fact that it was published 8 days after Beedle make it notable? That seems more like a trivia thing, and frankly, 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. Anakinjmt (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Anakinjmt - you are making an offensive criticism in a public forum of a book you seemingly have not read, and I find this objectionable. This must infringe Wikipedia guidelines. For your information my book took around 100 hours to write which means I did absolutley nothing else for the week after publication of Beedle the Bard. I doubt many editors of this article have spent this sort of hourage reflecting on Beedle the Bard. It may even be that this work could improve this article.

As Annyong points out there was quite a lengthy discussion on this topic a while back. Now a year on the only critical reception this article notes for Beedle the Bard is from the auction house plus a reference to a piece in The Times that was written within days of publication, which I think is thin coverage of the critical reception of a book which sold as many copies as this one. By contrast the Spanish version of Wikipedia (without any prompting from me) has made substantial use of the book in their article. I think it is reasonable around a year after Beedle the Bard was published to draw attention to my book because (1) it plugs a gap in this article (2) the Google preview makes parts particularly easy to access and (3) other Wikipedia editors have treated it differently. I've been very clear that it is my book. I'm aware of Wikipedia's self-promotion policies. These do not prevent someone in all circumstances mentioning something they have done. Indeed were this the case it would lead to the absurd situation where people simply asked a friend to make a post. As per my original post editors of this article have access to a source. Whether editors want to use this source is a decision for editors. Graemedavis (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just saying that having a criticism book on a book released 8 days after the book just seems incredibly quick, especially considering the length of time necessary to not only research and write, but edit, design, and then print. Take my comments how you want them. Besides, the fact that the Spanish wiki uses it doesn't mean we have to. In addition, no offense to your or your book, but it doesn't appear as though you nor your book are particularly noteworthy. As a result, your book is not verifiable and therefore we cannot use it as a source. Anakinjmt (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As you rightly point out Anakinjmt it was incredibly quick, but it happened. It was published by a US publisher (Nimble Books) that specialises in very quick publications of books (hence the publisher's name) often relating to a political or current affairs issues, or to a book release. Editing was done chapter by chapter and printing on the day of publication. The hours given to writing and editing were much the same as for any comparable book, just compressed into a very short time frame. As set out I've taken your comments as being offensive. Whether Wikipedia editors want to cite this source is up to Wikipedia editors, but public criticism of a book you haven't read on the basis of what you imagine it might be like is neither polite nor acceptable. I posted information about the book for the reasons set out above because I think that enough had changed for Wikipedia editors to have another look at the issue. Graemedavis (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(retab) I may never have read it, but I can still say that for Wiki purposes I'd trust something that came out several months later over something that came out a week after the book. Regardless, the fact is, neither you nor your book seem notable or verifiable enough to be used as a source. Sorry but that's the way it is. And, again, you can take my comments however you like. It's not a personal attack, for whatever you may think, nor is it an attack on your book, again if you really are the author. I'm simply giving an opinion as an editor of this Wiki on the trustworthiness of a book analysis of this book. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you Anakinjmt that I am the author of Exploring Beedle the Bard. I've been very clear in stating this at all times. How would you like me to prove this? How is my book not verifiable? It is in libraries, bookshops, its ISBN is registered in the SBN system, and there's even a Google preview. What other steps need to be gone through to verify a book exists? The issue of notability was raised when the book came out. The request at that time for reviews or other indicators of notability for a book just published was not realistic (though arguably the speed of publication was in itself notable - and Wikipedia articles often detail very prompt publications of books around celebrity events).Graemedavis (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to be able to press the reset button on this debate and do it differently. When nearly a year ago I told the Beedle the Bard Wikipedia editors that I had published a book relevant to this article I found this was a red rag to a bull. Self promotion! We can't possibly mention this because the author's told us! The author has told us about his own book - the taboo has been broken! If I had kept quiet I imagine a Wikipedia editor would have found it within a few days anyway and incorporated a reference. Maybe I have learnt a lesson here. My colleagues tell me that I should have asked a friend to make a posting, which is not an answer I like, but it seems this would work within the system as it is being applied here (and surely demonstrates that the system is being applied wrongly). Such shouldn't be necessary. The underlying point is that Wikipedia does not have some blanket restriction on an author mentioning on a talk page their own work, but that many editors here seem to act as if such a restriction exists. The reasons given on this page for not posting a reference to the book are almost comic. The latest seems to be that I might not be me (though wouldn't this avoid the supposed self-promotion problem?) The issue of verifiability beggars belief - the book exists! If it means verifying the contents as accurate that is not the function of an encyclopaedia, nor indeed is an assessment of quality - rather Wikipedia reports what is said. We're really left with whether the book is notable. Key points here seem to be:

• What other books of criticism are there on Beedle the Bard? Are these more notable?
• If very little criticism has emerged after a year is this a relevant point to note?
• Might the decision of Spanish Wikipedia editors give English Wikipedia editors reason to rethink?
• Do the arguments look different now than a year ago?
• If mention of this book had originally been made by anyone other than the author, would it now be mentioned on the article page? If the answer is yes, does this influence present thinking?

Graemedavis (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Having a friend add your book for you would be considerably dishonest and unethical, and would almost certainly be a violation of WP:MEAT. Basically you'd be using your friend as a meatpuppet to get your book added here, which is a form of sockpuppetry - and is therefore not allowed.

As to what you said about verifiability, that's not the end of the story. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, something "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." And that would certainly apply here. You're allowed to mention your book in talk pages, I guess, but not in the article itself.

But here, let me ask this question: assuming there were no restrictions, how would you want to add your book to this article? Would you add sentences that say "In his book, Graeme Davis says X about this"? Do you want us to fill up this article with excerpts from your book? That would be adding way too much undue weight on your book. This article isn't meant to be a coatrack to get exposure for your book. And we're not here to advertise your book, either.

I'm sorry to state it so bluntly, but neither you nor your book are particularly notable. Just because there may not be other books around doesn't mean that yours gets in. In general, we would rather have nothing in an article than something that isn't worthy of inclusion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would not be appropriate for a friend to add information on my behalf (meatpuppet is a great word!) - and this whole issue has arisen because I have NOT done this. A concern is that this Wikipedia editorial board has reacted so negatively to someone doing the right thing - an author posting to a talk page rather than getting a friend to post - that the message Wikipedia is giving to the world is that being honest with Wikipedia doesn't pay. This view is wrong and it should be challenged - Wikipedia can do better than this. I've been at the receiving end of some pretty offensive posts, both nearly a year ago and in this exchange. In this recent exchange comments have been made about my book in a public forum which are borderline libel - and by someone who hasn't even read it. Why is this comment still sitting on this public board? A few posts above someone has chosen to doubt I am who I say I am (twice). This just isn't nice. Verifiability (of the book's existence? Of its accuracy?) is surely a red herring - it is very easy to verify that this book exists, and an encyclopaedia reports what is written.

What we are really left with is the issue of notability, which is a matter of editorial judgment. My contention is that this matter has been pre-judged. If the book had been put forward for consideration by anyone other than me I believe there would have been an impartial consideration of the notability of the book. But instead we had a process where Wikipedia screamed "self-promotion" then hit upon the notability argument as a reason to exclude mention of the book. When I look at critical books referenced in very many other Wikipedia articles they are no more or less notable than my book. In this article have a look at the notability of the reference you make to an anonymous on-line article on the Leaky Cauldron site. The idea of excluding the book on grounds of insufficient notoriety is inconsistent with Wikipedia practice both in this article and elsewhere on the site. It now appears to be a mantra which is being picked up and repeated as if repeating it makes it true.

Quite where reference to my book would go is up to editors. The Spanish version of Wikipedia gives one model. 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. Material on individual tales or sources may be relevant. It may be that my book would be covered in as little as part of a sentence, but it seems irrational to exclude it entirely. There's also an "External Links" section which I see promotes an Amazon page and "Chaucer, JKR and all of us" on The Leaky Cauldron (indeed the latter raises questions about the consistency of this Wikipedia article's approach to notoriety - I don't have a problem with the link, but this appears to be an essay by someone identified only be a username (ie anonymous), and probably of school age).

As a way forward I suggest:

• Do editors of this page feel able to carry this forward? This means have a proper look at the book (there's a lot on the Google preview), consider the notoriety (particularly of the publisher) and decide whether a book demonstrating celebrity status for JKR and giving a critical appreciation is worth noting. The thinking should be consistent with the decison to include the Leaky Cauldron article ("Chaucer, JKR and all of us"). It would seem incredible to consider an anonymous article on a web-site to have notoriety while a serious book by a trained critic through an established publisher somehow doesn't have notoriety - I cannot see a way of squaring this.
• Can we get rid of the borderline libellous comments in Anakinjmt's post and presumably all reference to this post also? It's really just a case of deleting them from this page.
• If there isn't a way forward with editors of this page can you advise on a complaints process? Complaints would be about(1) a situation where Wikipedia editors have penalised contributors for being up front with them; (2) request for Anakinjmt's comment to be taken down - among a lot of unpleasant comment this is the one which may cross a legal line; (3) request that the notoriety concept is consistently applied (both witin Wikipedia and within this article - the Leaky Cauldron article opens all sorts of issues).

A long post I know and if you've read this far then thanks for your time. I'm an occaional Wikipedia user and do usually like it, which is why I'm bothering to argue a point with this article. Had anyone other than me brought my book to the attention of Wikipedia editors we would not be having this discussion. I think there has to be a way to get past this problem.Graemedavis (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we're not going to blank comments here. There's nothing wrong about Anakinjmt's comments; they're not libelous or defamatory or anything, and you'd be making a big deal about nothing if you were to take it to higher powers. Making accusations of something's legality are taken extremely seriously, so that's not something you want to throw around lightly. Just because you have the username Graemedavis doesn't necessarily mean that you are Graeme Davis. In reality I'm sure you are, but per WP:CRED, Wikipedia does not have a policy to verify someone. You have told us that you are him so I accept that, but not everyone does.

As to the sources given here, of course not all of them are perfect, and we should try to find better sources. So here, I've removed two of the Leaky Cauldron references. I left the one with the interview with JK Rowling because, well, that one is pretty obvious. And I've tossed all of the external links, because I don't really think they add much.

So you can take your complaints wherever you want here. There are a lot of different places around here, but I think that endless complaining isn't going to sit well with a lot of people. It still comes down to the fact that you want us to add your book somewhere in this article, and both you and your book are not notable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did I give a libelous comment? Seriously, where? When I said "you may not be who you say you are"? That's a given! This is the internet people! You could be the author, but then again you could be Daniel Craig for all I know! We have NO way to truly determine if you are who you say you are! I'm inclined to believe you are the author, but again, I have no way of knowing for certain! I could say "hey, I'm a pre-law student at Michigan State University." You have no way of knowing if that's true or not. What we say about ourselves and our credentials cannot be taken as fact. And regardless, the issue is the notability of your book. You as an author are not notable enough to warrant automatically making your book notable (an example of an author would be would be in fact JKR). And it doesn't appear as though your book itself is notable, like for example how the novelization of the Transformers movie is not notable, hence why it doesn't have an article here. Please, be civil and stop attacking me for my opinion on the notability of you and your book. As I have stated, it is NOTHING personal at all. Personally, I tend to be rather fond of Brits. But I simply don't see how your book is notable enough for use in this article. Anakinjmt (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Break

For anyone who's dropping by to give an opinion, you might also want to read the discussion at the MedCab case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be easiest to try to carry this discussion forward in stages. There are issues about NOTABILITY (whether the book "Exploring Beedle the Bard" can ever be referenced by anyone from within this Wikipedia article). There are issues around NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW (whether the article is expressing a neutral point of view if it refuses to reference a source) and issues around SELF PROMOTION (which are complex, but which I think become much simpler if the first two are solved). There may well be other issues and I'm happy to discuss whatever people feel should be discussed. But I think these are three big issues and I think they need to be looked at (whatever else might be on the list). I'm making a start here by looking at notability.

NOTABILITY The point has been made that either the book or the author (or both) are not sufficiently notable to be referenced from the article. I don't think this reflects Wikipedia policy on notability as set out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability . Notability is a policy about whether a subject merits its own article. It does not seem to be a policy about what sources can be referenced. I don't see that application of this policy is relevant to the question. The policy that may be relevant is Verifiability. But I don't see any issue here. The book is published by an established press Nimble Books LLC (http://www.nimblebooks.com/aom/shop.php?c=Bestsellers&x=Nimble_Bestsellers) written by an established author (Amazon lists 16 books) and that the book exists is easy to verify. A google search for "exploring beedle the bard" returns plenty of ghits. Very many sources comparable to this one are referenced by Wikipedia, as well as many sources which would appear to have far weaker credentials. I suggest that there is no reason on the grounds of Notability/Verifiability why "Exploring Beedle the Bard" should not be used as a source of information for this article. Graemedavis (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• First, just because a company is established doesn't mean it's notable. As a company, Nimble Books is subject to WP:COMPANY, and the basic guideline is whether it has been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Also note that "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.", so Nimble Books being mentioned once in an article somewhere is insufficient. And right now, I can't find any sources to really cover that claim.
• Next, the book. It's subject to WP:BK, which has the same rough criteria, though a bit more open. Just because the book gets 42k ghits does not make it notable. There's even a policy that says that. Your book has to either have won an award or be the subject of multiple secondary sources. Which it isn't.
• And finally, the author - yourself. Since you're still alive, you're subject to both WP:BIO (actually, WP:AUTHOR) and WP:BLP. You have to be notable for something - again, multiple secondary sources. The Author criteria also says that you have to be widely regarded by peers, the creator of a new concept, or your work has to somehow be more widely significant. And I'm sorry, but saying that you wrote sixteen books doesn't make you notable.

So since not one of the previous things have been fulfilled, your book does not warrant discussion on this article. I mentioned this before, but I'll state it again: per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, something "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." And since we're taking this one issue at a time, I'm not even going to start on the question of COI, advertisement or coatracking, but... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That was a quick reply! Indeed lets stick with Notability.

WP:COMPANY does not seem to me to apply. This is the notability policy applied to a company. We are not considering writing an article about Nimble Books LLC.

WP:BK does not seem to me to apply. Much as above this is the notability policy applied to a book and we are not considering an article about "Exploring Beedle the Bard".

Similarly WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:BLP are again notability criteria. The notability criteria only applies to an article, not to a reference or citation to something from an article.

These are all red herrings. As far as I can see Wikipedia applies notability criteria only to the decision to have an article about something, not to sources referenced from the article. Indeed if all sources had to be notable in their own right 100% of Wikipedia sources would have their own article, which they don't. WP:INDISCRIMATE is again about whether something should have its own article in Wikipedia - it is not relevant.

Maybe we need help from someone who is a specialist in Wikipedia's policies. Graemedavis (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't patronize me like that - I've got seventeen thousand edits under my belt and am well aware of the policies here. You brought up notability, so I quoted the correct policies at you. What you're asking us to add to this article is a backhanded way of getting around the notability criteria. Rather than having your own article, you want us to us this article as a WP:COATRACK to spread the word about your book.

I asked this before, and you didn't give me a straight answer. Suppose I were to say "Okay, let's get Graeme Davis' book in the article. How are we going to do that?" The immediate solution would be to put in a sentence like this:

“ Author Graeme Davis published a book called Exploring Beedle the Bard that analyzes the stories. It was published eight days after the book came out. ”

So then that comes down to a question of references and reliable sources. There's no reference to state the second sentence, so that's out. And then it really comes back to the indiscriminate policy. Just because you released a book, why does it need to be included? You're not a notable author and your book isn't notable, so why is it even remotely worthy of inclusion? And how is adding a sentence like that not attempting to use this page for self-promotion? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets move forward slowly. The Wikipedia notability guidelines state "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article". The whole (long) discussion (above, on the media cabal page and a year ago) about whether the book "Exploring the Beedle the Bard" (or the author or the publisher) is "notable" is a red herring as a source does not need to be notable in its own right. There is no issue of "getting around the notability criteria" as these criteria simply do not apply for a reference. The book "Exploring Beedle the Bard" may if appropriate be used as a reference for a fact or as a source of a view contained in this article. There is nothing within the concept of notability which stops an editor from doing this. If we are agreed that notability is not at issue we can move on.

In passing I take it that all posters here will adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines on civility and assume good faith. Additionally I assume no one wants to guess at my motivation. If anyone thinks it would help I can write a paragraph telling you what my motivation is, but I'm not convinced of its relevance.

I take it that NOTABILITY is solved - it does not apply to a reference. If anyone thinks otherwise we can reopen this. I would like to go on to NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW and set out the view that this article as it stands is not balanced as in its Reception section it does not mention what is still the only book of criticism published on it. But I would like confirmation that everyone agrees that NOTABILITY is solved before going on. I'm proposing to leave this about 24hrs to give time for further contributions Graemedavis (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, this issue is not solved. There are rules as to what can and cannot be used as references. By your logic, I should be able to use a non-notable site - say, your basic (former) Geocities or Tripod site - as a reference. And that is most certainly not true.

But hey, let's move onto NPOV anyway. First, it's your original research that "the only book of criticism" on the topic isn't mentioned here. By saying that your book must be included because it meets some arbitrary criteria you just came up with is pushing the point of view that your book is worthy of inclusion. As a conflict of interest, you can't demand that your book be included. You're trying to push your own interests - in this case, getting your book mentioned on Wikipedia - and that is simply unacceptable. If you'd like, we can take this to WP:COIN. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to solve this issue around NOTABILITY before we can move on to NPOV or naything else as it is key. Wikipedia has a policy on Notability which applies to whether a topic should have its own article. The policy does not apply to the sources which may be referenced from within an article. In Wikipedia terms notability just isn't applicable in this area - and in Wikipedia terms non-notable sites can indeed be used as a source (and very frequently are used as sources). The key quotes from the Wikipedia:Notability page is "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article." We need agreement that a discussion of the notability of a source (as notability is defined out in Wikipedia's guidelines on Notability) is not relevant. Nor are any of the sub-policies on Notability including the notability of a company, a book, an author, a person or anything else.

There are however guidelines around VERIFIABILITY which could be discussed, but this is another discussion. It is this guideline which would tend to exclude such sites as Geocities and Tripod.

Are we argreed that Wikipedia's policy on NOTABILITY is that the notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article and that this particular guideline should not be used in determining whether a source may be cited by an article?

I would much appreciate it if readers would stop speculating on my motives for pursuing this debate. If discussion of this matter is really seen as a key for moving this debate forward I can set out my motives, though I'm not at all sure this is relevant to anything. Graemedavis (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we can agree that notability is only about articles. Though to be fair, it is sometimes used as inclusion criteria in other places, such as list articles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay that's fine. I suggested above that I would leave it 24hrs before going on to a new topic, so I'll let the 5hrs remaining go by just incase anyone else wants to contribute - then move on to NPOV. Graemedavis (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Another Break

Wikipedia’s policy on NPOV states that an article should “represent all significant views published by reliable sources”.

As it stands this article breaches NPOV in excluding “Exploring Beedle the Bard”. This source contributes to the assessment of the book as a whole as well as of each tale and of the sources for each tale (topics largely absent from the article as it stands) also to an assessment of topics including controversies around “The Warlock’s Hairy Heart” (should a tale about what is probably rape and cannibalism be a story for children?) In looking at the critical assessment the article presently excludes what is still the sole book of literary criticism on the subject and therefore a published view on the quality of the whole. There is also an issue around the celebrity status of JKR – that a book of lit crit on her book was published on a timetable usually reserved for media celebrities may be relevant (or may not – this is a quirky sort of issues).

As far as I can make out SIGNIFICANT means no more than non-trivial (and the above are key topics for an article on Beedle the Bard so they are significant matters).

Reliability is discussed within the Wikipedia VERIFIABILITY guideline, which is a Wikipedia guideline applicable to sources. The mechanical aspects I think have been resolved elsewhere - it is agreed that the book “Exploring Beedle the Bard” exists and that the author exists. The guideline VERIFIABILITY sets out reliable sources (2.1), questionable sources (2.2) and some other sorts of sources which I don’t think are relevant here (2.3 and following). There is also a guideline on RELIABLE SOURCES. Inevitably there is an element of editorial judgment involved in applying these policies, though it should be possible to reach an answer that most or all are agreed on. An answer can be reached either by a close reading of the guidelines, or by examination of Wikipedia practice elsewhere.

Looking at the application of the VERIFIABILITY and RELIABLE SOURCE guidelines is quite a simple way forward both for this particular issue and also for a more general understanding of the guidelines, which do need a close reading. It is useful to look at the application of these guidelines elsewhere in this article, in other Harry Potter articles (say the first book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone) or other Wikipedia articles, and at the treatment of Beedle the Bard in another language’s Wikipedia article – I’ve previously mentioned the Spanish language one in this context.

This Beedle the Bard has recently been edited as a response to the discussion above to remove citations of two (or more?) references which are clearly of lesser reliability than “Exploring Beedle the Bard”. This is a shame in my view. I don’t think there was necessarily a problem with their reliability. One was anonymous (identified only by a user name) and on a website but it did offer worthwhile material on the links between one of the tales and Chaucer’s “Pardoner’s Tale”. However if these references are restored (and for the good of the article I think they should be) there seems no way of doubting that they are of a lesser degree of reliability than “Exploring Beedle the Bard”.

Looking at “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” gives an indication of the sort of references which are routinely accepted. This includes books of literary criticism which appear in all ways comparable in terms of publisher, the book, the author. The comparison can continue throughout Wikipedia where sources of a similar status to “Exploring Beedle the Bard” are routinely used.

The Spanish language article on “Beedle the Bard” specifically cites “Exploring Beedle the Bard”. In passing I note that this has nothing to do with me whatsoever,

I do not think “Exploring Beedle the Bard” is in any way a hard case to judge against the criteria VERIFIABILITY and RELIABLE SOURCE. It satisfies the requirements of these guidelines on Verifiability and Reliable Source. It is comparable on these criteria to sources extensively used throughout Wikipedia. Because it satisfies these guidelines the decision to exclude in all circumstances “Exploring Beedle the Bard” as a source of published informantion reported in this article is a breach of NPOV. Graemedavis (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was going to write a really long response to this, but I don't think it would do any good. At this point I'm going to suggest the following:

1. You add your book to the article in whatever capacity you want. Whatever you think would be acceptable. (An alternative would be for you to create a sandbox for yourself and add it there.)
2. I (and other editors?) will review your inclusion to see if it's really justified.

An alternative would be for us to post on WP:COIN or WP:RSN to see if your book should be used. Yet another alternative would be to resume the MedCab. But honestly, I'd prefer the first solution - that way we can get away from all this waffling around and actually get down to some editing. You propose some changes to the article, and then we can discuss them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Recommendation

(i think i may have spelled the title wrong, but oh well :P )

I would ask those in this dispute to reconsider going back to a mediation process at the MedCabal. It never really got started because discussion was redirected here, but a quick look at this talk page confirms that there has been no substanial progress made. If all parties agree to a voluntary, non-binding, mediation process, where I would sift through the craziness to find a compromise EVERYONE is comfortable with, I believe this conflict can come to an end. Any resolution on content issues requires consensus and I believe that an independant party is the best to achieve those ends. I may not be perfect (although I am close, haha) but I do have a knack at getting agreements through.

If you are willing to proceed in a such a procedure, please contact me on my talk page. Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not wholly convinced that this needs to go through MedCab just yet. There is no actual conflict in article space yet; it's all been on the talk page. So there is no actual content to discuss - it's just been Graemedavis asking for us to include his book somehow. If you look at his edit history, you'll see that he has made exactly zero edits to the article itself.

If it's just Davis asking us to add his book into the article, I'm wholly disinclined to do so for several reasons, including the fact that I don't know what I would add about the book. Thus, it seems to me that it would be best if he showed us how he wants his book to be included, and then we can talk about it. WP:COIN says this at the top:

“ COI affected editors may use this board to get help with proposed article changes. Propose changes at the article talk page, and then leave a message here if more neutral editors are needed to establish consensus. ”

Since Graemedavis is clearly a COI for this article, I'd like to see him propose some actual changes, and then we can discuss them, either here or on the MedCab page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be clearly preferable for Graemedavis to make a specific proposal on what he would like. Reubzz (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoping this will help.

I’ve not edited the Beedle the Bard page as I know it would be a COI. When my book was published last December I mentioned it on the talk page because I thought this would be of interest to the Wikipedia community editing the Beedle the Bard page. I was up-front that it was the author of the book giving this information – and additionally my username makes this pretty obvious.

An example of a minor edit which I think would make sense would be in the “Reception” section to add something on the lines of “These short stories have been described as a ‘considerable achievement’” – with the reference Graeme Davis, Exploring Beedle the Bard, Nimble Books LLC, 2008.

Other possibilities include the following. I notice that at the head of this talk page there is a query about a “Fancruft Tag”. Published synopses are available in my book (longer than the Wikipedia ones). Of course these could not be copied, but they could be paraphrased or otherwise inform the Wikipedia synopses. Or points could be picked out – for example the plot hole in “The Warlock’s Hairy Heart” which this article at present doesn’t mention, or the undue complexity of "Babbitty Rabbitty". It would be possible to say something about the uneven literary quality of the tales, their suitability for children (particularly the unsuitability of “The Warlock’s Hairy Heart” with its rape and cannibalism aspects), the literary sources and parallels of each of the tales, the moral points they are making, and lots more. All these areas are presently skimped or entirely missing in this article. Something could be said in the opening paragraph about the celebrity status JKR enjoyed in the enormous sales and media attention of this book. It would even be possible to point out that a book of lit crit in 8 days (evidenced by ISBN publication data) demonstrates the celebrity status. All this is for editors who don’t have COI. My first concern has been to establish that the book has the potential to be used as a source. Graemedavis (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm content to take this back to mediation. But do we have a way forward here? Graemedavis (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding a quote saying that the stories are a "considerable achievement" is entirely unneeded. It adds absolutely nothing to the article, and really only serves to give the author of the quote some more space on here.

It took us a lot of work here to get the fancruft out of the synopses, and I believe that they should stay the way there are. There's no reason to modify them all with references to a secondary source, other than to get more references to that one book. And actually, adding in points about what's missing or whatever would go beyond the scope of a 'synopsis' - that's more towards analysis, and as such would be excessive.

I've said this at least a half a dozen times now, but mentioning that the book came out in eight days is both original research and weighted. I really don't see why we have to establish the book's potential to be a source. What does that gain us? See, I think this whole thing is about weight. If we were to do any of the suggestions above, it would all be under one source - Graeme Davis' one book. We'd have 10+ refs to the same source, and that's putting way too much weight on something that is - dare I say it? - non-notable.

At this point, we could go back to MedCab, but I personally think that WP:COIN would be a better place to take the above recommendations and see what they think of them. I know that we have a mediator ready to go if need be, but I think that since it's not just dispute resolution - like three editors arguing over something - we should try other avenues first. But hey, if everyone wants to go mediation, I will too, I guess. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have posted nothing on the article page as this would presumably be a Conflict of Interest, and have made here suggestions of the way in which the book may be used only because requested - my view remains that it should be done by an editor who does not have COI. I think that now we've moved on from the efforts to exclude a source through (wrong) application of the Notability guidelines we're left with Neutrality of Point of View as the main issue. Wikipedia reports what is out there and a decision to exclude entirely from an article an appropriate source which has a view on much that is in the article (as well as topics the article excludes) appears to be a bias. The idea that the only book of lit crit on Beedle the Bard has nothing whatsoever to add to an encyclopaedia article on the topic is incredible. I don't think COIN is central to the issue as it now stands; rather the central issue is NPV. I think there are wider issues which it would be interesting to discuss - for example had my username not been essentially my real name a post on the talk page a year ago saying "hi guys, this book exists and has something to say about the article" would not have generated this negative discussion. I suggest MedCab is a way forward because it can consider all issues, while COIN considers only one issue and probably one which is not central. Graemedavis (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

COIN does cover the one central issue: that you, as a conflict of interest, have come here and asked us to include your book in the article. No editors had ever attempted to add your book until you came and requested it. So taking this issue to the COI noticeboard to ask how they would handle it does seem to be relevant. If you honestly think that this article is not neutral because it doesn't include your book, well... I don't know what to say. There's really only two editors involved at this point, myself and Graemedavis; Anakinjmt seems to have gone off the map. Doing a MedCab case for two people seems kinda silly, and I'd like to exhaust some of the other options around before taking it there. And while I am thankful for Reubzz agreeing to mediate, I'm going to be bold and start a thread on COIN. I'd like to see what they have to say, since they're more well versed with this sort of thing.

By the way, even if you had picked a username that wasn't your full name, your comments would have made it pretty obvious that you're a conflict of interest, and you would have been asked to disclose your relation to the book. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Waaaait a second. I was just looking at the Nimble Books site, and there's some enlightening stuff there. Right at the top it says "Publish Your Crowd-Sourced Book Now!" And here's what it says about their publishing process:

“ Fill out the form below to begin publishing a “crowd-sourced” book via Nimble Books. The way it works: you submit a book topic; I approve it; you crowd-write the book; I edit it in collaboration with you via Google Docs; and I publish it. We market it together. ”

So that's how this book got published in eight days. Nimble Books is a vanity press, isn't it? And that's a violation of WP:SPS. I'm not going to include any references to a self-published book. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not correct. Nimble Books LLC is a commercial/trade press. I receive a royalty for every book sold as I think do all its authors. It is emphatically not a vanity press. Crowdsourcing is defined on Wikipedia and doesn't mean a vanity press - and anyway "Exploring Beedle the Bard" was not crowdsourced. I think the post above demonstrates why this needs to go to a mediation service. The spirit of discussion seems to be to attack anything about the book in any way whatsoever: there have been attacks on subject, author, publisher, editor, assumed quality (without reading the book), assumed motivation of author. I do not believe this is acceptable behaviour. I'm proposing we move this to MedCab. Graemedavis (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it comes off that way, but I'm seriously not here to attack your book. I have nothing against you, your book, or your body of work as a whole - but at some point we have to actually evaluate the source to determine whether or not it should be included. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Updates: I opened a thread at COIN, but they said it doesn't really fall under their jurisdiction and was redirected to RSN. I've now opened a thread there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had real life things to deal with (work, papers, homework, etc.) so I haven't been available to really do anything on here for several days. Looks like we still haven't gotten enough people to comment on this. I had hoped simply bringing it to WP:HP and WP:BOOK would be enough but apparently not. I'm going to go to people associated with each of the projects and ask them to join in the discussion. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here, on COIN, on RS, on MedCab and elsewhere is extensive (please, please lets not go round in circles!) My understanding of where we're at with this discussion is that the next stage is for Wikipedia editors to look at the book "Exploring Beedle the Bard" and decide whether it makes a useful contribution either of new material or of sources of reference to existing material, so that the article reflects in a neutral manner the views expressed on "The Tales of Beedle the Bard". I don't want to lobby so I'll chill out and let editors decide on what use can be made of this source. I guess I'll look in on this page but I'm really hoping I'm not doing any more posting on this. Graemedavis (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, editors themselves can't read the book and then decide. We need reliable third-party sources to make that determination. Otherwise, we're simply pushing our own POV about the book, which goes against WP:NPOV. Saying "I read it and I think it's notable/reliable" can't cut it. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone saw on RSN, but two editors sounded off on this issue. Pi zero said that they're in agreement with me (and Anakinjmt), and Peregrine Fisher wrote that Nimble is an SPS of sorts, and "unless the author is a published (elsewhere) expert, then it's not notable enough to include, or an RS." I think we're starting to form some consensus here... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Phoenixrod agrees with Anakinjmt's criticisms as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, this (Exploring Beedle the Bard) reads like a blog in what is essentially self-published book form. I do not see the slightest justification to use a one-man criticism in this article. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Closure

I currently count half a dozen people who have chimed in and stated that they don't believe that the book is worthy of inclusion in the article. That seems to be some form of consensus from the community, so I think we can close the MedCab case and just be done here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my name to that list. This is not a notable book, not a notable author, and not a scholarly work of criticism. I see no reason to use it as a reference in an encyclopedia article. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on Notability is a criteria solely for the inclusion or otherwise of articles. It does not apply to sources. Graemedavis (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, but the "Self-published sources" section of reliable sources is applicable. Not trying to rain on your parade here, but it does not appear that you meet the criteria of being a recognized Harry Potter expert, whose work has been noted by reliable 3rd party sources. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We're going round in circles here. This is not a self-published source. It is a commercial publisher that pays a royalty. Is the easiest way forward to take this back to MedCab? Graemedavis (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A consensus appears to exist. However, there are raised points that I believe would be important for review. If a mediation process is followed, I will use the format the mediation committee (see here) uses to mediate content disputes. Both sides are remaining defiant. Hopefully this can be resolved outside of mediation, as is perferred. But it is a decision all parties may make individually. Remember, it is a voluntary process.

Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We may not be to the point of mediation, yet. Graemedavis, it seems likely that you're not quite tracking how the terms notable and self-published are being used here; it's taken me a very long time to pick up the usage, so that's hardly surprising. And then I have a question for you.

Notable is used in two distinct senses: as a term of art invoking the notability guideline, which (as you mention) pertains to whether or not a topic merits having its own article; and in its common English sense meaning worth mentioning. If something isn't worth mentioning, it's not worth mentioning, and that's one of those things that's part of what an encyclopedia is, and therefore not easy to find a guideline for. Possible confusion resulting from these two uses — including even confusion over whether or not the two are being confused — has been enough of a concern that there's been discussion of changing the term of art used in the guideline.

Self-published is, in my experience, always used in Wikipedia discussions as a term of art. It invokes WP:SPS, which is about things that are, for Wikipedia source purposes, essentially someone exercising freedom of speech. That's an oversimplification, of course. The question here is the extent to which your ability to publish a book through Nimble is checked by some regulating device such as peer review, and the acceptability (to the Wikipedia community) of that regulating device, if there is one. On that point, I'd like to ask you (because I'm not clear on this, and I do want to understand): What review process, if any, did you have to go through in order to get your book published through Nimble? --Pi zero (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pi Zero - thanks for your clarification on the usages of notable and the the usage of self-published. That's useful. And so to your question.

Nimble Books are a publisher in a handful of niche areas, one of which is Harry Potter (they have published 9 HP books). Their review process examines the author, the book proposal (with samples) and subsequently the finished book (ie a standard publisher's review process). For the author this includes academic qualifications, subject knowledge and writing experience. The proposal/samples is examined both in-house and outside by an appropriate person (and they also look at marketability of the idea). The finished manuscript goes through their editorial process. In my case for my first book with them Nimble had full resume including MA(hons) and PhD in English Lang and Lit and university lecturing in the discipline (including HP) plus that I'm an established writer; they put the proposal and samples out for review (publishers never tell authors who did the review - this goes for academic presses as much as popular presses); and when the book was written they did the editing process - additionally they got a view from JKR's legal team. My second and third HP books with them followed the same process. The fourth "Exploring Beedle the Bard" followed the same route, but because of the experience of working together it was possible to set ambitious deadlines. The pre work was done before Tales of B the B was published and the writing by me and review and editing were done concurrently - the first part of "Exploring Beedle the Bard" was camera ready before I had finished writing the book. The idea was to get a serious book of Lit Crit out before Christmas, and this was achieved. It was upwards of 100hrs of work from me and must have been a similar time or even more from Nimble Books people. It was done quickly but it was done properly.

Its nearly 1.30am here so I'm signing off for the night. Graemedavis (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)