|WikiProject Books||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject New York City||(Rated Stub-class)|
|It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in New York City may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Editing potential undue weight
Hello, I'm posting to ask for feedback on the last paragraph of the Skyhorse Publishing page which could be viewed as potential undue weight and, if found as such, could be seen as valid reason for removal from the Skyhorse article page.
There are two reasons why this last paragraph could be viewed as undue weight:
1. Book publishers, in general, do not have any control over who sells their books. Skyhorse Publishing, a book publisher, cannot control where their books are sold, just as a cable channel cannot control who pays for the tier that includes their channel, etc.
2. In looking at other book publishers article pages such as Random House and Simon & Schuster, no other book publisher page includes commentary about who sells their books, which is not something a book publisher can control and therefore this could be a valid reason for removing the last paragraph from the Skyhorse article page.
Interested to know other users thoughts on this and welcome any discussion on this subject.
- Not sure I understand your reasoning? The fact that publishers can't control who sells their books is no reason for not reporting who does, as long as it's reliably sourced and notable enough to mention. Theroadislong (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I assume that this discussion involves the following material:
- In 2013, the Southern Poverty Law Center chided Skyhorse Publishing for allowing the American Free Press, whom they described as "an anti-Semitic periodical run by long-time Holocaust denier Willis Carto", to sell two of Belzer's books co-written with journalist David Wayne, Dead Wrong and Hit List.
- It is not unusual for Wikipedia articles to note criticism or controversy about organizations that has been covered in reliable sources (e.g. Elsevier#Criticism and controversies). (I also found what could be considered negative attention for Skyhorse regarding Victor Conte's BALCO book and Shane Mosely's allegations of defamation.) Although it puts you in a bit of a pickle under the WP:COI guidelines, the best answer is typically to add more coverage from other reliable secondary sources. If there is reliably sourced material that you think should be added, you can mention it here for review. - Location (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I assume that this discussion involves the following material:
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) article that is referenced and cited within the last paragraph on the Skyhorse article page is actually an opinion piece on the actor Richard Belzer which does not adhere to Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy nor, generally speaking, is an opinion piece considered notable. The SPLC article itself is also not reliably sourced in any way therefore this article cannot be viewed as a reliable source. Additionally, the last paragraph implies that Skyhorse Publishing allowed American Free Press to sell their books. This is false as no book publisher would allow, or not allow, anyone to sell their books due to the nature of book publishing distribution. As result of these facts just mentioned, this can be seen as valid reasons of viewing the last paragraph as potential undue weight to the Skyhorse article page and thus can be seen as a valid reason for removal. SkyhorseSales1 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you are new to Wikipedia, you may not be familiar with our guidelines for determining the reliability of sources. The SPLC has been mentioned many times on WP:RSN and is typically judged to be a reliable source of information. I'm not an expert in book publishing or distribution, but it does appear as though Belzer's book was sold through the American Free Press website: (diff). - Location (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
"Chided" is by no means a neutral term. I recommend that the neutral tone way of changing this sentence would be to have it read "In 2013, the Southern Poverty Law Center noted that the American Free Press, whom they described as "an anti-Semitic periodical run by long-time Holocaust denier Willis Carto", was selling two of Belzer's books co-written with journalist David Wayne, Dead Wrong and Hit List which were published by Skyhorse Publishing." Any objections? NYFly (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
On December 14, 2015, Kotoba321 removed the "Controversy" section with this edit and the following edit summary: "Deleted entire "Controversy" reference because the cited SPLC article does not have any reference to Skyhorse whatsoever". Indeed, this is what the SPLC article now states:
- Belzer’s books have aroused interest on the radical right even beyond that of Alex Jones. The American Free Press, an anti-Semitic periodical run by long-time Holocaust denier Willis Carto, has sold both Hit List and Dead Wrong to its audiences. In its June 10-17 issue this summer, the periodical even ran an excerpt from Dead Wrong claiming that it is 'literally impossible' that Marilyn Monroe died of an overdose of pills, JFK was slain by Oswald, or Sen. Robert Kennedy was killed by Sirhan Bishara Sirhan.
Compare this with what the SPLC article previously stated:
- It’s not only Alex Jones who Belzer helps legitimize. Belzer and Wayne’s publisher, Skyhorse Publishing, is allowing the American Free Press, an anti-Semitic periodical run by long-time Holocaust denier Willis Carto, to sell both Hit List and Dead Wrong to its audiences. In its June 10-17 issue this summer, the periodical even ran an excerpt from Dead Wrong claiming that it is 'literally impossible' that Marilyn Monroe died of an overdose of pills, JFK was slain by Oswald, or Sen. Robert Kennedy was killed by Sirhan Bishara Sirhan.
Traces of the original version can be found here. Someone who worked for Skyhorse, SkyhorseSales1, even acknowledged that the Skyhorse reference was in the article. Nevertheless, if the SPLC retracted it, so should we. - Location (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Am planning on adding section on award winners and best sellers. (Will also be correcting the list of imprints to make correct, but one thing at a time) Want to make sure structure is correct and tone is acceptably neutral. Please opine. Initial content is as follows. NYFly
- NYFly, given your conflict of interest with Skyhorse, please be sure to obtain consensus from uninvolved editors prior to making any changes to the article. I don't find the material objectionable, but it's probably better to use prose instead of lists. - Location (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I am posting here so as to get consensus. Please let me know if there is another place to post as well. Re list vs. prose, with 25 total NYT bestsellers I think a list will be easier to read. I posted only five to show the proposed structure and presentation. Likewise on award winners I have not yet listed our Nobel prize winner or our Hugo winner, etc. so far just a sample to show structure. NYFly — Preceding undated comment added 02:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Rather than list each individual title, it's probably better to find a source that states Skyhorse has 25 NYT bestsellers. I do not see similar lists within the articles of other publishers, so Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists and WP:NOTDIR may be relevant. - Location (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Several other publishers have lists of Personalities Simon & Schuster, Authors Spiegel & Grau, books published Scholastic Corporation, acquisitions Bloomsbury Publishing etc. Yet some of these lists that call out personalities or select titles are completely subjective. Perhaps these publishers are so large that they are afforded some leeway, but for a mid-sized publisher like Skyhorse, my reasoning is that a well supported list such as awards given by nationally recognized organizations and best sellers recognized by the NYT is a far better way of describing the notable books than a subjective list. Unfortunately I have not found a single source of all NYT bestsellers covering all time. If such a list is found on a reputable site, I would cancel all the individual links and just provide one link. Until that time is it not better to have each book linked? Does anyone disagree with the notion of posting a Notable Books section as outlined below given the content of this talk page? NYFly (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)